View Full Version : another cache find ethics question..



brdad
06-19-2007, 01:18 PM
Ok, here's a hypothetical situation, since the forums have been slow...

Cacher A decides to hide an Earthcache on top of Mt. Everest... Obviously, he/she does not want to "hide" this cache alone so he takes his/her friend Cacher B along. Obviously, this is the perfect time for cacher B to claim this find, since odds are he/she may never make it back there again.

Is it right for Cacher B to claim this find, even though he/she did so before the cache was approved?

Should Cacher B have to come back after it is approved?

Should Cacher B never be allowed to log the cache since he/she was with Cacher A when it was hidden?

********************

If this were a physical cache, I think I would be okay with cacher B waiting out of sight of the actual cache hide, then when Cacher A was done he/she could give Cacher B the coords and let him find the cache, whilst not allowing him/herself to claim FTF on the cache. I don't think Cacher B should claim a find in this situation if he/she watched Cacher A hide the cache.

But in the case of an Earthcache, as long as you can physically get yourself to the coords, there is no real find involved, usually just a pic to prove you were there, and answer a question pertaining to the site.

So I think in this case I'd think it'd be ok for Cacher B to log the find, and sign online after it was approved, probably giving up any claim for FTF (If anyone cares about FTFs on an Earthcache?)

But the purist in me says that's not quite right. What do you think?

Sudonim
06-19-2007, 01:23 PM
What about cacher A and B placing the cache together? If A and B were together at the spot, figuring out the features of the area that make it an Earthcache, B would have input to that discussion too.

Haffy
06-19-2007, 01:33 PM
Everyone plays the game that they want to play it,if cacher B wants to claim the find then I see no problem with it. The purist way would be not to claim the find but not everyone is a purist in that sense and each of us plays the way we see fit.

WhereRWe?
06-19-2007, 03:53 PM
Everyone plays the game that they want to play it,if cacher B wants to claim the find then I see no problem with it. The purist way would be not to claim the find but not everyone is a purist in that sense and each of us plays the way we see fit.

Oh, goody! Lets play The Purist Game!

Some people take their dogs caching with them, and the dog claims the cache. Now, did THE DOG sign the log? Should the dog be able to claim the cache as a "find"?

Some people would say that since GC.com registered the dog as a member, it should be OK. I wouldn't allow the dog to claim our caches, but if other people have no problem wit hit, that's their business.

Before we had an explosion of "urban microcaches" in Maine, the motto of this website used to be "The Way Caching Should Be". I haven't seen anyone advocating a new motto lately, so to many people, caching the way people in other states prefer could be called "The Way Caching Should Be" in Maine as well.

Sheesh! Longest post I've made in a LONG time! I need a beer! :p :p

Hiram357
06-19-2007, 05:15 PM
Oh, goody! Lets play The Purist Game!

Some people take their dogs caching with them, and the dog claims the cache. Now, did THE DOG sign the log? Should the dog be able to claim the cache as a "find"?

Some people would say that since GC.com registered the dog as a member, it should be OK. I wouldn't allow the dog to claim our caches, but if other people have no problem wit hit, that's their business.

Before we had an explosion of "urban microcaches" in Maine, the motto of this website used to be "The Way Caching Should Be". I haven't seen anyone advocating a new motto lately, so to many people, caching the way people in other states prefer could be called "The Way Caching Should Be" in Maine as well.

Sheesh! Longest post I've made in a LONG time! I need a beer! :p :p

Ok Bruce, now tell us how you really feel.... ;)

I think that one of the nice thing about this game is the lack of rules (but the lack of can be a downfall at times... i.e. attracting a bomb squad...) but it's a there is no wrong or right to doing things kinda way, and even though people don't like micros (myself included) there are places where they are appropriate, even where they're not appropriate, the hider still has a right to place that cache. So I say if they want to log it (with or without the FTF, even though I think taking the FTF while there would be wrong...) go ahead, whos to say it's wrong, it's just a game... I'm not the cache police... :D

Sudonim
06-19-2007, 05:29 PM
I suspect that the reason for the original post is that an outside source is ruling on the validity of the second person involved, and if person A places the cache and person B can't log it, it will cause logistical problems on another cache (was that obtuse enough??? :) )

WhereRWe?
06-19-2007, 05:29 PM
Ok Bruce, now tell us how you really feel.... ;)

I think that one of the nice thing about this game is the lack of rules (but the lack of can be a downfall at times... i.e. attracting a bomb squad...) but it's a there is no wrong or right to doing things kinda way, and even though people don't like micros (myself included) there are places where they are appropriate, even where they're not appropriate, the hider still has a right to place that cache. So I say if they want to log it (with or without the FTF, even though I think taking the FTF while there would be wrong...) go ahead, whos to say it's wrong, it's just a game... I'm not the cache police... :D

Well, I'll tell you...

