Logging Your Own Caches

2.9k · July 14, 2006

I just was searching around geocaching.com for some caches to find and noticed that both of these teams have a habit of logging their own caches: florida location folks have logged 18 caches that they have placed and 5 others that they are the co-owners of.

Suprisingly the other owner of these 5 caches, atlantis shuttle commander also logs their own caches as finds.

To me this just is not right, But I guess if I place the cache then turn around 3 times and get a bit dizzy, then look for the cache and find it, it could be considered a find----right????

11.3k · July 14, 2006

Since that isn't generally accepted to be the right way to "play the game," it might give you a bit of insight into their character . . .

Oh . . . did I say that out loud . . .

July 14, 2006

NO!! it is not ok to log your own caches.

The only exception to this would be if you had adopted the cache and had already found it or search for it to verify how it was hidden. After all you did not hide it just adopted it.

July 14, 2006

I was firmly in the "no way" camp untill recently...

I guess I'd still say it's kind of tacky... But it sounds like people are just trying to get some kind of credit for hiding the cache. Why shouldn't the hider get a smiley, or some other credit. They probably put more effort into the cache than the finders will.

Perhaps there should be some kind of hide-smiley. Or just list the # of hides next to the #f of finds in all places where find #s are reported. ie: all logs, etc.

The only place you really see it now is the stats banner, or if you look at their profile.

2.5k · July 14, 2006

I was firmly in the "no way" camp untill recently...

I guess I'd still say it's kind of tacky... But it sounds like people are just trying to get some kind of credit for hiding the cache. Why shouldn't the hider get a smiley, or some other credit. They probably put more effort into the cache than the finders will.

Perhaps there should be some kind of hide-smiley. Or just list the # of hides next to the #f of finds in all places where find #s are reported. ie: all logs, etc.

The only place you really see it now is the stats banner, or if you look at their profile.

You are kidding right? What should they expect, the reward is in having people enjoy your cache, not getting "credit" and praise for hiding it.

July 14, 2006

I guess I'd still say it's kind of tacky... But it sounds like people are just trying to get some kind of credit for hiding the cache. Why shouldn't the hider get a smiley, or some other credit. They probably put more effort into the cache than the finders will.

I'd like to think the credit I would get for my caches would be in the logs of cachers that have genuinely hunted for them and enjoyed doing it.

July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.

July 14, 2006

It seems to me, the creators of the GC software should not have someone finding their own cache increasing their find count. So I wouldn't blame the people logging the finds. I'd blame the software developers for not catching this obvious bug in the software. If they don't fix it, then it would be safe to assume that logging a find on your own cache is OK. Personally, I'd say, as long as the software allows it, then it should be OK. Otherwise it's a bug in the software and it's geocaching.com's fault. This is a basic database design issue.

8k · July 14, 2006

Sometimes you'll have a team, perhaps a Husband and Wife, who usually cache together but sometimes separately. And perhaps they will hide caches separately to allow the other to find it. The puritans, who think the find count is sacred and means only what they want it to mean, will say that each of them should have their own account. Then if one finds a cache without the other, the other could log a find later (instead of a note). Only with separate logs will the find counts be "right". Other people don't really care. Some people will also log their own caches when they go to do maintenance on them and find the cache has been rehidden differently. This also upset the puritans. My recommendation is to not log your own cache unless you do not mind being called a cheater by the caching puritans.

July 14, 2006

You are kidding right? What should they expect, the reward is in having people enjoy your cache, not getting "credit" and praise for hiding it.

If that was really true, why have logs at all? Just drop a cache in the wild and forget about it.

July 14, 2006

Anyone who'd log their own cache ... it's like hanging a bone around your neck so the dog will play with you. What a Loser!

Edited July 14, 2006 by Yamahammer

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

22k · July 14, 2006

It seems to me, the creators of the GC software should not have someone finding their own cache increasing their find count. So I wouldn't blame the people logging the finds. I'd blame the software developers for not catching this obvious bug in the software. If they don't fix it, then it would be safe to assume that logging a find on your own cache is OK. Personally, I'd say, as long as the software allows it, then it should be OK. Otherwise it's a bug in the software and it's geocaching.com's fault. This is a basic database design issue.

