How can both be right?

[+TrailGators]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

 

That is a good question.

 

[+CSpenceFLY]

This, too, has probably been mentioned before. Wouldn't it be nice if geocaching.com issued a number you could put inside the cache that was needed to log a find? Maybe something like a TB number? With TBs you need to physically handle the bug to be able to log it. This would cut down on all the numbers bickering. (Yes, you would still have a few 'cheaters' but not nearly as many.)

 

Just a thought - carry on.

 

That is an excellent idea.

[+Miragee]

No . . . its' not . . .

[+CSpenceFLY]

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

I've already stated how I feel about this, so let me set that aside and play Devil's advocate here for a second.

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

In poker you keep score even if it is for fun. There is a winner every time a hand is dealt even it's just for fun. If you "cheat" then you are doing so to get an advantage over the other players.

 

In caching, if there is no score, and there is no winner. Who are cheat to get an advantage over? Yourself? It's not like cheating at poker. It's like cheating at solitaire.

[/attitude]

 

That is a huge point to this debate.

[+Too Tall John]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

In my opinion, some of the people who practice "questionable logging practices" do so because the numbers matter to them. Some would pay less attention to the numbers if the numbers weren't "in their face" every time they look at the logs for a cache. Taking the numbers off the cache page helps deemphasize them, thus hopefully creating less stat hounds.

[+CSpenceFLY]

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

I've already stated how I feel about this, so let me set that aside and play Devil's advocate here for a second.

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

In poker you keep score even if it is for fun. There is a winner every time a hand is dealt even it's just for fun. If you "cheat" then you are doing so to get an advantage over the other players.

 

In caching, if there is no score, and there is no winner. Who are cheat to get an advantage over? Yourself? It's not like cheating at poker. It's like cheating at solitaire.

[/attitude]

 

That is a huge point to this debate.

[+StarBrand]

This, too, has probably been mentioned before. Wouldn't it be nice if geocaching.com issued a number you could put inside the cache that was needed to log a find? Maybe something like a TB number? With TBs you need to physically handle the bug to be able to log it. This would cut down on all the numbers bickering. (Yes, you would still have a few 'cheaters' but not nearly as many.)

 

Just a thought - carry on.

 

That is an excellent idea.

Be sure to visit: www.getCacheCodesHere.cheat

 

(it would happen)

[+TrailGators]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

In my opinion, some of the people who practice "questionable logging practices" do so because the numbers matter to them. Some would pay less attention to the numbers if the numbers weren't "in their face" every time they look at the logs for a cache. Taking the numbers off the cache page helps deemphasize them, thus hopefully creating less stat hounds.

I agree. The one downside that has been brought up about this is that people like to know if an experienced cacher DNFed a cache or not. I know most of the local cachers so this wouldn't be much of an issue for me. Plus if someone has found mainly 1/1s, the number doesn't mean that they are a good finder anyhow.... Edited May 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

If a man cheats in the forest and his wife isn't there to see it did he really cheat?

 

I think it still matters even if it's not so easy to hold a debate in a forum.

[+briansnat]

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

I've already stated how I feel about this, so let me set that aside and play Devil's advocate here for a second.

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

In poker you keep score even if it is for fun. There is a winner every time a hand is dealt even it's just for fun. If you "cheat" then you are doing so to get an advantage over the other players.

 

In caching, if there is no score, and there is no winner. Who are cheat to get an advantage over? Yourself? It's not like cheating at poker. It's like cheating at solitaire.

[/attitude]

 

That is a huge point to this debate.

 

But its not. Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to learn that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

 

When you log finds on a cache you are in essence telling the community the cache is there. As an owner I will take a found it log to mean my cache is in place. In fact I had one cache that had several DNFs and I was about to go out and check it when a Found It log popped up. All OK, right? Welll no, the log was

not legit.

 

Sure we all take a chance that a cache is missing when we search for it, but to be in effect told by a fellow geocacher that the cache is there when it in fact isn't is just plain dishonest.

 

It's not the numbers of others that concern me as much as their dishonesty and how can affect me and others.

Edited May 24, 2007 by briansnat

[+cache_test_dummies]

So if the numbers were remove from veiw, would that solve the "cheating problems?"

Another fair question is "If there were no Forums, would that solve the 'cheating problems?' "

If a man cheats in the forest and his wife isn't there to see it did he really cheat?

 

I think it still matters even if it's not so easy to hold a debate in a forum.

I agree, but with a footnote that it really depends on one's definition of 'cheating problem' in the context of this discussion.

[+Too Tall John]

In my opinion, some of the people who practice "questionable logging practices" do so because the numbers matter to them. Some would pay less attention to the numbers if the numbers weren't "in their face" every time they look at the logs for a cache. Taking the numbers off the cache page helps deemphasize them, thus hopefully creating less stat hounds.