I never saw a cache that I wouldn't log! LOL!

Hiram357
06-19-2007, 05:32 PM
Well, I'll tell you...

I never saw a cache that I wouldn't log! LOL!


well there! you just answered your own argument!! :D :p

See it, Sign it, Log it! and have fun caching! :D (all others will be drawn and quartered...)

Medawisla
06-19-2007, 06:50 PM
Team AB!!:p
New profile, new hunting, new fun!!!:D
Geocaching times 2!! :D

Gob-ler
06-19-2007, 08:23 PM
Are you ready for this?

Uh er oh, I think for the most part I agree with Brdad's closing comments in the first post!

there, I have done it now!

Mainiac1957
06-19-2007, 08:35 PM
I think that the sky will be falling any minute now;) :p

attroll
06-20-2007, 01:51 AM
OK, since you asked. Keep in mind that this is my opinion and my opinion only. I donít care what other people do and how they log caches, but this is how I think it should be if I were to run the show.


When two people are placing a cache together and if they are doing it together then no the second person can not log it. If they are not doing it together but the second person comes along and does not see the person hiding it and the person hiding it gives the coordinates to the second person to find and verify the coordinates then I think the second person should be able to log the find, but not as the FTF. I think they should wait until someone else gets the FTF and then they can log it.
When it comes to registering on GC.com, only humans should be able to register onto GC.com. If they can not sign the logbook with there username then that should not be logging the find on GC.com. I think having your pet registered as on GC.com is silly and child like. What do you gain from it?
Micros. I use to hate micros and I use to preach against them. I have come to the conclusion that just because I hate micros that there are other people that love them. However, I do not think that micros should be placed in city limits or any place where it is going to attract attention. Ever sine 911 people looking for micros could be confused as terrorist.

brdad
06-20-2007, 05:38 AM
Are you ready for this?

Uh er oh, I think for the most part I agree with Brdad's closing comments in the first post!

there, I have done it now!

See, I knew we could find some common ground sooner or later. We should get together with WhereRWe next week and talk about local politics. Or not. ;)

***********

Say what you want Rick, this post was just to stir some conversation.
As far as Dogs logging, I think it's a bit off to be logging for your dogs, but I think I have mentioned this here before - I'd much rather see dogs logging caches than have them hiding caches so that I could claim the find. And yes, this has been done. :(

As far as playing the game any way you want, there still has to be limits. There was a post in the nat'l forums not long ago about an event where about 30 of the cachers there logged the event over 1700 times between them. This was to claim the non-published event caches they found, as well as pocket caches. There have been other events where someone brought the cache container from a tough cache so others could log it. Some people log archived caches they have not found to make up for non-published event caches they have found. Some people log caches they have not found because the gate to the park was locked. All this is way over the line, IMHO.

I am really glad that for the most part, us Mainer's all have similar logging ethics!

WhereRWe?
06-20-2007, 06:33 AM
See, I knew we could find some common ground sooner or later. We should get together with WhereRWe next week and talk about local politics. Or not. ;)


Sheesh! Don't get me would up! LOL!

Trezurs*-R-*Fun
06-20-2007, 07:55 AM
Just to be part of the discussion::)

If Cacher A and Cacher B were to go looking for a specific geocache and during the search Cacher B made the actually discovery of the container should Cacher A be able to log it??? The "Purist" might maintain that Cacher A didn't actually find the cache. ;)

As far as dogs and cats and horses and bears and chickens and goldfish logging caches, I think its hilarious that some folks are so into geocaching that they would actually take the time to create an account and then log caches for their pets.