Hey do me a favor, place a cache. I need to log a few finds.

Thanks!

11.3k · July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

Isn't this -- -- reason enough to not log your own cache as a Find?

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

actually, i don't have that problem... filtering out "found" caches usually takes out the ones i've planted as well. how are you going about doing it? i add "&f=1" to the end of the address to filter it out...

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

actually, i don't have that problem... filtering out "found" caches usually takes out the ones i've planted as well. how are you going about doing it? i add "&f=1" to the end of the address to filter it out...

I just click the link -- you've lost me there. I'm talking about on the GC site, not in GSAK etc.

18.9k · July 14, 2006

It is frowned upon by those that understand that you can't find something if you already know where it is.

2.5k · July 14, 2006

When I search for nearby cache, I filter out finds and it takes out my hides with it. I assume it works like that for everyone.

2.2k · July 14, 2006

It seems to me, the creators of the GC software should not have someone finding their own cache increasing their find count. So I wouldn't blame the people logging the finds. I'd blame the software developers for not catching this obvious bug in the software. If they don't fix it, then it would be safe to assume that logging a find on your own cache is OK. Personally, I'd say, as long as the software allows it, then it should be OK. Otherwise it's a bug in the software and it's geocaching.com's fault. This is a basic database design issue.

so! just because there is a way to log your own cache, it's geocaching.com's fault?

hmmm. i guess that means it's the software developer's fault when some scumbag plants a virus. it's ok because the software allows it?

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

I've never had caches I own show up on a nearby unfound list.

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

Isn't this -- -- reason enough to not log your own cache as a Find?

Well, yes, if your account is the one that it shows up on. I helped hide a cache with someone else. My name is on the cache as one of the hiders, but it isn't in my list of caches owned, and since I didn't claim a find on it, it isn't in my list of caches found either. I have it bookmarked, so I see the public notes, but I don't see the private notes that get sent to "the cache owner" so I miss that enjoyment.

July 14, 2006

I was firmly in the "no way" camp untill recently...

I guess I'd still say it's kind of tacky... But it sounds like people are just trying to get some kind of credit for hiding the cache. Why shouldn't the hider get a smiley, or some other credit. They probably put more effort into the cache than the finders will.

Perhaps there should be some kind of hide-smiley. Or just list the # of hides next to the #f of finds in all places where find #s are reported. ie: all logs, etc.

The only place you really see it now is the stats banner, or if you look at their profile.

You are kidding right? What should they expect, the reward is in having people enjoy your cache, not getting "credit" and praise for hiding it.

No, I'm not even slightly kidding. Why shouldn't the hider get some sort of recognition? If the only motivation is to get lots and lots of finds, then the incentive is to make un-challenging caches. Some people take pride in how hard it is for their cache to be found.

BTW: if the reward for the finder is in the hunt and find experience, then why do we give the finder a smiley?

July 14, 2006

I've only logged one of our caches, Windsor Meadows State Park; it was a DNF - major bummer.

July 14, 2006

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

actually, i don't have that problem... filtering out "found" caches usually takes out the ones i've planted as well. how are you going about doing it? i add "&f=1" to the end of the address to filter it out...

I just click the link -- you've lost me there. I'm talking about on the GC site, not in GSAK etc.

try this for example: if you go to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...=60056&dist=100, you get the list of the closest geocaches in your area. but if you add "&f=1" to your web browser address, that adds the filter to remove your hides and finds. like this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...56&dist=100&f=1

9.1k · July 14, 2006

It seems to me, the creators of the GC software should not have someone finding their own cache increasing their find count. So I wouldn't blame the people logging the finds. I'd blame the software developers for not catching this obvious bug in the software. If they don't fix it, then it would be safe to assume that logging a find on your own cache is OK. Personally, I'd say, as long as the software allows it, then it should be OK. Otherwise it's a bug in the software and it's geocaching.com's fault. This is a basic database design issue.

It's not a bug at all. There are enough reasons for logging a find on your own cache, generally regarded as legitimate, that this "bug" is left open every time the issue is discussed. Two other reasons:

1. You own a grandfathered moving cache, and you find the cache when someone else re-hides it. You don't know where it is when someone else did the hiding.

