[Prime Suspect]

jholly, on 24 April 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Sandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Max and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?

Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

I guess I need that clarified. A reviewer may decide that the puzzle can not be solved and refused to publish it. Yet accomplished puzzle solvers would find it challenging and fun but does not get the chance because in the reviewers opinion it is unpublishable. Sounds like a wow factor to me. And then we get into just how detailed does the explanation have to be? Seems like your trying to make publishing a puzzle cache a Sisyphean task.

If you can reasonably explain how it's solved, it's unlikely a reviewer will say it can't be solved. If they do, you've probably created one of those "guess what I happen to be thinking of" puzzles that can only be solved by the CO telling you some vital key that can't possibly be reasoned out. The fewer of those puzzles in the world, the better.

I think the issue here is more along the lines of this scenario: a puzzle is revealed to not give a set of coordinates, but instead, a letterbox-like description of how to find the cache. This would violate the GPS Required Usage guideline, and may not be publishable.

[niraD]

Moun10Bike, on 24 April 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Quote

4. The icons for the Difficulty rating aren't very good. They strongly imply that the route taken to a cache is a major factor in the difficulty rating, which it usually is not. To be honest, I'm not sure what would be better, but I can see these icons leading to a lot of mis-rated caches.

We had many, many, many discussions about these, too. In the end, though, no one could come up with a better design. I'd love to see something better than these and will let the geniuses out there in the community suggest improvements!

The thing that comes to mind is the time taken to find the cache:
D1 - "a few minutes"
D2 - "less than 30 minutes"
D3 - "a good portion of an afternoon"
D4 - "multiple days / trips"

Perhaps some sort of time-related icons could work.

[Team Microdot]

WRASTRO, on 26 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Team Microdot, on 25 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields

Just saw this and tried on my Motorola Bionic. Same issue for me.

Looks like our cries for help have disappeared beneath the waves

Hello! Is there anybody out there?

[Semper Questio]

Team Microdot, on 27 April 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

WRASTRO, on 26 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Team Microdot, on 25 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields

Just saw this and tried on my Motorola Bionic. Same issue for me.

Looks like our cries for help have disappeared beneath the waves

Hello! Is there anybody out there?

No problem on my LG Optimus.

[Frank Broughton]

The Jester, on 26 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Frank Broughton, on 26 April 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

Frank Broughton, on 25 April 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I love geocaching, I love the product that Ground Speak has produced. I have not posted on the forums for sometime now because, simply said - it has not brought out the best side of me. That said, I do not like how Ground Speak continues to try to distance themselves from liability using the mantra: "we are just a listing service." The latest: " Updated text about cache owner liability. Linked to disclaimer with regards to location and container." is just a further attempt to distance GS from liability.

I place caches in very exciting, albeit dangerous areas. I give proper warnings - I do not provide the means of getting to the cache, Ground Speak does this. How does that remove GS from any liability equation? GS provides means to get information to my caches for seekers without my warning even showing up. This concerns me. We are in this together, I feel that GS should stand with me on this not distance itself.

Any one else hear what I am saying.

Well do ya punk? oppps wrong movie.... To me this is a serious issue that sure seems like it is being swept under a rug. Especially considering what I have highlighted here with bold from my original post.

I am not trying to be a trouble maker, to me this can develop into a serious issue.

I'm not understanding what you're complaining about. How are they providing means that skip your warnings?

Via the phone apps. The description is an option. Maybe I see a problem because part of my job is dealing with insurance and liability. I am always accessing risk at my place of work. I just do not like how we are the ones who are assuming the risk in listing caches (according to GS - I do not see this as true - no matter what words we click we agree to when listing our caches.) I understand why no one will acknowledge this from GS. I am just getting my words in writing...

[The A-Team]

Frank Broughton, on 27 April 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Via the phone apps. The description is an option.

The description is optional no matter how you access the cache listing. There are a massive number of cachers that choose not to read the description, because they feel it's "cheating". Even if cachers had the description forced in their face, there's no way to force them to read it.

[The Jester]

Frank Broughton, on 27 April 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Via the phone apps. The description is an option. Maybe I see a problem because part of my job is dealing with insurance and liability. I am always accessing risk at my place of work. I just do not like how we are the ones who are assuming the risk in listing caches (according to GS - I do not see this as true - no matter what words we click we agree to when listing our caches.) I understand why no one will acknowledge this from GS. I am just getting my words in writing...

Ahh, OK. I'm not a phone app user so I didn't realize there was a new way (or is it that new?). You can do the same thing by loading a GPX file to some GPSr's, or just using LOC files.

[Frank Broughton]

The Jester, on 27 April 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Frank Broughton, on 27 April 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Via the phone apps. The description is an option. Maybe I see a problem because part of my job is dealing with insurance and liability. I am always accessing risk at my place of work. I just do not like how we are the ones who are assuming the risk in listing caches (according to GS - I do not see this as true - no matter what words we click we agree to when listing our caches.) I understand why no one will acknowledge this from GS. I am just getting my words in writing...

Ahh, OK. I'm not a phone app user so I didn't realize there was a new way (or is it that new?). You can do the same thing by loading a GPX file to some GPSr's, or just using LOC files.

Yes that way too..... even more for concern.

[Moun10Bike]

Semper Questio, on 27 April 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Team Microdot, on 27 April 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

WRASTRO, on 26 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Team Microdot, on 25 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields

Just saw this and tried on my Motorola Bionic. Same issue for me.

Looks like our cries for help have disappeared beneath the waves

Hello! Is there anybody out there?

No problem on my LG Optimus.

As a workaround, you could always use http://www.geocaching.com/login (or Facebook connect).

[WRASTRO]

Moun10Bike, on 27 April 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Semper Questio, on 27 April 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Team Microdot, on 27 April 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

WRASTRO, on 26 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Team Microdot, on 25 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't know if this is the correct thread to raise technical issues related to the new release?

Since the update I've found it impossible to login to geocaching.com from my Android smartphone - I can click on the text fields and enter text - well,type it at least - but nothing appears in the text fields at all and then a warning exclamation point comes up and a message about required fields

Just saw this and tried on my Motorola Bionic. Same issue for me.

Looks like our cries for help have disappeared beneath the waves

Hello! Is there anybody out there?

No problem on my LG Optimus.

As a workaround, you could always use http://www.geocaching.com/login (or Facebook connect).

Thanks. Going to the login page worked for me.

[UMainah]

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

[niraD]

UMainah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

Maybe. Maybe not. Around here, we have "unevents" that are often well attended. The point isn't the smiley. The point is getting together with other geocachers.

[larryc43230]

UMainah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

Maybe I'm just weird. I've attended lots of events, yet I've never logged one as "Attended." Every smilie in my list is for finding a real, honest-to-goodness physical container. When I first started caching, I thought that was what it was all about, and I still do. I wouldn't miss the "Attended" log type if it was eliminated, and I would still go to events.

--Larry

[knowschad]

Jeremy, on 25 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 25 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? Greeting from Germany.

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Thanks.

Greetings from Seattle.

LOL! TOZ is going to have a field day with that sentence! You should probably consider adding the word, "only" in there before he latches onto it.

[sweet - sour]

I have just completed 10 new caches on the old format, yet to be activated. Tried the new format, TOO many pages, and it takes too long to fill out, the old format is 1 page, and one can review it before and after it has been sumitted. The new format looses the KISS principal.
I have found that if one has an idea for a cache, one can fill out the form, submit but not activate, one then receives the GC number, log it into the GPS, go out and place the cache, confirm the co-ords on the cache placement, come back and make any changes to the cache page, activete it and the jobs done.

Can we have hybrid and the other tool bars added back to the Geocaching Maps, please.