I agree. The one downside that has been brought up about this is that people like to know if an experienced cacher DNFed a cache or not. I know most of the local cachers so this wouldn't be much of an issue for me. Plus if someone has found mainly 1/1s, the number doesn't mean that they are a good finder anyhow....

Replace the numbers with a "Merit Badge" system, as mentioned in this post:

Letterboxers have a PFX count (Planted, Found, Exchanges, i.e. met) and many sign their their names with this PFX count and merit badges are awarded for reaching certain levels of finds and plants. So it could be argued that numbers are more a part of letterboxing than they are in geocaching.

This thought has crossed my mind before: I see the value of the #'s, especially when related to taking action on a DNF. If, instead of tagging each log with a number, it was tagged with a "merit badge" you could still get a good idea of how much experience the cacher has who reports the DNF, and yet not know how many finds they have exactly.

 

Heck, I'm not even proposing the number be hid altogether, I like to be able to go into someone's profile & see which caches they've done that I have, or might want to, or whatever. Besides, if #'s were hidden, someone'd come up with a site scraper to glean the info if they really wanted it, which would cut down on website performance. (I know that scrapers aren't allowed, but they would happen.)

 

A lot of emphasis seems to be put on the numbers because they are right there, up front on each log. If it were an icon rather than a number, it'd help to deemphasize the numbers. It would, however, goad the icon junkies!

It wouldn't eliminate stats, only deemphasize numbers, especially if the bracketing for the badges was broad enough.

[+Totem Clan]

 

But its not. Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to lear that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

 

When you log finds on a cache you are in essence telling the community the cache is there. As an owner I will take a found it log to mean my cache is in place. In fact I had one cache that had several DNFs and I was about to go out and check it when a Found It log popped up. All OK, right? Welll no, the log was

not legit.

 

Sure we all take a chance that a cache is missing when we search for it, but to be in effect told by a fellow geocacher that the cache is there when it in fact isn't is just plain dishonest.

 

It's not the numbers of others that concern me as much as their dishonesty and how can affect me and others.

I couldn't agree more.

 

I don't understand that practice at all. Logging fake finds effects everyone. Not just the person who logged it.

 

Now where did I put the Devil's advocate mask........

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

I'm not talking about logging a fake find. I'm talking about logging temporary caches at an event or logging a cache twice. How could that effect anyone else?[/attitude]

[+TrailGators]

In my opinion, some of the people who practice "questionable logging practices" do so because the numbers matter to them. Some would pay less attention to the numbers if the numbers weren't "in their face" every time they look at the logs for a cache. Taking the numbers off the cache page helps deemphasize them, thus hopefully creating less stat hounds.

I agree. The one downside that has been brought up about this is that people like to know if an experienced cacher DNFed a cache or not. I know most of the local cachers so this wouldn't be much of an issue for me. Plus if someone has found mainly 1/1s, the number doesn't mean that they are a good finder anyhow....

Replace the numbers with a "Merit Badge" system, as mentioned in this post

A merit badge system would actually be an improvement over the current system because it could take into account how many difficult caches that someone had found and not just how many.

[+Miragee]

 

But its not. Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to lear that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

 

When you log finds on a cache you are in essence telling the community the cache is there. As an owner I will take a found it log to mean my cache is in place. In fact I had one cache that had several DNFs and I was about to go out and check it when a Found It log popped up. All OK, right? Welll no, the log was

not legit.

 

Sure we all take a chance that a cache is missing when we search for it, but to be in effect told by a fellow geocacher that the cache is there when it in fact isn't is just plain dishonest.

 

It's not the numbers of others that concern me as much as their dishonesty and how can affect me and others.

I couldn't agree more.

 

I don't understand that practice at all. Logging fake finds effects everyone. Not just the person who logged it.

 

Now where did I put the Devil's advocate mask........

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

I'm not talking about logging a fake find. I'm talking about logging temporary caches at an event or logging a cache twice. How could that effect anyone else?[/attitude]

That kind of logging makes no difference to anyone else . . . unless the person wants genuine congratulations when they reach 100 Finds, 500 Finds, 1000 Finds, etc.

[+eagletrek]

I was one who use to think that the puritans complained about certain logging practices because they were concerned about numbers. Finally some posters, particularly fizzymagic, set me straight. The puritans want there to be some consistency in what a find log means. It should at least mean that you found the cache. More extreme puritans may insist that you signed the log. Almost all puritans agree that you should only log found one time except for a few grandfathered moving caches and you shouldn't use multiple attended at events to keep track of caches which aren't "official" Geocaching.com caches. Many puritans feel it is the people who use questionable logging practices who are concerned about numbers. If you didn't think that having a bigger number wasn't important, what was your excuse for logging the DNF as a found when the owner said you could or for logging multiple times for temporary caches at events. So the puritans sometimes come across as attacking people for putting too much emphasis on numbers, when in fact these people are probably logging these caches because the find count only matters to them and they get some enjoyment in taking part in the event owners game of allowing temporary caches or a cache owners game of allowing finds on a missing cache. It's like a friendly game of golf where the foursome agrees to allow mulligans if someone has a bad shot.