If there was a prize or an award at the "end" of geocaching then I would be concerned but there is not. Reiterating what has already been said, success and merit of a geocacher should be gauged by the smile on their face at the end of a day/search of geocaching, not by how many, how difficult or how few caches that a geocacher discovered.:D

Cache On and Be Merry!!!
Peace

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:04 AM
So how do these dogs write in the log and type up the log at geocaching.com . . . seems to me this might be difficult to do without fingers and an opposable thumb. ;) :D

brdad
06-20-2007, 08:05 AM
Just to be part of the discussion::)

If Cacher A and Cacher B were to go looking for a specific geocache and during the search Cacher B made the actually discovery of the container should Cacher A be able to log it??? The "Purist" might maintain that Cacher A didn't actually find the cache. ;)
Peace

Good point. I think that's why Lee and I generally will not remove a cache, but announce that we have found it, giving the other a chance to look. Of course, this does not always work perfectly.

brdad
06-20-2007, 08:06 AM
So how do these dogs write in the log and type up the log at geocaching.com . . . seems to me this might be difficult to do without fingers and an opposable thumb. ;) :D

If you have tried to read some of my logs in caches, you'll see I have a hard job writing with fingers and opposable thumbs!

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:06 AM
If there was a prize or an award at the "end" of geocaching then I would be concerned but there is not. Reiterating what has already been said, success and merit of a geocacher should be gauged by the smile on their face at the end of a day/search of geocaching, not by how many, how difficult or how few caches that a geocacher discovered.:D

Cache On and Be Merry!!!
Peace

I agree 100% . . . some of my favorite caching adventures only resulted in a few found caches . . . but the views, the history, the thrill of the hunt, the comraderie of being with friends . . . these are the true prizes for me.

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:07 AM
If you have tried to read some of my logs in caches, you'll see I have a hard job writing with fingers and opposable thumbs!

I think I have seen some of your logs . . . and I know what you mean . . . so how can someone who is so handy (I've seen your work around your house you know) have such a problem with writing utensils? ;) :D

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:12 AM
Good point. I think that's why Lee and I generally will not remove a cache, but announce that we have found it, giving the other a chance to look. Of course, this does not always work perfectly.

When I've gone caching with others this is what we often do . . . I think Rick suggested to us that the first finder announces "I'm sitting" which then allows others in the group the satisfaction of finding the cache on their own . . . I think it is more of a courtesy thing.

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:23 AM
Before we had an explosion of "urban microcaches" in Maine, the motto of this website used to be "The Way Caching Should Be". I haven't seen anyone advocating a new motto lately, so to many people, caching the way people in other states prefer could be called "The Way Caching Should Be" in Maine as well.


Urban microcaches? . . . seems like we're getting an explosion of "rural microcaches" as well.

Like Rick I'm not a big fan of micros, but also like Rick I know some folks love them . . . and I do think there's a place for them. Unlike Rick I think micros in cities can be done successfully without calling undue attention to the cache or cacher if folks use some commonsense.

As for myself I try to avoid using micros in rural areas . . . there are some exceptions (I kind of like the challenge of trying to hide a larger container in various ways and feel as though many cachers -- especially families with kids -- prefer caches where they can make a trade). My "Fill 'er Up" cache for example is a micro due to the fact that I had limited hiding spots and the nearby land was off limits to me. My "Brier's Beach" cache uses a micro . . . namely because I wanted folks to see the view from that area before finding my second stage hide which I thought might be a bit of a challenge -- even though the area it is in offers a less than stellar view. My "Multi" cache offers a little bit of everthing for people to hate/love (puzzles, traditional, multi and of course the micro) . . . my point is while I personally do not like looking for or hiding micros there is a time and place for them since many people do like hiding and finding them . . . and sometimes there is no other option.

firefighterjake
06-20-2007, 08:24 AM
Well, I'll tell you...

I never saw a cache that I wouldn't log! LOL!

After my last rant and rage about micros I thought I should add that like Bruce I can't help myself and if I see a micro I'll still try to find and log it -- often unsuccessfully -- but I'll still try to find it. :D I guess you could say I have a love/hate relationship with micros.

brdad
06-20-2007, 02:49 PM
For me, the problem with micros is not the size, it's that they have a propensity for being hidden in less than optimum locations. They're usually cheap, and easy to carry 50 of them in your pack ready to go when you see that knothole in the tree or lonely light post. Usually, if someone is going to go through the trouble of hiding a $5 ammo can, they might take a few minutes before throwing it behind a park bench. That does not mean full size caches cannot be hidden in less than optimal locations, because some are.

Often the arguments for micros include that many people cannot walk a mile in the woods or they have little kids with short attention spans. Just because people can't walk far does not mean that they would not like to see a pretty spot or have to work a little mentally to find a cache. As far as the kids are concerned, from what I have noticed it seems many little kids don't even like the micros - they want the treasure. I have yet to see justification that I feel is valid for hiding a cache in a light pole behind a fast food place.

