logging event caches

[+sweetlife]

Here in wisconsin, many Geocachers Seem to think that you can log a Attended event for every temporary cache they find during the event, Is there a way in the system that it could be set up that you can only log a cache once, not just events attended even regular caches should only be able to be "found" once by each geocaching account. This would make the numbers game a little less inflated, would be really nice if this would go retroactive and fix all past logs too. I just think its odd to attend the same event over and over again. We have even ran across people doing maintainance on their own caches and logging this as a find multiple times at the same cache.

[+ibycus]

I would be very surprised if this *ever* happend, although it has been asked for.

 

As the event owner, you can make it known that you don't want people to log the event more than once, that is your perogative as event owner.

 

FYI There are caches where logging it more than once is completely appropriate, like GC43F3, or GCA0D6 for starters...

[+Glenn]

I'd like to see a feature where the cache owner could, on a cache by cache basis, restrict multiple find logs.

[Mushtang]

Here in wisconsin, many Geocachers Seem to think that you can log a Attended event for every temporary cache they find during the event, Is there a way in the system that it could be set up that you can only log a cache once, not just events attended even regular caches should only be able to be "found" once by each geocaching account. This would make the numbers game a little less inflated, would be really nice if this would go retroactive and fix all past logs too. I just think its odd to attend the same event over and over again. We have even ran across people doing maintainance on their own caches and logging this as a find multiple times at the same cache.

How would this help you? How does it hurt you currently?

 

I don't understand why people get so upset about the way that other people play the game.

[+ibycus]

I'd like to see a feature where the cache owner could, on a cache by cache basis, restrict multiple find logs.

 

This would be nice. I doubt it would do anything for the OP though. Sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it isn't his cache, and he's getting annoyed about the way some people choose to play the game.

 

There is another way to solve the problem if you're the event organizer. Don't hide temp caches for the event. Only hide permanent gc.com approved caches.

[+sweetlife]

I guess this is where I am coming from there is One Page on Geocaching, One GC**** Number, wouldn't that be one log, one Smiley????

[+klossner]

I guess this is where I am coming from there is One Page on Geocaching, One GC**** Number, wouldn't that be one log, one Smiley????

I don't follow this logic at all. Continuing on this path, there should be only one cacher allowed to log it, and everybody should look at the web page no more than one time.

 

I'm not seeing why my logging a cache twice is a problem that you need be concerned with. Sometimes at home I rearrange my deck so I can win at Solitaire. Do you want to restrict this too?

[+ibycus]

I guess this is where I am coming from there is One Page on Geocaching, One GC**** Number, wouldn't that be one log, one Smiley????

 

Not necessarily. (but generally I agree with you) There are exceptions to every rule.

[+BlueDeuce]

I wouldn't be opposed to one found it per cache, but like ibycus I'd be surprised if it happened.

 

Although, I have on occasion been surprised by gc.com's positions/changes.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

There are too many instances where a second find could be legit for the idea to work. The legitimacy of any finds after the 2nd dimishes rapidly IMHO tho...

[+Glenn]

I guess this is where I am coming from there is One Page on Geocaching, One GC**** Number, wouldn't that be one log, one Smiley????

One would think.

[+AB4N]

I would like to see the stats page also include the total number of unique finds. Not necessarily a number for each cache type, but one cumulative number at the bottom of the page.

[+Glenn]

I'd like to see a feature where the cache owner could, on a cache by cache basis, restrict multiple find logs.

 

This would be nice. I doubt it would do anything for the OP though. Sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it isn't his cache, and he's getting annoyed about the way some people choose to play the game.

 

There is another way to solve the problem if you're the event organizer. Don't hide temp caches for the event. Only hide permanent gc.com approved caches.

 

I see allowing the event organizer the option to restrict multiple attended logs as the perfect solution and the answer to the OPs conserns. Your advice resticts temporary caches at event caches where the event organizer doesn't want mutiple attended logs.

 

IMHO, caches placed just for events are a blast. I just feel that you shouldn't earn a point each time you find one. My suggestion will make managing an event, for those who feel the same as myself, a whole lot easier. Since it could be set up as an option it won't infringe on those who like to attend events multiple times.

[+ibycus]

There are too many instances where a second find could be legit for the idea to work. The legitimacy of any finds after the 2nd dimishes rapidly IMHO tho...

 

There is one cache I've found nearly 100 times. Every find is 'legit'.

