Do You log a Cache as found, Twice?

[+geocacher_coza]

Do you log a cache as found if you went back to a cache you have found before?

Found two logs in "The Tree in the Middle" by the same cacher as found.

My personal opinion is that you should only log a cache as found once, and not as another found if you go back to that cache again.I don’t think it is Geocaching etiquette to log a cache twice as a find!

Edited August 10, 2006 by geocacher_coza

[+Fish Eagle]

Interesting topic. Certainly we would never consider logging a cache for a second time - unless the cache has changed dramatically - eg: got muggled, and replaced nearby in a totally new hide (so that you have to hunt it from scratch), and then only with the owner's permission. (We've never done this though)

 

Recently, while asking Erik's advice regarding a puzzle cache that we are putting together, we slipped in a question about this subject. His response was: no - if the change of hide is minimal, and at the discretion of the cache owner if the change of hide is substantial. However, he recommended that it's far better to archive the old cache and create a new listing for the replacement - which very obviously communicates the owner's intent in offering it to be found again, and also puts it at the top of the country's list to attract attention.

 

The bottom line is that it's up to the cache owner - who should make it clear that the cache may be found and logged again if that's his intent, and if not, should delete the logs of chancers.

 

However, cachers do make bona-fide mistakes - we have seen logs for a second find when they just wanted to note a second visit, and where the log was written on the wrong cache (then normally there is another cache not logged) - so, these issues should be addressed delicately and tactfully.

 

You can check whether you have any such double loggings on your stats by comparing your finds count with the detailed list of finds - eg: if your traditional finds are 126, then the detail list should be 6 pages of 20, and 6 on the last page.

[+GlobalRat]

NEVER

 

Well, there is no rule against it, but it is considered bad caching etiquette.

 

Up to cache owner to manage.

 

IMHO: even if a cache has been moved or fundamentally changed, still no double log. If the cache is so fundamentally different then the cache owner should have created a NEW cache.

 

On a similar topic, have a read at this.

[+M@X Meerkat]

Post a Note. That's what I (Alpha Male) did when I showed my Muggle Mother what caching was all about. We signed the logbook at a cache I had previously visited with Alpha Female and then posted a note to let the owner know that we visited again. Common Courtesy.

[perdix]

No, NO, NO!

 

Cachers who do this will be stoned.

[+M@X Meerkat]

No, NO, NO!

 

Cachers who do this will be stoned.

 

I assume you are refering to logging a cache twice as found, not writing a note. Just need some clarification.

[+QFC]

No, NO, NO!

 

Cachers who do this will be stoned.

 

I assume you are refering to logging a cache twice as found, not writing a note. Just need some clarification.

 

Yip, I think that was the question... even though to most it is probably quite a rhetorical question.

 

 

In my opinion a small smooth stone like a pebble might work the best... hehe...

 

(I actually think it's more by mistake that a cacher wants to write a new log, but doesn't realise that by selecting the "Found It" option it will log a new find for the cacher even if he/she has already found it)

 

Charlie

[+Team JSAM]

Do you log a cache as found if you went back to a cache you have found before?

Found two logs in "The Tree in the Middle" by the same cacher as found.

My personal opinion is that you should only log a cache as found once, and not as another found if you go back to that cache again.I don’t think it is Geocaching etiquette to log a cache twice as a find!

 

Nope, I post a note but that would be lame IMO to post a find more than once unless there was some super special circumstances.

 

-TJ

[+GlobalRat]

In my opinion a small smooth stone like a pebble might work the best... hehe...

 

(I actually think it's more by mistake that a cacher wants to write a new log, but doesn't realise that by selecting the "Found It" option it will log a new find for the cacher even if he/she has already found it)

 

Charlie

 

 

I prefer ones with nasty points on them..... back to medieval days....

 

As for the double log... has happened to me especially when using WAP to log a cache... GPRS does funny things sometimes what with the magnificent coverage we get. Anyway, a log isn't always confirmed or one presses the submit button too many times I've got into the habit of always checking WAP logs, usually edit them anyway.

[+QFC]

Come Brian, lets go to a stoning.

The Life of Brian (not Brick)

OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...

CROWD: Ooooh!

OFFICIAL: ...you are to be stoned to death.

CROWD: Ahh!

MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'

CROWD: Oooooh!

OFFICIAL: Blasphemy!

 

It seems like people have been stoned for far less in the past! But i have to agree with GlobalRat and the woman of the past that bigger is better (stones that is). Jaggered also adds for a more random flight path.

 

 

F (Part 2)

Edited August 15, 2006 by QFC

[+Hectic]

Are there any women here?

[+GlobalRat]

unless there was some super special circumstances.

 

-TJ

 

Care to enlighten us as I can't think of any!?

 

I know some cachers think it’s ok to log a double find if the cache has been moved to a new location by a considerable distance. What is a considerable distance?

 

IMHO a rhetorical question. Even if a cache is moved to a new continent, it’s still the same cache and a subsequent find should still be logged as a note. If the cache is so fundamentally different from the original placement then the cache owner should have created a new cache.

 

Why bother with a note? It’s a courtesy to not only the cache owner but to other cachers as well. It let’s folks know that the cache has been visited and all is still ok, or not, with the cache.

[+emzett]

Recently, I had attended an event cache in the US, and most participants considered it as normal to log it several times as 'attended', because they had found some temporary caches at the event site. Very strange...

 

BTW: I have already logged one of my own caches as a 'find', because after a 'need maintenance log' it was harder to find this one than many other caches I have found before...

 

I don't take the statistics too serious and also haven't logged a lot of caches that I didn't like.

Edited August 15, 2006 by emzett

[+GlobalRat]

..... and also haven't logged a lot of caches that I didn't like.

 

Greetings M... when is your next trip to our neck of the woods?

 

I've heard of a few folks doing this, just wondering the reasoning behind it if you don't mind

[+colinaly]

Interesting topic. I sent the same question to Groundspeak earlier this year and this was the reply.

 

Yes, as the cache owner it is your job to police the logs (if you care) and delete duplicate "finds". Perhaps this cacher doesn't realize they can log a "note" for travel bug drops? I would send a polite note informing him or her of this fact just in case. Happy Geocaching!

 

Warm regards,

 

Nate

Groundspeak - The Language of Location