2. You are the owner of an event or CITO event cache -- many organizers have no qualms about logging a find (or "attended") on the event they organized. I chose not to, but I'm not terribly bothered by those who chose otherwise.

Groundspeak has not chosen to address this in the database design. That does not mean they condone the behavior of logging finds on your own cache, just that they don't police it.

I can think of one good reason to log your hides as finds:

It takes them off your nearby unfound list. Don't understand why they show up on the unfound list in the first place, but this could be a semi-valid reason to "find" them.

My nearest unfound cache is one that I helped my daughter hide under her account. So, I put it on my "ignore" list as well as on my watchlist. I get the notifications, which I'm interested in, but not the annoyance of seeing the cache in pocket queries, etc.

7.3k · July 14, 2006

The OP's original thread is logging your own cache, would you? and the answer is no. However, I could hardly care less if others do.

I have seen a family account where the kids are finding caches placed by Mom and both the hides and finds are all under the same account. Mom generally explains this in the "found it" log. But it would okay by me if she didn't.

7.2k · July 14, 2006

No, I would not log my own cache.

38.2k · July 14, 2006

But it sounds like people are just trying to get some kind of credit for hiding the cache. Why shouldn't the hider get a smiley, or some other credit. They probably put more effort into the cache than the finders will.

That's an awesome idea. Giving the owner recongition for his hides. I liked it so much I put together a page. let me know what you think. If everyone thinks its a good idea, I will forward it to TPTB and hopefully they will implement it.

Edited July 14, 2006 by briansnat

38.2k · July 14, 2006

Sometimes you'll have a team, perhaps a Husband and Wife, who usually cache together but sometimes separately. And perhaps they will hide caches separately to allow the other to find it. The puritans, who think the find count is sacred and means only what they want it to mean, will say that each of them should have their own account. Then if one finds a cache without the other, the other could log a find later (instead of a note). Only with separate logs will the find counts be "right". Other people don't really care. Some people will also log their own caches when they go to do maintenance on them and find the cache has been rehidden differently. This also upset the puritans. My recommendation is to not log your own cache unless you do not mind being called a cheater by the caching puritans.

Over the years I've looked at probably thousands of cache pages. The instances that I've seen of owners logging finds on their own caches are very, very few. So its not just these so-called puritans who don't think the practice is appropriate.

Sure, the husband and wife thing would be one of the rare times you could justify the practice, but its precisely why my wife and I made separate accounts even though we nearly always hunt caches together.

The puritans, who think the find count is sacred and means only what they want it to mean.

The "puritans" think a find count is a count of finds. The radicals have changed it to mean everything and anything.

Edited July 14, 2006 by briansnat

July 14, 2006

No, I'm not even slightly kidding. Why shouldn't the hider get some sort of recognition? If the only motivation is to get lots and lots of finds, then the incentive is to make un-challenging caches. Some people take pride in how hard it is for their cache to be found.

That's an awesome idea. Giving the owner recongition for his hides. I liked it so much I put together a page. let me know what you think. If everyone thinks its a good idea, I will forward it to TPTB and hopefully they will implement it.

<_<

What a great idea and a way to let others know you placed a cache... Your so on top of things briansnat. I can't wait for GC.com to implement your suggestion. <_<

20.7k · July 14, 2006

I give up. I thought I understood, but I guess I missed it.

The thread's title suggested that it existed to poll the audience to see whether we would log our own caches. His opening post, however, was specific to a couple of teams in Florida. At least three examples have been given where it would be totally fine to log your own caches.

I guess, based on the information submitted, I have to agree that it is totally fine to log one's own cache.

Edited July 14, 2006 by sbell111

38.2k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.

No rules or guidlines govern much of geocaching, but there are mores.

1.3k · July 14, 2006

It's just silly to log finds in own caches. It doesn't make any sense.

No, we don't. <_<

7.2k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.

Well, I wouldn't know where folks get the idea there is a rule or guideline against logging their own cache except maybe where the guidelines say the owner should remove any logs that appear to be bogus. I would think that would imply for the owner to not make any bogus logs.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

20.7k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.
No rules or guidlines govern much of geocaching, but there are mores.