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

The only numbers on my profile page are to let the puritans make adjustments for finds I took credit for that they might not have.

 

Puritans!!!!!! What's all this talk about Puritans???

 

While your profile page "numbers" are interesting, those weren't the ones that I was referring to. I'm talking about those folks with the elaborate charts and graphs indicating everything to include types of caches found, days (hours and minutes) between finds, average difficulty, average terrain, etc, etc.. For those folks, it seems that "numbers" hold some sort of significance.

 

I consider myself more of a "Ninja Cacher."

[+Harry Dolphin]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

[+CSpenceFLY]

 

I would guess at least some still would. Just because theres no winner and the 'score' doesn't matter, is not the same as "Cheat however you want". If we play poker just for the fun of it, does this mean cheating would be ok

I've already stated how I feel about this, so let me set that aside and play Devil's advocate here for a second.

 

[attitude=Devil's advocate]

In poker you keep score even if it is for fun. There is a winner every time a hand is dealt even it's just for fun. If you "cheat" then you are doing so to get an advantage over the other players.

 

In caching, if there is no score, and there is no winner. Who are cheat to get an advantage over? Yourself? It's not like cheating at poker. It's like cheating at solitaire.

[/attitude]

 

That is a huge point to this debate.

 

But its not. Certain logging practices can and do affect others. I wasted my time and gas going after a cache that had recent found it logs only to lear that those logs were phony and the cache was missing. Had I known that I would have chosen a different cache to search for. I know one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile RT after someone logged a fake find on a cache long thought missing.

 

When you log finds on a cache you are in essence telling the community the cache is there. As an owner I will take a found it log to mean my cache is in place. In fact I had one cache that had several DNFs and I was about to go out and check it when a Found It log popped up. All OK, right? Welll no, the log was

not legit.

 

Sure we all take a chance that a cache is missing when we search for it, but to be in effect told by a fellow geocacher that the cache is there when it in fact isn't is just plain dishonest.

 

It's not the numbers of others that concern me as much as their dishonesty and how can affect me and others.

 

You are right also. Very good point and one that I have argued several times.

[Clan Riffster]

A good question. I have to qualify my answer by stating that I haven't read any of the other posts yet, so my answer may likely mirror or conflict with someone else's answer. I am not posting this as an offering of praise to anyone whose posts are similar to mine, nor is it meant to argue with anyone whose posts are in opposition to mine. These are just my thoughts, for what they are worth:

 

Do numbers matter? Yes & no. I don't know what my current find count is, nor do I particularly care. That being said, I do like to pat myself on the back for reaching milestones. As I approach a milestone number, I start paying close attention to what my find count is, and I search for a particularly memorable cache to find for that occasion. If Groundspeak did away with numbers altogether, I would have to evaluate my desire to celebrate milestones, and see if its worth the trouble of using secondary software to track my progress. Being that I'm rather lazy, and a computer retard, I doubt that I would bother, but I can't honestly say that until faced with the actual experience.

 

So, do numbers matter to the Riffster Clan? I guess they do, in a way. Are they all important to me? No, not even close. My memories gained on the caching trail are far more important to me than knowing if a particular cache is # 526 or # 625. I will say that, in my early days of caching, numbers were much more important to me, and I would be constantly checking my find count.

 

Several of my caching buddies have much higher find counts than I do, and they openly acknowledge that they are "Number Ho's". They have a blast caching that way, which is all that matters.

 

As far as the complaints about false logging practices go, I'm unwilling to get myself worked up over it. I accept full responsibility for any cache hunt I choose to make, and I make my decisions based upon what I read on the cache page. Assuming I read the past logs, if I see a long string of DNF's followed by a find, I treat that find with a bit of skepticism. I also recognize that any cache can go missing at any time, so no log, even a "Found It", is an accurate indicator of a cache's presence when I decide to hunt it.

 

On a similar note, I believe the only realistic definition of a "find" as applied to geocaching, is whatever the hider and seeker agree upon. If you hunt for one of my caches, and your DNF leads me to replace a missing cache, I'll offer you the chance to change your DNF to a find as a reward for making me aware of the problem with my cache. I've had several offers to do this myself, but I've never availed myself of the opportunities. What I consider to be a find is a very simple thing: Locate the cache, open the cache, sign the log, perform any required ALR, secure the cache back in it's hiding spot. Anything else does not meet my own definition of a find. What others define as a find has little or no impact on me, since I consider myself to be the sole person responsible for deciding to hunt a particular cache.

