Feature Request - Limit One 'found' Log Per Cache

[Hugh Jazz]

To put to rest finally once and for all the question of posting multiple 'found' logs on a single cache page, I hereby propose that TPTB reprogram the site so that only one smiley ('found it' log) may be posted per cache page listing.

 

And further, I propose that TPTB reprogram the site to prevent cache owners from logging their own caches as 'found,' including event caches.

 

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I'm bringing this up again to promote harmony and reduce angst among all the users of the site, some of whom get their feelings hurt if others post more than one find. To those sensitive souls I say, verily: "Neener, neener, neener."

 

Remember this is a feature request only. TPTB may note it and do with it as they see fit. Commentary on pro/con of this topic is currently being discussed elsewhere, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

-Hugh Jazz

aka 'quitcherbitchin'

[markandlynn]

Questions.

I cant attend my own event now ?

 

That cache i found two years ago and then adopted after i found it do i have to delete my find ?

 

Its the cache owners responsibility to maintain thier cache page, if they allow multiple finds then they allow multiple finds. Personally i delete multiple finds which are usually done by newbies who forget to log in there tbs etc.

[CoyoteRed]

Instead of writing the code to remove the ability to log multiple "found it" logs (which shouldn't actually be that difficult), a fairly simple change in the query to count the logs written when aggregating the find count would be much easier. While I don't know the flavor or version the engine, adding a DISTINCT statement might do the trick. Probably won't even present a performance hit.

 

After all, the number is generally presented as "Found," not "Found It logs written." Take a look at what I mean.

[+HoPri]

Sometimes owners replace a cache at a somewhat different spot after it went MIA. Although you may argue that they should then archive the old and post a new one, there are also voices that think differently. I have seen that owners allow to log "the same cache" (which it isn't really) twice in these cases.

 

Logging a find on one's own cache should normally not happen AFTER it became your cache...

 

However, the whole issue is about how serious you take the complete statistics and # of founds stuff in general. It does not hurt me if some people increase their count by double logging or logging their own caches. This is typically only a very small minority as compared to people who log caches that they haven't properly found at all. But even there, it bothers me personally only slightly.

 

It's a game and nothing in the game depends on the correct finds statistics. Why bother too much about the numbers, and how people get to their's, then? Owners of caches typically do sufficient maintenance work to avoid most of the possible misuse.

 

Happy geocaching,

HoPri

[ElmoClarity]

And what about the logging of your own cache to replace the legit find a cache owner might delete? Logging a find of your own cache, or an extra log on a previously found cache, has been ways I have heard to keep your found count correct.

 

If these types of restrictions are placed on the caches, I would like a change to how logs are deleted. Allow a cache owner to delete a log, but the smiley remains. To actually remove a smiley, it would require admin approval. ( I know this last part won't happen - the admins are too busy with other things to get involved in the log debate).

Edited December 13, 2005 by SirElmo

[+Criminal]

...to prevent cache owners from logging their own caches as 'found,' including event caches.

Events are not geocaches anyway, and attending shouldn't add one to your count.

[+ibycus]

What about an option to allow cache owners to specifically restrict their caches to a single 'found' log per cacher. There are some old traveling caches which I have found quite a few times (~90 times) legitimately, and your opinions on event caches are different than mine.

Same goes for logging your own cache as found. It is perfectly legitimate IMHO to log your own cache as found if you had no way of knowing in advance where the cache was (as might be the case with some traveling caches, or other obscure situations I haven't thought of)

 

Here is why I log my own events. I see planning the event/ as distinct from actually attending the event.

 

One might for example go through all the effort to organize an event, and then find out at the last minute that you can't actually make it. In this case, an 'attended' log doesn't really make logical sense. Alternatively, as might be the case with a CITO event, you might be able to do all the admin work at the event, and not actually do any of the 'event' stuff (like picking up trash.)

In a recent poll on the Calgary Cachers forum, it was found that pretty much everyone supported the owner logging their own event as a find.

 

One thing to bear in mind, is just because the game is played one way where you are, doesn't mean its played that way in other areas. Why should you force your way of playing on everyone else (be you the majority or not).

[+Moose Mob]

...to prevent cache owners from logging their own caches as 'found,' including event caches.

Events are not geocaches anyway, and attending shouldn't add one to your count.

Sure they are

- they have a container (park, pizza parlor, etc).

- they have a log book.

The fact they are "temporary" may be a point of discussion.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

...to prevent cache owners from logging their own caches as 'found,' including event caches.

Events are not geocaches anyway, and attending shouldn't add one to your count.

Sure they are

- they have a container (park, pizza parlor, etc).

- they have a log book.

The fact they are "temporary" may be a point of discussion.

The event itself may be temporary, but the inches added to my waistline by all that pizza linger on!

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I think that there are several reasons why a cache can (and should) allow multiple finds.

-- Brass Caps

-- Older moving caches

-- Game Caches in which the cache "changes" over time (I'm creating a 4-season cache that has a theme require a return to a specific location once each season)

 

Setting a database restriction is not the answer to those cache owners that do not like folks logging their cache placements more than once.

 

Besides -- if you don't want to log an event cache or a traditional cache more than once -- don't.