I think that this oversimplifies the many reasons people log finds on their own caches. These range from accidently choosing 'found it' instead of 'Note' to trying to artificially increase their precious find count, but there are many possibilities between the two. I rather doubt that we would have the consensus on most of these reasons that would be required for you to be able to blanket all reasons with 'mores'.

20.7k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.
Well, I wouldn't know where folks get the idea there is a rule or guideline against logging their own cache except maybe where the guidelines say the owner should remove any logs that appear to be bogus. I would think that would imply for the owner to not make any bogus logs.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

GC.com clearly makes the decision as to what is bogus the responsibility of the cache owner. If he/she finds a log to be appropriate, the log stands.

7.2k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.
Well, I wouldn't know where folks get the idea there is a rule or guideline against logging their own cache except maybe where the guidelines say the owner should remove any logs that appear to be bogus. I would think that would imply for the owner to not make any bogus logs.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

GC.com clearly makes the decision as to what is bogus the responsibility of the cache owner. If he/she finds a log to be appropriate, the log stands.

Tis true. If an owner can look himself in the mirror and with a straight face say that he "found" that cache then I guess the log stands.

On the same token, though, that should mean that others would be able to log finds on that cache multiple times. It's the same logic.

20.7k · July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.
Well, I wouldn't know where folks get the idea there is a rule or guideline against logging their own cache except maybe where the guidelines say the owner should remove any logs that appear to be bogus. I would think that would imply for the owner to not make any bogus logs.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

GC.com clearly makes the decision as to what is bogus the responsibility of the cache owner. If he/she finds a log to be appropriate, the log stands.
Tis true. If an owner can look himself in the mirror and with a straight face say that he "found" that cache then I guess the log stands.

On the same token, though, that should mean that others would be able to log finds on that cache multiple times. It's the same logic.

I suppose if you are talking about finds related to moving caches or individual team members making a find, I suppose you are correct.

If you are merely arguing with me because you like to follow me around to snipe, 'meh'.

1.5k · July 14, 2006

I just was searching around geocaching.com for some caches to find and noticed that both of these teams have a habit of logging their own caches: florida location folks have logged 18 caches that they have placed and 5 others that they are the co-owners of.

Suprisingly the other owner of these 5 caches, atlantis shuttle commander also logs their own caches as finds.

To me this just is not right, But I guess if I place the cache then turn around 3 times and get a bit dizzy, then look for the cache and find it, it could be considered a find----right????

What Atlantis Shuttle Commander seems to do, if you look through the logs, is when checking on his caches instead of posting a note he logs them as a find. Perhaps he just needs to be educated in procedure?? I don't really care a whole lot about other peoples cache counts but if you did that every time you checked on a cache it seems to me that your count would be seriously flawed!

20.7k · July 14, 2006

What Atlantis Shuttle Commander seems to do, if you look through the logs, is when checking on his caches instead of posting a note he logs them as a find. Perhaps he just needs to be educated in procedure?? I don't really care a whole lot about other peoples cache counts but if you did that every time you checked on a cache it seems to me that your count would be seriously flawed!

Some people's count would still be perfectly correct.

Edited July 14, 2006 by sbell111

3.9k · July 14, 2006

What Atlantis Shuttle Commander seems to do, if you look through the logs, is when checking on his caches instead of posting a note he logs them as a find. Perhaps he just needs to be educated in procedure?? I don't really care a whole lot about other peoples cache counts but if you did that every time you checked on a cache it seems to me that your count would be seriously flawed!

Some people's count would still be perfectly correct.

A local cacheer here would do exactly that. He had a series of "Poker" caches that he would have to visit from time to time to re-fill it with cards. Every time he did, he'd update the page by leaving another Found It instead of a Note.

My brother, KBI, and I noticed this (about 2 years ago I guess) and just laughed. We didn't know if he was trying to up his find count or if he just didn't realize. Either way it wasn't something that changed the way we cached so it didn't bother us enough to try and do anything about it.

If someone else "finds" their own cache, what's the harm?

July 14, 2006

Most people don't. But there's no rule or guideline against it, despite what others seem to think.

No rules or guidlines govern much of geocaching, but there are mores.

Good point.