I am not against urban micros, but as I stated in a poll I made way back when this site was started, I would not be opposed to increasing the minimum distance between caches to at least a half mile. Yes, even in Urban areas. If there were several spots less than that distance apart, there is always the multicache option, which I know Attroll is not fond of either.

I, too, will log any cache, because I am always looking for that "Wow, I'd have never seen this if not for caching spot", and it's hard to tell what you'll see until you get there.

brdad
06-20-2007, 02:53 PM
I think I have seen some of your logs . . . and I know what you mean . . . so how can someone who is so handy (I've seen your work around your house you know) have such a problem with writing utensils? ;) :D

I think it's partly I am excited from the cache find, want to log before being seen, and I can write much better at a desk than standing up holding the log. Actually, I do very little hand writing, so that probably does not help, either.

Sudonim
06-20-2007, 05:07 PM
Personally, I would consider Old 470 to be a good example of a good urban micro. The container isn't really "micro" sized, but compared to the object it's hidden in, its a micro :)
I think it's a good micro because it takes you to a neat spot and it is a good challange. Not a quick stop and grab.
Micros that make you think, "in plain sight" can be frustrating, but rewarding when you find them. It's more of a puzzle solving than a rural cache on a mountaintop with a view. Different payoffs, same game.

Trezurs*-R-*Fun
06-21-2007, 07:43 AM
I think micros/nanos "done right" are lots of fun. :)

I observed the increase of guardrail caches with the introduction of the "seed" cache. I think the themed seed-cache and resultant caches it generates don't give people the time to really think of great places to place them or the few places that did/do exist were taken up by other like minded cachers. On the same thought, if one had a great place for a cache why place a seed-cache micro when you could place a traditional type container or a "new" cache. While the concept and intent behind seed-caches are great, I see the above as inherent faults.

I will also concede that seed-caches are a great way to increase the "number" of caches in the immediate area and that surely can help to bring cachers in from "away." I'm guilty of this; I find it easier to justify traveling further from home when I know I'm going to be able to find several caches versus one or two.:rolleyes:

Cache On!!
Peace

DustyWalker
07-03-2007, 10:27 PM
There is a cache in northern NB on top of Mt. Carleton. It takes a considerable amount of effort to travel and hike to the cache location. My family and I climbed the mountain and spent quite some time looking for it without success. (6 of us with two GPS units) When I got home to log my DNF I read the logs closely and discovered that the previous 4 or 5 "finders" had been with the hider when it was placed and had claimed it as a find. To each his or her own- the game it what you want to make it, but they did not actually find it and their logs gave me a false sense of security when I went looking for it, assuming that several others had done so before me.

hide_from_the_kids
07-05-2007, 11:12 PM
Everyone plays the game in a different way. That being said, if I was in on the hide in any which way shape or form, I would not log it.

firefighterjake
07-08-2007, 07:42 PM
I ran into another ethics question just the other day when I found a geocacher had logged their own cache as a find . . . well to be more precise about 12 of their own caches as finds. I suppose I could understand if this was a newbie, but they have over 300 finds to their credit. I dropped them a note just in case they didn't realize that most (if any) geocachers do not log their own caches as finds since it's always possible the cacher may not have known this.

Mainiac1957
07-08-2007, 07:55 PM
I ran into another ethics question just the other day when I found a geocacher had logged their own cache as a find . . . well to be more precise about 12 of their own caches as finds. I suppose I could understand if this was a newbie, but they have over 300 finds to their credit. I dropped them a note just in case they didn't realize that most (if any) geocachers do not log their own caches as finds since it's always possible the cacher may not have know
n this.

Another place this seems to be more accepted is where events are concerned. Many folks who host an event also attend them. I personally feel that hosting and event is like placing a physical cache. To have your name on the hidden and the found column is like double dipping. This is just my own personal opinion and I'm not looking to stir up any bad or hard feelings. Most cachers don't find their own hides, that's all.

brdad
07-08-2007, 08:04 PM
Another place this seems to be more accepted is where events are concerned. Many folks who host an event also attend them. I personally feel that hosting and event is like placing a physical cache. To have your name on the hidden and the found column is like double dipping. This is just my own personal opinion and I'm not looking to stir up any bad or hard feelings. Most cachers don't find their own hides, that's all.