 

The only time I'm willing to cry "Foul" over someone logging a cache is when they deliberetly intend to decieve the community. If BillyBobNosePicker were to sit in his Lazyboy in Topeka, and log a find on Tube Torcher II without ever leaving his home, I would consider that to be dishonest, and I would call them on the carpet for it.

 

Again, this rambling is strictly my own, biased opinion.

Edited May 23, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+HB-vanislelady]

In this game as in a lot of games...The only person you are cheating, is yourself!

[+DocDiTTo]

I'm always amazed that some of the folks who claim that numbers don't mean much are the same folks who have all sorts of charts and graphs posted on their "profile pages" proclaiming their caching prowess. BTJMO

... and that some that say that numbers don't matter want to remove the numbers from view. If they don't matter, why bother?

 

There's a difference between a found count and how your finds break down statistically. I don't care what my found count is, I have no need to artificially inflate it. It is an accurate record of my individual caches found. However, I do use sites like INATN to see how my finds break down statistically. How many truly hard caches have I done? how many micros versus regular caches have I found? What counties/states have I cached in?

 

Not caring about the size of your find count isn't the same as not caring about the statistics.

 

Yes, they're all numbers, but they're different numbers with different meanings. I can not give a rip about my find count but still be interested in the statistical breakdown of whatever that count is.

[+flask]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

 

yes, yes, yes!!!

 

i think i love you.

[JASTA 11]

In this game as in a lot of games...The only person you are cheating, is yourself!

 

Absolutely right. Last year I was out in central Missouri for business and was researching some local caches. Looking at the logs, I noticed that a cache owner was logging his own caches as 'finds' multiple times! Every time he did maintenance, or dropped off a TB-logged as a find. This guy also listed several benchmarks as finds, even though the benchmarks were listed as destroyed back as far as the 1970's. At first it made me angry, then I realized that if I figured this out, so could others in the local caching community. He's just making a fool of himself. So knowing this I would add: The only one you are impressing is yourself.

[+TrailGators]

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

I'm with you!

[+Totem Clan]

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

Maybe it was the way I was raised or maybe it was my years in the service, but that sounds so right to me.

 

Not caring about the size of your find count isn't the same as not caring about the statistics.

That how about I feel as well.

[+Totem Clan]

First of all, thanks for all the responses so far. There's good stuff to think on in there.

 

Now for the next part of this.

 

If the only numbers that matter are our own personal numbers, then why does it bother us that others log multiple logs?

 

I know that fake finds effect others. I'll be one the first to point that out anywhere, anytime. My question is, why is that many of us, myself included, dislike the practice of multiple finds? Is it our competitive nature? Is our sense of ethics? Is it elitism?

 

Even from the day one as a cacher, I thought it wrong to do this. Now I just want to know why it bothers me to see others do it, if indeed their numbers don't matter to anyone but them.

[+briansnat]

In this game as in a lot of games...The only person you are cheating, is yourself!

 

Someone who didn't read the post just two above his.

[+Mudfrog]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

 

yes, yes, yes!!!

 

i think i love you.

 

I won't say that i love him , but i do like his reply! Sure this is a minor thing in life but cheating is cheating, and knowing someone who does this certainly gives me an idea of what kind of person they really are. Where does their cheating stop?

 

Numbers are more important to people than alot of them let on. Everyone has their different reasons why they like them but the one thing that i would think most of us agree on is that if we do like them, they should be accurate. They're worthless if they aren't.

 

I can see two groups that are NOT affected by the incorrect stats of others,, those who care only about their own numbers and those who honestly don't care about any numbers at all. My opinion is that these people are few and far between. So to my thinking, falsifying numbers, either intentionally or not, affects most of us in one way or another!

[+worldtraveler]

...If the only numbers that matter are our own personal numbers, then why does it bother us that others log multiple logs?

 

I know that fake finds effect others. I'll be one the first to point that out anywhere, anytime. My question is, why is that many of us, myself included, dislike the practice of multiple finds? Is it our competitive nature? Is our sense of ethics? Is it elitism?

 

Even from the day one as a cacher, I thought it wrong to do this. Now I just want to know why it bothers me to see others do it, if indeed their numbers don't matter to anyone but them.

You've answered your own question. It is our nature to be offended by a perceived wrong. It has nothing to do with geocaching, or whether the perception is objectively accurate or logically consistent.