There are cachers in my area that log their own finds and while I don't understand why they think it's okay (they told me it's to get them off their nearest caches list), and I think it's just dumb to do it, it doesn't affect me or my enjoyment of geocaching.

3k · July 14, 2006

What Atlantis Shuttle Commander seems to do, if you look through the logs, is when checking on his caches instead of posting a note he logs them as a find. Perhaps he just needs to be educated in procedure?? I don't really care a whole lot about other peoples cache counts but if you did that every time you checked on a cache it seems to me that your count would be seriously flawed!

Some people's count would still be perfectly correct.

<_<

8k · July 14, 2006

BTW: if the reward for the finder is in the hunt and find experience, then why do we give the finder a smiley?

Beats me. I don't look at the find count as any kind of reward. I actually agree with briansnat (everything he says is right-on). To me the find count just means how many caches I've found. I am suspect of everybody else's find count - since some people may be logging finds by mistake, or because they think a find means something other than you found the cache, or they want to give themselves a reward for trying. Hey, if some Person Of Little Intellect (POLI) thinks smileys are worth enough to post fake logs to get them, I'm not going to stop them.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

This may be where most people will part ways with the puritans. There are many reasons a cache finder and owner may agree to allow a find when the log book wasn't signed. There are many reasons when an owner won't allow a find log even though the log is signed because they have stated additional requirements on the cache page. You can have a simplistic puritan definition of a find or you can realize that geocaching is about having fun and that different people play the game differently. It's up to the cache owner to enforce logging requirements as he sees fit. It's up to the finder to meet all of the requirements for finding a cache before logging a find. It's up to the forums to use public ridicule and humiliation to force finders and hiders to stay within community standards.

38.2k · July 14, 2006

BTW: if the reward for the finder is in the hunt and find experience, then why do we give the finder a smiley?

Beats me. I don't look at the find count as any kind of reward. I actually agree with briansnat (everything he says is right-on). To me the find count just means how many caches I've found. I am suspect of everybody else's find count - since some people may be logging finds by mistake, or because they think a find means something other than you found the cache, or they want to give themselves a reward for trying. Hey, if some Person Of Little Intellect (POLI) thinks smileys are worth enough to post fake logs to get them, I'm not going to stop them.

Of course, the next thing to do is argue what "found" means.

This may be where most people will part ways with the puritans. There are many reasons a cache finder and owner may agree to allow a find when the log book wasn't signed. There are many reasons when an owner won't allow a find log even though the log is signed because they have stated additional requirements on the cache page. You can have a simplistic puritan definition of a find or you can realize that geocaching is about having fun and that different people play the game differently. It's up to the cache owner to enforce logging requirements as he sees fit. It's up to the finder to meet all of the requirements for finding a cache before logging a find. It's up to the forums to use public ridicule and humiliation to force finders and hiders to stay within community standards.

Most people? After looking at thousands of cache logs over the years its apparent to me that most people's definition of a find involves finding a cache. At last count there were over 2,500 found it logs on my caches.

I think out of that, one person did not actually find the cache. That doesn't sound like "most people" to me.

I think the radicals are actually a small subset of the geocaching community.

5.9k · July 14, 2006

Wouldn't that be like throwing down a dollar bill and then yelling, "Hey, I found a dollar!"

<_<

July 14, 2006

The only numbers that matter are your own, and they matter only to you.

If your counts represent to you a fair and accurate picture of your own caching activity, then all is well with the world.

As a cache owner, it is up to you as to how aggressively you wish to audit "found it" logs and how aggressively you wish to follow up on questionable logs.

Beyond that, you need seek no further, grasshopper. <_<

July 14, 2006

no

20.7k · July 14, 2006

Wouldn't that be like throwing down a dollar bill and then yelling, "Hey, I found a dollar!"

I like you, Criminal, but that analogy didn't really work for me the first time.

20.7k · July 14, 2006

Most people? After looking at thousands of cache logs over the years its apparent to me that most people's definition of a find involves finding a cache. At last count there were over 2,500 found it logs on my caches.
I think out of that, one person did not actually find the cache. That doesn't sound like "most people" to me.

I think the radicals are actually a small subset of the geocaching community.

I think you will find that the radicals, on both ends of the spectrum, are actually a small subset of the geocaching community.

Logging Your Own Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment