Group logging under common nick

Question

What do you think about group logs - I mean group of people go for hunt and makes one common nick for logging (in most cases names shortcut etc.) to be quicker. Sometimes powertrail owners allow this due space saving in logbook and then people from that group log individually on gc.com. But I know about cases where geocachers make own shorten nick and just tells cache owners this are we, who loggend so.
In my opinion is this way of logging at least discutable as geocaching rules says that geocacher should left his/her signature in logbook and then online on gc.com...

Comments

No proble. As long it is explained in the online logs, fo me it's o.k.

Answer 1

I've done this when caching as a group and had this done on my caches as well. No issues at all with it from a cache owner point of view as it saves space in the logs, and as a finder I'll always say in my online log what the physical log was signed as. If you've got a decent sized group of people all caching together, then signing everything individually is going to add significant amounts of time onto every find!

Answer 2

We have no problem with this in any of our owned caches, especially if the log is small and narrow. Most teams let you know in their logs that they are together, and if the weather is wet, the least time the log stays open to the elements, the better its survival (if it is not a waterproof paper type). We sometimes form parts of teams, but we always write full names if the logbook is big enough, relying only on an acronym if it is a micro log.

Answer 3

I don't mind if people do this and I've done it myself occasionally (usually when I'm with a group of cachers on a trip logging lots of caches on the same day and we don't want to keep writing a whole list of long names repeatedly). I try to state in my log what we actually logged as, if it's not a complete list of names.

Answer 4

No problem as long as is traceable who has logged where and when

Answer 5

To answer, as others, it's not a problem and can even be a good thing for the log durability when big groups found a cache.

But, for going farther, it should be a great idea if groundspeak permitted to create "Team Account" which merged datas from GC personnals accounts and allowed real team logging. Of course, it's probably out of the GS projects...

(Thinking... I wonder if this concept could be use on Project-GC... not for logging but to create "Team Stat Pages"...)

Answer 6

I have no problem with a group log in the log book as long as it is explained in the logs online. Sometimes its necessary like in nano caches.

Answer 7

My point of view is it isn't a problème if there is paper for that ... if there is lutter paper i prefere  use team name like even name for the day of the even ...
However, the owner answer there autorisation

Answer 8

I agree with pinkunicorn and Molemon - when on tour as a group we do this as well understanding the online log clarifies what we did. (So far it did not happen to me that any one of our group objected to saying who actually participated ie to give a full list of nicks.) As pointed out already this not only saves room in the logbooks (we usually use only a single space even with 4 or 5 of us) but also reduces the time needed to log and therefore also the risk to get spotted by muggles.

Answer 9

I'm not sure if it matters how the log is signed as long as it's signed and you were present. Do we then state that each individual must sign there own name on every cache?

Answer 10

For my caches I don't mind it as long as every person claiming the find was actually at the cache at the time of the group log.

Answer 11

For physical caches, as long as it's clearly indicated what group name cachers have used, I'm fine with it.  I don't have any high terrain caches anymore, so it's not a question of one person climbing a tree to sign for a group.  If I did, I would feel differently for that cache.

For earthcaches, the whole point is to teach (and learn) an earth science lesson.  If a group stops by and only one person submits answers, I have to wonder how much learning went on, but I still allow it.

I typically don't cache with more than one or two other cachers, so I don't bother signing logs with a group name.  Our usual caching buddies BWB3 have a 4-character name too, so it's easy to squeeze us on the log.

Answer 12

I have no problem with this in any of the caches I own, especially if the log is small and narrow. Most teams let you know in their logs that they are together. It dose not matter how the log is signed as long as it's signed and you were present when it was being signed.