[Fianccetto]

ItsSkeeter, on 24 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I don't normally post to the forums, but I'm very concerned about this "Login with Facebook" option. I personally would like this option removed. My facebook account has been hacked before, and if that happens again, then the hacker would have no trouble also hacking into my Geocaching account. Seems like this could become a security problem, since hacking seems to run rampant with Facebook.

Hacking in this context is not a Facebook issue, it is a password security issue. Use a different password for different websites and email addresses. Do not write them down for others to see (a common way for these accounts being 'hacked' at schools, colleges and homes.)
I know people who are incredibly careful about their online security and understand computer programming (and could be genuine hackers if they were criminals, but they're not, but they do have to be extra careful about protecting their online data). There are some things they won't do, but they are on facebook.
If there is a website you want to use but you are not sure if your password will be safe, or you might get hacked or whatever, make a new email address to use it and use new (distinct) passwords.

It is equally a good idea to do this with sites you don't want to have affected if you do get hacked, so have your work/college/school email separate from your Facebook one, and a different one used for Groundspeak. It takes a few extra minutes, but it is worth it, as if you are hacked, only some people would then be affected (and this linking of facebook and GS isn't related).

This post has been edited by Fianccetto: 27 April 2012 - 11:54 PM

[Don_J]

sweet - sour, on 27 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I have just completed 10 new caches on the old format, yet to be activated. Tried the new format, TOO many pages, and it takes too long to fill out, the old format is 1 page, and one can review it before and after it has been sumitted. The new format looses the KISS principal.
I have found that if one has an idea for a cache, one can fill out the form, submit but not activate, one then receives the GC number, log it into the GPS, go out and place the cache, confirm the co-ords on the cache placement, come back and make any changes to the cache page, activete it and the jobs done.

Can we have hybrid and the other tool bars added back to the Geocaching Maps, please.

I agree with what you are saying and will continue to use the old single page form. (I am assuming that we will always have that choice.) I say this because I have used that form over 170 times, and am very familiar with it. This was not the case when I submitted my very first cache. Then, the form was a bit intimidating. The new wizard would have been appreciated at that time. It has the power to help new cache placers create good, accurate cache submissions. I think that it is a step in the right direction.

Playing around with it, I discovered that one of my caches had a long standing maintenance flag on it that I had forgotten to clear.

[AZcachemeister]

Sandy, on 25 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

There has never been a sign-the-logbook requirement to log an event cache. This is not a change, rather a clarification.

So an event is the new virtual?

Don't lie? Really? Greetings from Germany!

[AZcachemeister]

IkeHurley13, on 25 April 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

AZ: If there was a logbook and that person walked in signed it and left (all in under 1 minute) what would change. You were either there or you weren't. There has never been a time requirement for events. I've not seen anyone who fake logs events (unless you count the people who log them 30 times).

Most of the meetings I've been to had no log books. Most that did the logbook was either a way to get some info so you could be part of the local organization email list or the logbook fit the event theme.

I could be reasonably certain they at least left the house and came to the location of the event. Naturally, this doesn't stop someone from signing someone else's name.


So far, my events have been fairly small, so I have been able to actually greet all the attendees and know who was there.

For a medium/large event with 100-200 attendees, it would be nearly impossible for the organizers to greet all the attendees. So now it's a free-for-all (or it always has been, but now we have it in writing). But, Groundspeak can require a log for a (hopeful soon-to-be) mega-event that must have at least 500 signatures. What is stopping the organizers from 'doctoring' the logbook so they can claim that precious MEGA status? Ethics, I suppose.

I think it should be the event organizer's prerogative to have a log that needs to be signed or not, and it should be used at their discretion to verify attendance.

I am wondering if there were enough disputes over event attendance that made such an inclusion/clarification necessary. Were people somewhere attending events but refusing to sign a log and getting their online logs deleted?

Just as with a traditional cache, if I signed the log I found it/attended. If there is no log or I didn't sign it, then my find/attended is up for discussion.

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

BlueRajah, on 24 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Max and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

· Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

Thank you!

Bold are the changes.

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

Does this mean a cache such as this one is no longer allowed? I am about to start work on another one, but don't want to waste time if it will not be published.

[The A-Team]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

Does this mean a cache such as this one is no longer allowed? I am about to start work on another one, but don't want to waste time if it will not be published.

That guideline is regarding challenge caches. International cooperation caches aren't challenge caches. I can't think of any current guidelines that would ban those type of caches.

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

The A-Team, on 01 May 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

Does this mean a cache such as this one is no longer allowed? I am about to start work on another one, but don't want to waste time if it will not be published.

That guideline is regarding challenge caches. International cooperation caches aren't challenge caches. I can't think of any current guidelines that would ban those type of caches.

Actually, the quote quideline is under 3.1, Logging of All Physical Caches. The Challenge exception is that they need to be verified prior to online loggoing, so there could be contact with the owner.

So my question still stands.

[The A-Team]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 May 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Actually, the quote quideline is under 3.1, Logging of All Physical Caches. The Challenge exception is that they need to be verified prior to online loggoing, so there could be contact with the owner.

So my question still stands.

Now that I read it again, you're right!

Quote

...physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone

You'd have to run the question by your reviewer, but that guideline does seem to spell the end of those cooperation-style caches.

[niraD]

Do these cooperation-style caches really require seekers to contact someone?

Or is that just a convenient way to avoid traveling long distances?

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

niraD, on 01 May 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Do these cooperation-style caches really require seekers to contact someone?

Or is that just a convenient way to avoid traveling long distances?

Technically you are correct. I guess we'll have to see what TPTB have to say. I may just have to get creative with the wording of the listing.

[BlueRajah]

There are a few questions here... and here is my interpretation and understanding.

For a challenge cache you can require someone to email you to document their accomplishment, however not to ask for final coords.

For a non-challenge physical cache you can't require someone to go into ask for coords, a key, a combo, direction, or go into a library and ask for the item behind the desk. Or in the case of a puzzle require them to contact the cache owner for the "key" to the puzzle.

In other words caching should be a hunt using a gps, not a hunt for the person whom you contact to complete the cache. (librarian, business manager, cache owner, or friend of the cache owner)

The cache listed above you can have a friend or cacher help you, or you can do it yourself. I personally dislike those hides as you are not actually finding the cache, but I they would be allowed if you can find them without recruiting help.

Also remember that published caches are grandfathered...

This post has been edited by BlueRajah: 01 May 2012 - 08:44 AM

[stebu]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

BlueRajah, on 24 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Max and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

· Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

Thank you!

Bold are the changes.

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

Does this mean a cache such as this one is no longer allowed? I am about to start work on another one, but don't want to waste time if it will not be published.

I think that this is a different issue.
Your quotations are concerned with logging a cache. But the mystery cache "contact" is needed to solve the puzzle. I'm not sure whether there are restrictions on that.

[Don_J]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 May 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

BlueRajah, on 24 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Max and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

· Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

Thank you!

Bold are the changes.

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

Does this mean a cache such as this one is no longer allowed? I am about to start work on another one, but don't want to waste time if it will not be published.

Interesting, in the past the cache owner couldn't require you to contact them. It now says that you are not required anyone. Regarding the example you linked to, you really are not required to contact anyone. It would be expensive, but one could visit both locations.

[BlueRajah]

I would contact your local reviewer, and ask their opinion.

[robnzh]

colin, on 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

• Added Facebook Connect to login process

So can we have your assurance that Facebook will not (1) be tailoring ads to the fact we are geocachers
(2) be able to track when we have logged a geocache, therefore knowing where we have been.

I doubt it so will be sticking with conventional login!