I think that's one of the reasons they changed from found logs on events to attended. Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with someone claiming their event as attended. Of course, I will never be confronted with that problem because I will never host an event. ;)

hollora
07-08-2007, 08:18 PM
I think that's one of the reasons they changed from found logs on events to attended. Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with someone claiming their event as attended. Of course, I will never be confronted with that problem because I will never host an event. ;)

Well, I sort of think it's a given, if you host an event you will attend it. Hence - as Mainiac1957 said, you don't log it. Like the event where Cache Maine, becket and I collaborated - Cache Maine published and I don't think she claimed it as attended. becket and I did. Next year, another will be the sponsor and Cache Maine will attend. In the case of a since sponsor like Brad over the years, I don't think he has ever logged it as "found" or "attended".

I have noticed a lot of what I call "double dipping" on "founds" for caches. Usually folks doing maintenance on their own caches and dropping off TBs and others who have found them and are going back to drop off and/or swap off TBs/coins or taking other cachers back. The just do the log as "found" rather than a note.

Some folks catch on and see what is happening and correct their current logs - seldom going back and correcting the old ones. Others just keep doing it the same old way.

Again, this is a personal thing but it truly does "inflate" the numbers for those into that part of the game (numbers). It is a shame that GC could not filter out already found caches and/or owned caches when you go to double log - and actually make you answer some questions before it goes through as a chit on the count.

If anyone notices I have double logged - please let me know and I will correct it. Some double loggers I have noticed on the caches I own, I have deleted the double logs and sent them an email. The same with logged finds not on cache logs. Sometimes there is a reasonable explanation and that provided I let them repost.

This is a user and self regulated sport so talking about this issue, sending inquiry/informative/instructional emails and mentoring seems to be reasonable to me.

Foxgloves
07-08-2007, 08:22 PM
Well I guess I'm sort of guilty of this too except my situation was a little different. This past Spring I offered to adopt a cache that had been neglected for quite a while. I had never gone looking for the cache but it was on my list of 2-do's. So after the approval came through that I could adopt the cache and filled out all the proper paperwork to make it mine, I planned a weekend to go up there and replace the container but to also find the cache for the 1st time. I picked a lousy weekend to go after it :rolleyes: but thats beside the point. I did find it and claimed it as a find and at the same time replaced the cache container (like anyone would if they had been following the cache page and knew it was in need of TLC).

But claiming a cache that you physically placed yourself I do not feel like it should be logged as a find. Thats kind of silly isn't it? I mean you really didn't find it...... but its only a game...and numbers are just numbers...:o

Cache Maine
07-08-2007, 08:29 PM
Like the event where Cache Maine, becket and I collaborated - Cache Maine published and I don't think she claimed it as attended. becket and I did. Next year, another will be the sponsor and Cache Maine will attend.

I did log this event as attended, but I did hem and haw about it for a few days. It's a hard decision, but I think if you want to log it, then you should go ahead. If you don't think it's right, then don't. It's up to the individual and how they feel about.

hollora
07-08-2007, 08:51 PM
I did log this event as attended, but I did hem and haw about it for a few days. It's a hard decision, but I think if you want to log it, then you should go ahead. If you don't think it's right, then don't. It's up to the individual and how they feel about.

Cameoooooo - I guess I had forgetten about that but you are right. It's up to the individual. If anyone has ever done an event, I don't think you would begrudge the sponsor of logging attendance - it's a lot of work!

Thank you for correcting my post.

dí76
07-08-2007, 10:08 PM
I too, have noticed the past couple of months a larger number of cachers logging their own caches as founds. This just seems to weird for me since the name of the game is to find it. Seems like if you placed it you would already know where it is.;)

firefighterjake
07-09-2007, 06:28 AM
For the record, I'm with Dave on this one -- I have no issues with folks hosting and logging an event as attended . . . but in the case I saw recently the person was "finding" and logging their own caches and writing something to the effect of "Just getting a smiley." As I said, maybe they don't realize that this isn't the way most people play the game . . .

brdad
07-09-2007, 06:41 AM
I've made a few predictions over the year based on what I have seen and heard of caching elsewhere, and here is another. As the number of cachers and caches rise, and more and more competition (FTF races, rallies, numbers sprees, etc.) enters a game that was intended to to be individual oriented, the number of intentional "cheaters" will rise. Cheaters is in quotes because these people will feel perfectly justified in their actions and state they are playing the game their way. These people will get caught up in their standings and log caches they have placed, caches they have never found but they think the owner will never check the logs on, and archived caches whose owners are now inactive. This happens elsewhere and sooner or later it will come here. And it's not easy to catch these people anymore - just try to verify the finds of any of us cachers with over 500 finds...

This is just a game, so we can't get too worked up over it or the fun will be lost. We can try to politely educate those that don't understand "normal" caching practices and hope they will understand. But we also have to expect a percentage of those not to pay attention, either.