[+ibycus]

I'd like to see a feature where the cache owner could, on a cache by cache basis, restrict multiple find logs.

 

This would be nice. I doubt it would do anything for the OP though. Sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it isn't his cache, and he's getting annoyed about the way some people choose to play the game.

 

There is another way to solve the problem if you're the event organizer. Don't hide temp caches for the event. Only hide permanent gc.com approved caches.

 

I see allowing the event organizer the option to restrict multiple attended logs as the perfect solution and the answer to the OPs conserns. Your advice resticts temporary caches at event caches where the event organizer doesn't want mutiple attended logs.

 

IMHO, caches placed just for events are a blast. I just feel that you shouldn't earn a point each time you find one. My suggestion will make managing an event, for those who feel the same as myself, a whole lot easier. Since it could be set up as an option it won't infringe on those who like to attend events multiple times.

 

Of course the event organizer could SAY in big letters on the cache page how they feel about multiple logs for the event, and then enforce it by deleting double/triple loggers etc...

[AZcachemeister]

It's up to the owners to enforce this by deleting spurious (extra) logs.

But then those who put on events are worried that any future event may be ignored by those ({super capital, double extra bold L}losers) who expect a smiley for every temporary 'cache' they find.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.

I am in one league, and they are in another.

Edited September 7, 2006 by AZcachemeister

[+Corp Of Discovery]

There are too many instances where a second find could be legit for the idea to work. The legitimacy of any finds after the 2nd dimishes rapidly IMHO tho...

 

There is one cache I've found nearly 100 times. Every find is 'legit'.

 

And that cache, being an apparently grandfathered moving cache at best or a disguised locationless cache at worst (if so, it may get archived like others of it's type have been), is an oddity.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+Glenn]

I'd like to see a feature where the cache owner could, on a cache by cache basis, restrict multiple find logs.

 

This would be nice. I doubt it would do anything for the OP though. Sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it isn't his cache, and he's getting annoyed about the way some people choose to play the game.

 

There is another way to solve the problem if you're the event organizer. Don't hide temp caches for the event. Only hide permanent gc.com approved caches.

 

I see allowing the event organizer the option to restrict multiple attended logs as the perfect solution and the answer to the OPs conserns. Your advice resticts temporary caches at event caches where the event organizer doesn't want mutiple attended logs.

 

IMHO, caches placed just for events are a blast. I just feel that you shouldn't earn a point each time you find one. My suggestion will make managing an event, for those who feel the same as myself, a whole lot easier. Since it could be set up as an option it won't infringe on those who like to attend events multiple times.

 

Of course the event organizer could SAY in big letters on the cache page how they feel about multiple logs for the event, and then enforce it by deleting double/triple loggers etc...

 

You sure can. But why continue to do something that a computer can do for you and do it better?

 

If Groundspeak wanted to they could have not added any features to Geocaching.com that make cache page management easier. Then Geocaching.com wouldn't look much different than these forums. I like any tool that will allow a cache owner to better manage his cache page.

[Mushtang]

You sure can. But why continue to do something that a computer can do for you and do it better?

I totally agree. If you need to do something, and a computer program can be written to help you, then I'm all for it.

 

What I don't agree with here is that something needs to be done to begin with. Why does it matter to anyone if someone else wants to pad their numbers?

 

How does it hurt you (or anyone) to leave things the way they are so these people can play their way, and how would it help you (or anyone) to change the website so multi-logs are no longer possible?

[+mtn-man]

I sort of doubt anything will be done either from a Groundspeak perspective. The practice of huge multiple logging of events in WI has been going on for some time. It seems to be just about the only place that does it in such high volume. Some places will have 3 to 5 extra caches, but they seem to do like 50 at a time from what I recall. Honestly, I go to events to talk to people and meet them, so an event of this nature just to run up finds does not interest me at all. Unfortunately, you are just stuck there unless you attend an event in another state or something. Better yet, hold a purely social event of your own. I bet some folks would really appreciate it.

 

Unfortunately, as a by product, when I see a cacher is from WI I tend to dismiss their finds and assume many are these event logs.

 

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. I have two very old traveling caches. If you can find it again, you can log it as a find again. One travels the country and no one has found it twice yet. The second one hangs around Metro Atlanta and I think it only has one or two people who caught up with it twice. (I do not allow multiple logs if you see it at an event.)