This post has been edited by robnzh: 01 May 2012 - 08:32 PM

[steben6]

JJnTJ, on 25 April 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Our reviewers have been requiring us to tell them about the puzzle-solving method for a while now. It hasn't been a problem; for my last two, the short paragraph I wrote was sufficient.

And as far as I'm concerned, reviewers can all have a free find on my puzzles (though I'd appreciate them not going for the FTF ) as a thank-you present.

+1
We've always had to explain puzzle-solving methods for our reviewers and never had an issue. Don't see what the big deal is? And we also wouldn't mind if the reviewers want to log our puzzle caches...we put them out in the hopes people WILL find them!
p.s. Our local reviewers ROCK!

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

steben6, on 01 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

We've always had to explain puzzle-solving methods for our reviewers and never had an issue. Don't see what the big deal is? And we also wouldn't mind if the reviewers want to log our puzzle caches...we put them out in the hopes people WILL find them!
p.s. Our local reviewers ROCK!

I have no issues either. Of course, our reviewer is several states away, so I doubt we'll have to worry about them grabbing FTFs!

[NYPaddleCacher]

UMainah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

If someone just shows up long enough to sign a log book, one could argue that they're not really attending the event anyway.

[robnzh]

robnzh, on 01 May 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

colin, on 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

• Added Facebook Connect to login process

So can we have your assurance that Facebook will not (1) be tailoring ads to the fact we are geocachers
(2) be able to track when we have logged a geocache, therefore knowing where we have been.

I doubt it so will be sticking with conventional login!

[robnzh]

still waiting for the assurances- I have a feeling I may not get them

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

NYPaddleCacher, on 02 May 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

UMainah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

If someone just shows up long enough to sign a log book, one could argue that they're not really attending the event anyway.

I am hosting a paddle eventin June, and originally I was going to list the event at the launch point (like I did last year). To avoid people just showing up and claiming the "Attended", I decided to move the event to a canoe camp halfway thorugh the trip. You can attend either via a boat, or hike the ~1 mile in (on pretty easy trails). This should cut down on the "I was there for 5 seconds, where's my smiley" logs.

(edit to add link)

This post has been edited by BBWolf+3Pigs: 04 May 2012 - 04:03 AM

[Don_J]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 04 May 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 02 May 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

UMainah, on 27 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 26 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

The solution to this issue is really simple. Remove the "Attended" option for the "Type of Log" for Event caches. Yes, that would mean you would not get your find count incremented by one but if someone is showing up for an event just so that they can posted an Attended log and get "credit" for attending, they're missing the whole point about gecaching events.

And watch event attendance plummet...

If someone just shows up long enough to sign a log book, one could argue that they're not really attending the event anyway.

I am hosting a paddle eventin June, and originally I was going to list the event at the launch point (like I did last year). To avoid people just showing up and claiming the "Attended", I decided to move the event to a canoe camp halfway thorugh the trip. You can attend either via a boat, or hike the ~1 mile in (on pretty easy trails). This should cut down on the "I was there for 5 seconds, where's my smiley" logs.

(edit to add link)

Cool.
So, are you doing this because you think the local cachers will enjoy the challenge, or is it just because you want to control other cacher's logging habits?

I have only held one event and it got so busy that I was not able to individually great every cacher. There were a few that logged online that I didn't actually see. I have no doubt that they were there and it never occurred to me to delete their logs because I didn't see them or they didn't stay long enough to make me feel important.

Undoubtedly, some ultra-control freak event holder started deleting logs because the attendees didn't live up to their standards, people made a fuss and Groundspeak was forced to clarify a guideline that most of us already understood.

[hzoi]

Jeremy, on 25 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 25 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? Greeting from Germany.

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Thanks.

Greetings from Seattle.

Works for me.

Though you may have just ruined DGS Day for potential out of town attendees.



Oh, the humanity, etc.