 

Jeremy hasn't handed down the 10 Commandments of Geocache Logging from Mt. Rainier, so (to paraphrase Judges 21:25) "every geocacher does what is right in his own eyes". Hence, the diversity which sometimes leads to discord.

Edited May 24, 2007 by worldtraveler

[+tozainamboku]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

I heard my doctor takes mulligans when he plays golf with my accountant. I guess I should get a new doctor

[+sbell111]

... I consider myself more of a "Ninja Cacher."

You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy [4ch3_n|nJ4 . Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Short and sweet, if numbers don't matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn't log?

 

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

I heard my doctor takes mulligans when he plays golf with my accountant. I guess I should get a new doctor

Does your doctor also yell "Fore!" after you bend over?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

From the OP:

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but if numbers don’t matter, then what difference does it make if someone logs more that one find per cache or logs a find on a missing cache with the owner’s permission? The two don’t seem to mesh but they are argued by the same folks at times.

 

This is not the first time I've seen this question asked. In fact, it seems to be the first line of defense from extraneous loggers when responding to detractors. By posing this quandary they make it seem like it's the other person who is overly absorbed with the numbers.

 

For me, it's precisely because the numbers don't matter that I find the extra logging practices so silly. In my mind, you'd have to be thoroughly numbers conscious to sit in front of your computer logging 20 pocket caches. Or to debate with a log owner about whether finding the dangling string the cache used to be hanging from constitutes a find.

 

Even though I see the honesty angle that has been presented as a reason not to multi-log, for me it has more to do with the lack of interest about the numbers. I'm very bad about logging the caches I do find. I'm not gonna waste my time by adding fictitious finds. I do want to clarify: I am not overly concerned about folks that do log the bogus caches. I just find it humorous, and state as matter of record it's not a practice I believe. But I would never lose a wink of sleep one way or another on it.

 

But multi-loggers will often pose the question you have. They seem to want to throw the burden of proof on folks that don't believe in the practice to explain why we are soooooo concerned with their numbers.

 

I think the more appropriate question is to the extraneous loggers:

 

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

[+tozainamboku]

I heard my doctor takes mulligans when he plays golf with my accountant. I guess I should get a new doctor

Does your doctor also yell "Fore!" after you bend over?

I was trying to make a serious point in my reply - not a joke. Harry Dophin said that if you log mutliple finds on a event or take credit for a cache you did not find you are a dishonest person who lacks integrity and morality and he would not like to have such a person as his doctor since they couldn't be trusted. I would like to know how a person who explains right in their log that the are posting it to get credit for finding temporary cache #27 hidden at the event or that they didn't find the cache but are claiming a smiley anyhow because they've confirmed that the cache is missing could be called dishonest. They state exactly what they are doing in the log - it seems pretty honest to me. Sure a person who out and out lies that they found the cache when they didn't even look for this is being dishonest. But in the cases Harry Dolphin cites the logs are 100% honest. What he doesn't like it that the person used the find log instead of writting a note. To me, these cases are just like a friendly game of golf where the players take mulligans if they have a bad shot or agree that a putt is a gimme. The cache owner in these cases has chosen to allow the found logs. In one case to encourage the people attending the event to find the temporary caches he has hidden (and perhaps to encourage attendance at the event because you can get a lot of smileys), and in the other case because the owner feels that if the cache were there the cacher would have found it (like a gimme putt). Harry Dolphin may may object to the way the cache owners are playing the game. Unfortunately, the "rules" state

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This pretty much leaves the decision of whether to allow multiple logs or allow finds when the cache was missing to the cache owner. I personally don't think the cache was found in these cases, but then I don't think my doctor had a birdie on that hole where he took a mulligan. I also don't think the people who do this are necessarily dishonest or of low moral character. They are choosing along with the cache owner to do what my doctor and his golfing buddies do all the time.

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

I don't see why it matters. No answer would satisfy those who find it silly or dishonest. Besides, your question is no more or less valid than those who ask: Why does anyone care if I log an event multiple times?

[+TrailGators]

I heard my doctor takes mulligans when he plays golf with my accountant. I guess I should get a new doctor

Does your doctor also yell "Fore!" after you bend over?