In any event, try to make any intervention as respectful as possible, because we have to cache alongside these cachers. And remember, it is just a game, having fun is the most important part.

Beach Comber
07-09-2007, 09:20 AM
Seems like if you placed it you would already know where it is.;)

Well, theoretically, that is true - lol - have you ever gone to one of my caches with me? :o

Foxgloves
07-09-2007, 10:33 AM
....It is a shame that GC could not filter out already found caches and/or owned caches when you go to double log

I agree...Jeesh we can send people to the moon for cryin' out loud. :rolleyes:
Why can't GC.com filter/exclude out of a persons finds the caches that already belong to that person or ones they have already been logged once (mistakenly or not)? Seems simple to me since they have all these other fancy filters available.:rolleyes:

GC.com should re-consider events to be just that "events" and not loggable as a cache and then no one would gripe about the host logging their own event. But until they change it the hosts should be able to log their own event...afterall it IS a lot of work to put one on.

Zoltarus
07-09-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't think the earthcache rules would allow placing a cache on top of Mt. Everest. What is the "geologic educational value" to such a cache?

From what I hear it would be a much better idea to host a CITO event on Mt Everest.

One question. . . can you log your own cache if somebody else places it in the wrong spot and you have to go "find" it?

Sabby
07-09-2007, 08:36 PM
Hey take a look at some of the "bigger" events where they place event caches that are intended to be "fun' only. Then look at the number of people that log the event as "attended" for each of these caches they found. I believe that i found one individual who "attended" an event at least a dozen times. That I believe is just plain "WRONG".

Haffy
07-09-2007, 09:52 PM
From what I hear it would be a much better idea to host a CITO event on Mt Everest.

I remember seeing all the garbage that is left on Everest and the amount was staggering, in the hundreds of tons.

FuddsGirls
07-10-2007, 10:15 AM
As far as micro's, they break up a long trip and we find more because the kids will only walk in a distance to one or two.

We hit what I thought would be a micro at a rest stop in maybe Bingham the other day. At the time it seemed awefully far in the woods for a rest stop micro. It was a neat surprise(since I hadn't read the description) to find it was at a marker 45 degrees between the equater and North pole. Why would anyone know that was there if it wasn't for this game.

There is a State park in CT, Kettletown, that hosts an event every year. And every year there are new caches placed for that event. In that though, many are disabled from the past and put in a new location so as not to litter the area.

When the adults in our team find a cache without the kids, we log it. Sometimes we go find it again with the kids and let them actually find it. We don't log it a second time.

When "we" hid our first cache, it was a micro. The "we" was Mom and one child. I had to take the second child so she could find it. We will not log our oun cache as a find. Isn't that why a PQ will exclude your own caches when you run it for unfound caches?

That's my 2 cents for what its worth and how we play the game.

Kaching Karen
07-10-2007, 11:30 AM
I posted an "attended" at one of my own events. Never thought a thing about it, but then a cacher and I had a discussion about it. He swayed me over to the other side. I checked the stats, and yes, the event I hosted is listed as a cache. So.... if I run another event, I won't "attend" it. To me that's double dipping. :) Everyone has their own thoughts on this, and to be honest, I don't think I'd argue them.

Hiram357
07-10-2007, 03:37 PM
I posted an "attended" at one of my own events. Never thought a thing about it, but then a cacher and I had a discussion about it. He swayed me over to the other side. I checked the stats, and yes, the event I hosted is listed as a cache. So.... if I run another event, I won't "attend" it. To me that's double dipping. :) Everyone has their own thoughts on this, and to be honest, I don't think I'd argue them.

I don't think it's wrong to log your own event, because you did "attend" the event (as opposed to "finding" a cache you hid) it's not like going to find a cache that you hid because you already know it's there, you're logging it as attended because you were there. (i think i confused myself...)

and i think it's only "double dipping" for those that are logging it just for the numbers... :p ;) :rolleyes: :D

firefighterjake
07-11-2007, 07:49 AM
For the record, I'm with Dave on this one -- I have no issues with folks hosting and logging an event as attended . . . but in the case I saw recently the person was "finding" and logging their own caches and writing something to the effect of "Just getting a smiley." As I said, maybe they don't realize that this isn't the way most people play the game . . .


Hmmm . . . I sent this cacher an e-mail explaining that most folks don't log their own caches but they're still doing the Found It Log for TB drops. Maybe someone else would like to send them an e-mail explaining geocaching protocols?