This post has been edited by hzoi: 04 May 2012 - 10:01 AM

[Harry Dolphin]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 02 May 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

steben6, on 01 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

We've always had to explain puzzle-solving methods for our reviewers and never had an issue. Don't see what the big deal is? And we also wouldn't mind if the reviewers want to log our puzzle caches...we put them out in the hopes people WILL find them!
p.s. Our local reviewers ROCK!

I have no issues either. Of course, our reviewer is several states away, so I doubt we'll have to worry about them grabbing FTFs!

Hmm... I've hidden 35 mystery caches in the last 7.5 years. Some are evil (What is that Dolphin thinking this time?!@?!) Some are easy (Glad I could solve an HD puzzle!) They have probably been reviewed by 5 or 7 different reviewers.) (Even had a note by one reviewer when I archived a mystery cache. He enjoyed it, and was sad to see it go!) Only twice had I been asked to explain how to solve the puzzle. One in 2006 took a week to get published. (Do you really want to be that obtuse? YUP!) The one in 2010 took me by surprise. I guess that was about the start of reviewers asking how to solve a puzzle.
I have no problem explaining to a reviewer how to solve my puzzles. Extra work for the reviewers, but it maintains the integrity of the game. Henceforth, I will leave a note to the reviewer with an explanation. I have no problems with that!

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

hzoi, on 04 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Jeremy, on 25 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 25 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? Greeting from Germany.

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Thanks.

Greetings from Seattle.

Works for me.

Though you may have just ruined DGS Day for potential out of town attendees.

Why do you think it ruined it? I must be missing something.

[hzoi]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 05 May 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

hzoi, on 04 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Jeremy, on 25 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 25 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? Greeting from Germany.

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Thanks.

Greetings from Seattle.

Works for me.

Though you may have just ruined DGS Day for potential out of town attendees.

Why do you think it ruined it? I must be missing something.

They tend to stream events online and let whoever catches the stream log as attending.

[RIclimber]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 04 May 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

I am hosting a paddle eventin June, and originally I was going to list the event at the launch point (like I did last year). To avoid people just showing up and claiming the "Attended", I decided to move the event to a canoe camp halfway through the trip. You can attend either via a boat, or hike the ~1 mile in (on pretty easy trails). This should cut down on the "I was there for 5 seconds, where's my smiley" logs.

(edit to add link)

5 seconds??? I had a few at my Back-woods event wave as they walked through, then kept walking to the next cache! They never even stopped at the GZ of the event! I wish I had thought of posting my kayaking event at the "Secret Landing" as last year I had a few start early and only crossed paths near the end.

I almost wish we could make them stay for some minimum time to log the event.

EDIT: I'm glad they changed the wording, last year my reviewer gave me a hard time because there was no logbook for her to sign (while sitting in a kayak in the middle of a river!)

This post has been edited by Downy288: 05 May 2012 - 07:47 PM

[Jeremy]

robnzh, on 03 May 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

still waiting for the assurances- I have a feeling I may not get them

When you log in via Facebook, you connect to Facebook and tell them you are logging into Geocaching.com.

When you share your find on Facebook, Facebook knows about it.

Other than that, I don't know what assurances you are seeking. I don't know what they do with the information you are sharing with them.

[Jeremy]

hzoi, on 05 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 05 May 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

hzoi, on 04 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Jeremy, on 25 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 25 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So I can log the upcoming geowoodstock event? Greeting from Germany.

If you didn't attend, no. Let me point out the appropriate sentence in the guidelines:

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event.

That seems to indicate you have to attend an event in order to log that you attended it. It seems pretty straightforward but I hope this helps clarify the sentence.

To sum up, if you didn't do something you don't say that you did it.

Or to simplify further, don't lie.

Thanks.

Greetings from Seattle.

Works for me.

Though you may have just ruined DGS Day for potential out of town attendees.

Why do you think it ruined it? I must be missing something.

They tend to stream events online and let whoever catches the stream log as attending.

They crave attention which is why they do that. They understand the position Groundspeak has on attendance.

[OpinioNate]

New release notes are posted.