I was trying to make a serious point in my reply - not a joke. Harry Dophin said that if you log mutliple finds on a event or take credit for a cache you did not find you are a dishonest person who lacks integrity and morality and he would not like to have such a person as his doctor since they couldn't be trusted. I would like to know how a person who explains right in their log that the are posting it to get credit for finding temporary cache #27 hidden at the event or that they didn't find the cache but are claiming a smiley anyhow because they've confirmed that the cache is missing could be called dishonest. They state exactly what they are doing in the log - it seems pretty honest to me. Sure a person who out and out lies that they found the cache when they didn't even look for this is being dishonest. But in the cases Harry Dolphin cites the logs are 100% honest. What he doesn't like it that the person used the find log instead of writting a note. To me, these cases are just like a friendly game of golf where the players take mulligans if they have a bad shot or agree that a putt is a gimme. The cache owner in these cases has chosen to allow the found logs. In one case to encourage the people attending the event to find the temporary caches he has hidden (and perhaps to encourage attendance at the event because you can get a lot of smileys), and in the other case because the owner feels that if the cache were there the cacher would have found it (like a gimme putt). Harry Dolphin may may object to the way the cache owners are playing the game. Unfortunately, the "rules" state

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This pretty much leaves the decision of whether to allow multiple logs or allow finds when the cache was missing to the cache owner. I personally don't think the cache was found in these cases, but then I don't think my doctor had a birdie on that hole where he took a mulligan. I also don't think the people who do this are necessarily dishonest or of low moral character. They are choosing along with the cache owner to do what my doctor and his golfing buddies do all the time.

I was trying to lighten things up. Anyhow, if you asked your doctor how many times he "attended" a recent event and he told you that he "attended" it 150 times that would not be the truth. That was the point. BTW, a mulligan is totally different. Those scorecards went in the trash right after the game and are not posted to a handicap website. Of course if someone is doing that then that is dishonest....

[+Team GeoBlast]

First of all, thanks for all the responses so far. There's good stuff to think on in there.

 

Now for the next part of this.

 

If the only numbers that matter are our own personal numbers, then why does it bother us that others log multiple logs?

 

I know that fake finds effect others. I'll be one the first to point that out anywhere, anytime. My question is, why is that many of us, myself included, dislike the practice of multiple finds? Is it our competitive nature? Is our sense of ethics? Is it elitism?

 

Even from the day one as a cacher, I thought it wrong to do this. Now I just want to know why it bothers me to see others do it, if indeed their numbers don't matter to anyone but them.

 

Geocaching is founded on an implied level of trust and integrity. On a basic level it is a promise that you hid something a particular spot followed by a promise by next person's promise to put it back at that spot after they find it. But it's not that simple and the quality of the experience we all have depends to a certain degree on the integrity of the next cacher.

 

Every single person that plays the game is faced with decisions that are made when nobody is watching them. For example, you've found a cache that it is full of trash and has decaying organic matter in it. There's nobody around for miles and in your possession you have a new log and a bag full of trade items that will last you for a month. Among your many choices are:

 

1. Do you sign the log, close the lid, and leave?

2. Do you CITO it and leave it void of any trading items?

3. Do you CITO it, replace the log, and dump everything in your swag bag in it?

4. Do you put the cache out of it's misery, bury the cache, and log a DNF?

 

We don't need a written guideline to know that a multiple "found it" log on any cache is wrong. When someone can justify logging an event cache 50 times, one has to wonder about the decisions that they make when they aren't being watched. This is why it matters to me, once I can't trust the next geocacher to do the right thing when nobody is around, the game is not worth playing.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

<snip>

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

I don't see why it matters. No answer would satisfy those who find it silly or dishonest. Besides, your question is no more or less valid than those who ask: Why does anyone care if I log an event multiple times?

 

If every question asked on the forums had to matter there would be very few threads indeed. This is the location to discuss all things geocaching. Since these forums revolve around a game, you'll probably have to go to the Middle East forums to find a subject that mattered.

 

That being said, I'll answer your question.

Why does anyone care if I log an event multiple times?

I don't. It's like any number of subjects that I find humorous but don't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

 

I doubt anyone will answer my question. Because the answer can be found in the question.

 

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

Edited May 24, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Miragee]

<snip>

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

I don't see why it matters. No answer would satisfy those who find it silly or dishonest. Besides, your question is no more or less valid than those who ask: Why does anyone care if I log an event multiple times?

The only reason I care, is because it is not a generally-accepted practice. It is only thought to be okay in a very small regional area where this game is played.

 

People who log Events many, many times have a number next to their name that doesn't actually compare to the same number next to another cacher's name when the other cacher found individual, listed-on-this-site, caches. Only when someone digs deeper into the first person's profile do they see the person attended 150 Events, or 300 Events, or . . . It just looks silly to anyone who doesn't know about the "temporary caches" and the concept of multiple "Attended" logs.

 

I had never even heard of "Pocket Caches," yet they were accepted, and allowed by the cache owners, in some places. That practice was finally stopped.

 

Maybe the logging of non-listed caches as multiple "Attended" logs will eventually be stopped by TPTB as well . . . .

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

I don't see why it matters. No answer would satisfy those who find it silly or dishonest. Besides, your question is no more or less valid than those who ask: Why does anyone care if I log an event multiple times?