 

Forcing this restriction seem to be a case of someone not being concerned about THEIR numbers, but being concerned about someone ELSES. (live and let live)

[+ChapterhouseInc]

the many different logging alternatives reduce the validity of comparasons between cachers.

 

someone that only logs other cacher's hides will not be comparable to someone who logs others caches as well as their own.

 

it always comes to some sort of comparison or competition--everything does. if no one cacher does things the same, you have nothing to compare your self to--and then throw in the fake names that only have one find/hide.

 

i thought that this was a part of GC.com, but, obviously, it isn't. the first find was it, and then you only logged notes (if you forgot the TB or go back for some reason). This is instead just a BCP (best geocaching proceedure), enforced by the cacher or owner, who stays on top of their game.

 

say your cache is VERY popular (for GA standards), and has 300 FINDS (plus notes and other things found in log section). it would be a PITA to make sure one of them does not log it as a find again.

 

what about making it like Waymarking.com--you can 'find' it as many times as you want, but the first is the only one to go into stats. the others are just maintained on the waymark page and my log page, and doesn't mess with the stats. this allows people to do what pleases them (play the game) and not affect the rest as much.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

the many different logging alternatives reduce the validity of comparasons between cachers.

 

someone that only logs other cacher's hides will not be comparable to someone who logs others caches as well as their own.

 

snip

 

what about making it like Waymarking.com--you can 'find' it as many times as you want, but the first is the only one to go into stats. the others are just maintained on the waymark page and my log page, and doesn't mess with the stats. this allows people to do what pleases them (play the game) and not affect the rest as much.

Well.....

 

First: I view caching as a leisure activity and play the game my own way -- I dislike the idea of being "compared" to other cachers. My cache finds are lower, my placements are higher, my distances between caches is massive.

 

That's really my own business and not a "competition" that I choose to participate in. This "feature" would limit my freedom -- sorry, can't support that.

 

Second: as I do not care about stats, I do not care how they are calculated. However, once again, limiting the way that someone plays the game to serve the "needs" of those that do compare and seek to compete doesn't seem fair.

 

Why have one set of cachers rules enforced on everyone. If you decide to play some sort of "league" caching game -- then set up your own validation system so that when one of your competitors calls "bingo" you can have them checked out according to your standards.

 

Third: yes, cache maintenance is tough and I do support a cache-owner control that allows them to restrict logging. I would just hate to have this forced on me.

 

I'm in favour of a profile switch that allows cachers to hide their stats.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Questions.

I cant attend my own event now ?

No, you're hosting it

[CoyoteRed]

That's really my own business and not a "competition" that I choose to participate in. This "feature" would limit my freedom -- sorry, can't support that.

Then you're simply using gc.com keep track of your finds for you.

 

If that is the case what do you care if the number is changed to reflect the number of unique caches found, not the number of times you claim to have found a cache?

 

I'd think it would matter less to you, not more.

[+Renegade Knight]

I like the idea. Yeah maybe it will drop my find count a point or two for caches I've adopted but it will also save me from every now and then finding someone who logged a cache twice and I have to ask them to get rid of the extra log.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

That's really my own business and not a "competition" that I choose to participate in.  This "feature" would limit my freedom -- sorry, can't support that.

Then you're simply using gc.com keep track of your finds for you.

 

If that is the case what do you care if the number is changed to reflect the number of unique caches found, not the number of times you claim to have found a cache?

 

I'd think it would matter less to you, not more.

Nope -- wrong.

 

I *do* care about my own relationship with my stats. I like to know the totals for things like events, and traditionals, multi's (in fact, I'd like if the site provided a little dotted map of the caches/events/etc I have found). If I find a moving cache I like to see it in my stats as 2 (or more) finds. If I both attend and organize and event -- I like to log it as a find. Does this "pollute" my stats? Maybe for you and your way of playing -- not for mine.

 

What I don't care for is someone ELSE having a relationship (or a concern, or too much control over) my stats.

 

For example: the simple question -- can you log an event you organized as both the owner and an attendee?

 

Some say YES

Some say NO

 

Adopting an enforced rule that prevents this would clearly favour one opinion over another. However, leaving the system as it is would allow people to choose their own behaviour -- log it or not.

 

The only time this would be an "issue" is if you compared your stats to mine -- which is what I dislike. If you want to compare your stats to mine, I prefer to either know about it and/or control it.

 

After all, your stats are yours and mine are mine -- to be used however we personally decide.

[+nfa]

This is another case of adding more rules to an already rule-bound activity...why bother?

 

Letting people play the game the way they want to play is a great idea, but the reality of it seems to be that many people really mean that, "people should play the way they want to play as long as it is also the way I want to play"

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it, and this ain't broke...adopting new rules in this vein will add more problems then it will solve.

 

jamie

[Jeremy]

I agree that creating a hard and fast rule would cause more trouble than good. I don't think that it is the "right thing to do" but as long as the functionality of the site is not overly abused I'm not going to play nanny to a group of adults.

 

With that said there are some areas that I find particularly abusive. For example, marking a find on an archived cache to match your find count on other sites. That's just super stupid.

 

Yeah, I know you do it. I just think you're too lame to bother with.

 

(edit: rutson let me know I missed a "not" in there. oops!)

Edited December 14, 2005 by Jeremy