[Az-Geocaching] Virtually Confounded

[Trisha]

Hi Steve and everybody,

Joe wrote quite an articulate and I think common sense response. I'd
like to add my personal perspective because I have done this cache.

Specifically, this was a cute and unique place. What a fun delight!
Steve, I am glad you made it a "cache" so I then was able to
experience it. I was also glad to look for and answer the specific
questions, and count it as a "find". I hope you can leave it in place
for others to enjoy.

As mentioned, I think one important thing from a geocaching
perspective is proof that the person was "there". Answering all but
the last question correctly certainly meets that standard; however, I
would add this for consideration: Many caches include some degree of
difficulty in locating it (a "find"), using "terrain" or camoflage.
Question #5 might be considered part of the virtual cache's
"camoflage"! I really had to look hard for that answer, as hard as I
have looked for some of...for example...graldrich's micros. In those
cases, someone can't legitamately count it as a "find" unless you find
that
little-stupid-painted-velcroed-and/or-magnet-stuck-up-the-***-mint-can
!!

Just something to think about. I love this Virtual cache and the fact
that it was a bit tough. Not everyone likes that kind of challange,
but then again, I am not able to log a "find" on some caches that
require steep hiking to get to. It's about what each person likes to
or is able to do, including tricky clues and such. Variety is great~!

It's still up to you how free or how legalistic you want to be. 

Well, my rambling probably just confuses the issue, sorry!

take care,
Trisha "Lightning"
Prescott



On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:24:14 -0700, "Joe Brekke" wrote:





@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
}
P.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
	COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}



Steve,
 
If you remember we correctly gave the answer to #5 
but blew an earlier question...to bad I never learned to count...or
write things 
down correctly.  (more probably I was distracted in what I was writing
down 
as I was trying to pull my 2 y.o. out of the nearby water elements).  

 
Although I did say that I thought I counted the 
"correct" answer but I wrote down ____ I still got it wrong.  I could
have 
easily corrected it since I knew intuitively what was the correct
answer.  
Maybe the difference is that I let you know that if you deemed the
answer to be 
incorrect that I would delete the log myself and go get it some other 
time.  You told me that you knew that I visited the area, especially
since 
I got #5 right and that it would be ok.
 
In the end it is your cache, and you can enforce or 
relax the "rules" for it any way you would like.  For me personally I 
wouldn't log a cache as a find if either didn't look for or just
didn't find the 
answer for something which is what you describe is happening.  

 
For me personally, I don't really prescribe to the 
whole deleting finds issue.  One reason is that you are really not
going to 
change the outlook of a person that logs a bogus find.  An example:  
At the very beginning of my caching, I hid a cache that was a 4 part 
cache.  When I wrote down the numbers for the coordinates, I
transposed one 
of them (really dyslexic person here).  It was reported to me.  At the 
time, I didn't know you could temporarily disable a cache, and trying
to do the 
right thing (because I thought people would go out there and waste
their time 
looking for it) I temporarily posted the coordinates for each of 
the stages (including the final cache coordinates) until I could get 
out there and straighten it out.  Now I gave those coordinates
thinking 
that anyone finding the cache would do what I would have done, which
was find 
each of the stages before going on to the next.  Well, it turns out 
that isn't what happened.  The team that found it just went to the
final 
cache location.  Now let me get to the point.  I got uppity and anal, 
and threatened to delete their find.  (What a jerk).  I was 
WRONG.  It's just a GAME.  I GAVE them the coordinates.  I 
learned a valuable lesson at that time.
 
>From that point on I have always tried to avoid 
playing CACHE COP and take people a face value.  If they forget or
decide 
not to sign a log book ok that's their choice or mistake...everyone
makes 
them.  If they make a bogus "find", or lie, or cheat, in the end, 
it really doesn't hurt me, and my deleting their log is not going to
change 
their character.  In fact, Steve, I think you and I and TM & DV have 
learned that you can't change the outlook of people either, and you
end up with 
the Tierra Blunder Sissy Cache...although I must say 
it is always nice to have something named after you...:)  
 
I can say that I have retrieved logs from some of 
our caches, and gone back and verified on line logs to them.  I have
found 
some discrepencies...in fact on a couple of occasions the logs that
were missing 
are from teams who are currently in the top 10 of the AZ stat page.  I 
have NO DOUBT that these individual teams visited the cache, however
there is 
not an entry in the log to prove it.  Whatever the reason they did not
log 
them.  Did I delete them?  No.
 
So Steve it's your choice.  In the end ask 
yourself if you gain anything by deleting an on line find.  This cache
is a 
great one and is one that I would hate to see go by the new rules. 
The 
true cachers will not log the find if they have not found the answer
you are 
seeking.  The ones who log the finds without the correct information
are 
the ones that are losing...they don't share in the satisfaction of the
true find 
which is the spirit in which it was inteded to be found.  If someone
is 
satisfied with making an incomplete find, you are never going to
change their 
outlook.
 
Joe
TeamBlunder
 
----- Original Message ----- 

  From: 
  Team Tierra Buena 
  To: Arizona Geocaching 
  
  Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:35 
  AM
  Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Virtually 
  Confounded
  
  
  Many of you have done our 
  “Informal Introductions” virtual cache (GCAB5C). For those of you
that 
  haven’t, it’s a very kid-friendly hunt that requires the seeker to
provide us 
  with the answers to five questions. Finding the answer to the fifth
question 
  is a little bit trickier than most virtuals, so we rated the
difficulty at 
  2.
  I’ve become surprised by the 
  number of people who have sent emails that contain either an
incorrect answer 
  to question 5, or an admission that they were unable to find that
answer; 
  these cachers then log as “finds”. The cache page states “emailing
incomplete 
  or incorrect answers may result in our deleting your log entry
without 
  notice”.
  On one hand, the purpose of 
  answering the questions to a virtual is to prove that the seeker was
in the 
  right place. So if you get four out of five correct, it’s pretty
obvious the 
  seeker was there. And we did let one guy skate because he was
visiting from 
  out-of-state, and had already left town when he emailed his answers.
But many 
  people have returned a second time after being told that they got it
wrong, 
  and they were then able to find the correct answer.
  So whaddya think? Should we 
  strictly enforce our own rule out of fairness to those who have
gotten all the 
  right answers or have gone back to finish the hunt, or should we say
“it’s 
  only a game” and let them take the credit for the find? I should
point out 
  that finding the correct answer to the fifth question brings the
seeker to a 
  particularly clever aspect of this entire area, which is why we set
the 
  question we did.
  We talked about using only that 
  question instead of five, but we followed Highpointer’s approach to
his museum 
  cache series, where finding the answers to all the questions takes
the seeker 
  around the entire area, which is what we want them to do. We don’t
want them 
  just running in, finding one answer and taking off for the next 
  cache.
  We’ve also discussed raising the 
  difficulty level to 3 and/or modifying the cache description to
state 
  specifically that the correct answer to question 5 must be
submitted, but I’m 
  afraid that making any modifications to the cache page might result
in it’s 
  being re-evaluated under the current guidelines for virtuals, and
then we 
  might be forced to archive a cache that always gets positive log 
  comments.
  We welcome your comments and 
  suggestions, but please avoid posting anything that might be a
spoiler. 
  TIA.
  Steve
  Team Tierra 
Buena