The only reason I care, is because it is not a generally-accepted practice. It is only thought to be okay in a very small regional area where this game is played.

 

People who log Events many, many times have a number next to their name that doesn't actually compare to the same number next to another cacher's name when the other cacher found individual, listed-on-this-site, caches. Only when someone digs deeper into the first person's profile do they see the person attended 150 Events, or 300 Events, or . . . It just looks silly to anyone who doesn't know about the "temporary caches" and the concept of multiple "Attended" logs.

 

I had never even heard of "Pocket Caches," yet they were accepted, and allowed by the cache owners, in some places. That practice was finally stopped.

 

Maybe the logging of non-listed caches as multiple "Attended" logs will eventually be stopped by TPTB as well . . . .

TPTB already said they are not going to change the site to stop multiple logging because that is a social issue and not a site issue. However, they did change "Found" to "Attended" for events but this did not deter anyone.

[+Totem Clan]

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

That is a good way to look at it.

 

I guess instead of wondering why it bothers me, I should wonder why it's so important to those that do it.

[+Totem Clan]

Maybe TPTB could set it up so that it shows the total numbers and the number of unique finds for each cacher. Then you could see at glance the real numbers.

[+tozainamboku]

Anyhow, if you asked your doctor how many times he "attended" a recent event and he told you that he "attended" it 150 times that would not be the truth. That was the point. BTW, a mulligan is totally different. Those scorecards went in the trash right after the game and are not posted to a handicap website. Of course if someone is doing that then that is dishonest....

But what my doctor told me was that he attended an event one time and that he found 149 temporary caches at the event which he is taking credit for because the event owner told him he could. He didn't lie about what he did. And neither did my accountant who said he didn't find the cache but the cache owner said that he confirmed he was looking in the right place and since the cache was missing he could log it as found. He was honest in his log about what he did. It may be true that this is different than the mulligan. Tiger Woods probably doesn't care that my doctor took a mulligan because its easy to differentiate between the friendly game and the professional tournament. In geocaching, most people are playing a friendly game and these practices don't matter. But some want the find count to mean a particular thing - as if then you could really compare two cacher's find counts. To these people, these practices do matter. Perhaps you could state in your profile if you are a puritan and then we could have a leader list of just people who are serious players and ignore the find counts of others I tend to believe that most puritans really do not care about numbers and simply want a accepted definition of what is a find so they know what to log. I don't mind if they decide what rule they will play by. Nobody is forced to log the temporary finds at an event or to change their DNF to find because the owner says to. I object to the characterization of those that log temporary caches at events or take a find on a missing cache with the owner's permission as being morally inferior and dishonest. In a friendly game of golf a shot is not always a shot. In a friendly game of geocaching - where there is no competition except where a players choose to compete - a found it log may not always mean a cache was found.

[wvnewbie]

There are some pretty long answers on this thread - and I admit to not having read each word - that said - I never (in my short time geocaching) have ever cared about other people's stats. Why would I?! I am proud and happy with the 10+ finds I have - and I am glad the site keeps track for me. I hope it always does - as I plan on many more as I keep on keeping on.

 

Call me crazy - but the idea of logging a cache more then once simply seems pointless and silly.

 

Maybe this will sound sappy - but unless you are into this hobby to be by yourself - then the numbers really shouldn't matter - what should matter is that you are enjoying nature and the friends and/or family you are spending quality time with.

 

Just 2 cents from a newbie.

[+TrailGators]

Anyhow, if you asked your doctor how many times he "attended" a recent event and he told you that he "attended" it 150 times that would not be the truth. That was the point. BTW, a mulligan is totally different. Those scorecards went in the trash right after the game and are not posted to a handicap website. Of course if someone is doing that then that is dishonest....

But what my doctor told me was that he attended an event one time and that he found 149 temporary caches at the event which he is taking credit for because the event owner told him he could. He didn't lie about what he did. And neither did my accountant who said he didn't find the cache but the cache owner said that he confirmed he was looking in the right place and since the cache was missing he could log it as found. He was honest in his log about what he did. It may be true that this is different than the mulligan. Tiger Woods probably doesn't care that my doctor took a mulligan because its easy to differentiate between the friendly game and the professional tournament. In geocaching, most people are playing a friendly game and these practices don't matter. But some want the find count to mean a particular thing - as if then you could really compare two cacher's find counts. To these people, these practices do matter. Perhaps you could state in your profile if you are a puritan and then we could have a leader list of just people who are serious players and ignore the find counts of others I tend to believe that most puritans really do not care about numbers and simply want a accepted definition of what is a find so they know what to log. I don't mind if they decide what rule they will play by. Nobody is forced to log the temporary finds at an event or to change their DNF to find because the owner says to. I object to the characterization of those that log temporary caches at events or take a find on a missing cache with the owner's permission as being morally inferior and dishonest. In a friendly game of golf a shot is not always a shot. In a friendly game of geocaching - where there is no competition except where a players choose to compete - a found it log may not always mean a cache was found.

