Cache Count Method

[+Jeep-O-Caching]

I am sure this has already been discussed to death, but I just noticed a user who logged "found it" into the same cache twice in a row. I checked their cache count against their list displayed under "show all finds". I found that they got credit for finding the cache twice, since one fewer cache was shown under "show all finds" than their count reflected. What's up?

[WH]

A person's cache count tally's the number of find logs, not the number of individual caches. If I only found 1 cache but posted 100 find logs, my stats would show 100 finds.

[+BlueDeuce]

[+Markwell]

You can log multiple finds on single caches to raise your find count.

 

It is considered questionable behavior in most instances. If you revisit a cache at a later date, or visit a cache you have hidden, it is usually considered proper to post a note rather than submit another "found".

[+RPW]

Also you will often see people log an event cache multiple times in order to represent finding the temporary caches placed there. Some people will do one log per cache, some people one log per cache group (if the event has such a thing) and some people like my fellow cacher SK believes in "only one log per geocaching GC number."

 

It boils down to what the cache page owner either allows or what he/she catches.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I am sure this has already been discussed to death, but I just noticed a user who logged "found it" into the same cache twice in a row. I checked their cache count against their list displayed under "show all finds". I found that they got credit for finding the cache twice, since one fewer cache was shown under "show all finds" than their count reflected. What's up?

It's appropriate to log a find again at the same cache ONLY if the cache owner had to move the cache to a new location and then writes in the description that previous finders are welcome to log another find on the cache.

 

That's my opinion anyhow.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I recently put just that note on a cache page - cache missing/replaced and moved to a slightly tougher hide - previous finders can relog. Nobody does though, because they don't see the page when they PQ or just search for nearest unfound, having already found it!

I've had a couple of double found it logs on my caches, always by relatively newbie cachers - I just let it go. If I were paying them for finds that would be a whole 'nother matter.

[+budd-rdc]

It seems most cases of logging multiple finds on a cache is not malicious. I've seen a team of cachers who share an account do that. It's also possible that after logging the find, the database doesn't update fast enough and the cacher can't see his own log, so he posts again.

 

As for logging a find again after a cache has been moved or changed, I don't do that - I just post a note saying that's what happened.

 

There's no enforcement against logging multiple finds on a cache.

[+ibycus]

In some some cases, like a traveling cache for example, its expected that cachers will log a cache more than once (and get 'credit' for it).

[Mushtang]

I recently put just that note on a cache page - cache missing/replaced and moved to a slightly tougher hide - previous finders can relog. Nobody does though, because they don't see the page when they PQ or just search for nearest unfound, having already found it!

I've had a couple of double found it logs on my caches, always by relatively newbie cachers - I just let it go. If I were paying them for finds that would be a whole 'nother matter.

In my opinion, if you change the cache enough to where you're willing to let people log it again, because it would be a different experience for them, then you should have archived the old one and started a new one.

[+Glenn]

I recently put just that note on a cache page - cache missing/replaced and moved to a slightly tougher hide - previous finders can relog. Nobody does though, because they don't see the page when they PQ or just search for nearest unfound, having already found it! 

I've had a couple of double found it logs on my caches, always by relatively newbie cachers - I just let it go. If I were paying them for finds that would be a whole 'nother matter.

In my opinion, if you change the cache enough to where you're willing to let people log it again, because it would be a different experience for them, then you should have archived the old one and started a new one.

I second your opinion.

[+Jeep-O-Caching]

...

In my opinion, if you change the cache enough to where you're willing to let people log it again, because it would be a different experience for them, then you should have archived the old one and started a new one.

This makes sense to me.

 

I subscribe to the "one GC number/one credit" philosophy as well. It was a surprise to me that the website even counts a second find into your total.

[+ODragon]

I subscribe to the "one GC number/one credit" philosophy as well. It was a surprise to me that the website even counts a second find into your total.

I agree with you about 97% of the time. There are a couple of re-occurring event that happen in the area under the same GC number each time. I have no problem with people logging each time they go as another smiley. It is a different event each time even if it's at the same local.