If you go to your doctors profile to see how many events that he has "attended" and it says 850 then that is a misrepresentation. If someone's golfing handicap is listed on the handicapping website as being 10 strokes lower than it actually is because the person takes 10 mulligans per round then that is a misrepresentation. Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I object to the characterization of those that log temporary caches at events or take a find on a missing cache with the owner's permission as being morally inferior and dishonest. In a friendly game of golf a shot is not always a shot. In a friendly game of geocaching - where there is no competition except where a players choose to compete - a found it log may not always mean a cache was found.

 

I personally don't think a game should be played differently whether it's "friendly" or professional. Whether we're playing poker for money or for nothing shouldn't matter. But that's my opinion.

 

But if the game is "friendly", shouldn't that mean we don't keep score at all? If we're outside shooting hoops playing a "friendly" game, I wouldn't start saying, "if it touches the rim, it's a basket." Or "If you catch an offensive rebound before it hits the ground that counts." I would think we'd just not keep score at all.

 

The point I'm trying to make is the extra loggers try to make it seem like it's the "puritans" that are overly concerned when it is they that are putting in all the work to log extra caches. (explaining to cache owners why their find is legitimate, spending gobs of time logging events multiple times, etc.) If it's just a friendly game of geocaching, why log anything at all?

 

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

[Trinity's Crew]

I doubt anyone will answer my question. Because the answer can be found in the question.

 

Why do you care so much about the numbers that you would participate in these logging practices?

Good point. You already loaded the question. Fixed!

[+tozainamboku]

If you go to your doctors profile to see how many events that he has "attended" and it says 850 then that is a misrepresentation. If someone's golfing handicap is listed on the handicapping website as being 10 strokes lower than it actually is because the person takes 10 mulligans per round then that is a misrepresentation.

If you go to my profile you will see a section listing how many finds I have that a puritan may find questionable. Feel free to make the appropriate adjustments to my find count.

 

I believe the find count is an accurate representation of the number of found it logs that a person has entered. Whether or not it has anything to do with the number of caches that person has found depends on whether your definition of find matches his. I believe that finding temporary caches at an event are not legitimate finds - but I understand that in some regions this is an accepted practice - just like the club where my doctor plays allows mulligans. I also don't take finds on a cache I did not find because the owner says I can. (Though if you look at my profile you will see I did this one time - because the owner changed the cache to a virtual (owners used to be able to change the cache type) and I was able to comply with the requirements for logging the virtual).

 

Geocaching.com is not a handicap site to post your golf scores. There is no claim by those that log temporary caches or finds on missing caches that there number means anything else. TPTB have stated that they are not going to change anything on site that would disable these pratices. I have a question:

 

If TPTB said is was OK to claim finds on temporary events would you? My guess it that most people would continue to not log caches they didn't feel comfortable logging.

[+TrailGators]

If you go to your doctors profile to see how many events that he has "attended" and it says 850 then that is a misrepresentation. If someone's golfing handicap is listed on the handicapping website as being 10 strokes lower than it actually is because the person takes 10 mulligans per round then that is a misrepresentation.

If you go to my profile you will see a section listing how many finds I have that a puritan may find questionable. Feel free to make the appropriate adjustments to my find count.

 

I believe the find count is an accurate representation of the number of found it logs that a person has entered. Whether or not it has anything to do with the number of caches that person has found depends on whether your definition of find matches his. I believe that finding temporary caches at an event are not legitimate finds - but I understand that in some regions this is an accepted practice - just like the club where my doctor plays allows mulligans. I also don't take finds on a cache I did not find because the owner says I can. (Though if you look at my profile you will see I did this one time - because the owner changed the cache to a virtual (owners used to be able to change the cache type) and I was able to comply with the requirements for logging the virtual).

 

Geocaching.com is not a handicap site to post your golf scores. There is no claim by those that log temporary caches or finds on missing caches that there number means anything else. TPTB have stated that they are not going to change anything on site that would disable these pratices. I have a question:

 

If TPTB said is was OK to claim finds on temporary events would you? My guess it that most people would continue to not log caches they didn't feel comfortable logging.

The bottom line is that it is a "misrepresentation." They did not "attend" 850 events. The key word is "attend." Look it up in the dictionary....The obvious reason people say they "attended" an event many times is to make their numbers higher. If there were no numbers then they wouldn't waste their time doing it. By the way, your logic would permit people to find the same tranditional caches every week. The rationalization would be that they were not in the exact same spots.......

[Mushtang]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.