[+Glenn]

You sure can. But why continue to do something that a computer can do for you and do it better?

I totally agree. If you need to do something, and a computer program can be written to help you, then I'm all for it.

 

What I don't agree with here is that something needs to be done to begin with. Why does it matter to anyone if someone else wants to pad their numbers?

 

How does it hurt you (or anyone) to leave things the way they are so these people can play their way, and how would it help you (or anyone) to change the website so multi-logs are no longer possible?

Not implementing this feature hurts cache owners. Implementing this feature hurts no one.

 

It hurts cache owners who don't want multiple find or atteneded log on their cache listings. As a cache owner who doesn't want that I have to review each log entry on the cache page every time someone makes a log entry to ensure that it isn't a multiple. Sometimes this is quick and easy and other times it is real chore. This feature would make that part of my job 100% easier.

 

Why do you feel a cache owner shouldn't have this as an option to be able to turn on or off as they see fit?

It sounds as if you are saying that someone making a log entry on a cache page should have more control over the cache page than the owner of the cache.

 

How would a feature like this hurt anyone? The answer is that it wouldn't. If you want to "keep your numbers correct" you can do what is normally done now. Find a cache listing (or list your own) where multiple find logs are allowed and make a found log on that cache. That is what happens now when someone who is conserned about their numbers keeps getting their multiple find logs deleted by a cache owner.

 

Not implementing this feature hurts cache owners. Implementing this feature hurts no one.

[+klossner]

Not implementing this feature hurts cache owners. Implementing this feature hurts no one.

This is similar to a feature that I've asked for: I want my cache page to disallow logging by a cacher who is not from my state. The web page is plainly marked "no logging by out-of-state cachers," but some people ignore that and log it anyway. It's a lot of work for me to review every log, check the logger's profile, and delete those from another state. The web site should be able to do this for me.

 

Not implementing this feature hurts screwball cache owners like me. Implementing the feature hurts no one. Well, except people who want to "play the game their way," but my will as cache owner trumps theirs.

[+ThePropers]

This has been discussed ad nauseum, and I hope it's never ever ever implemented, because if it is, I'll literally fall over dead of surprise.

 

Other topics of interest that applies to this discussion:

 

Topic 1

 

One of my posts

 

Here's a picture I even made once that I thought would be super-easy to implement.

 

I have given up, but still like to reiterate my suggestions just on the off chance that it's something that's being considered.

Edited September 8, 2006 by ThePropers

[+BlueDeuce]

You can only get one "found it" stat count when you find a travel bug. You don't get one every time you drop and retrieve it through a bunch of caches.

 

You find the TB in California, a year later you find the bug in New York, guess what? You don't get another stat count. You already found it.

 

Why should I get a cache count everytime I drop a bug in it?

 

Oh I see, you had to (fill in the blank)

[+FamilyDNA]

Not implementing this feature hurts cache owners. Implementing this feature hurts no one.

This is similar to a feature that I've asked for: I want my cache page to disallow logging by a cacher who is not from my state. The web page is plainly marked "no logging by out-of-state cachers," but some people ignore that and log it anyway. It's a lot of work for me to review every log, check the logger's profile, and delete those from another state. The web site should be able to do this for me.

 

Not implementing this feature hurts screwball cache owners like me. Implementing the feature hurts no one. Well, except people who want to "play the game their way," but my will as cache owner trumps theirs.

Why would you not want out of state visitors?

 

By the way- if this is one of your caches, it's not as plainly marked as you think, as I just scanned all your caches to find it and couldn't. Would you mind posting the GC number? Now I'm curious.

[+ThePropers]

You can only get one "found it" stat count when you find a travel bug. You don't get one every time you drop and retrieve it through a bunch of caches.

 

You find the TB in California, a year later you find the bug in New York, guess what? You don't get another stat count. You already found it.

 

Why should I get a cache count everytime I drop a bug in it?

 

Oh I see, you had to (fill in the blank)

 

Really? That's interesting and I've never noticed. Well, it would be silly to increase your TB found count if you found it more than once in completely different caches. But it makes perfect sense to increase your find counts if you happen to attend the same event cache 50 times.

 

Oh wait, no it doesn't. That doesn't make any dagdum sense at all!

[+AB4N]

I sort of doubt anything will be done either from a Groundspeak perspective. ...

 

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. ...

 

I agree completely that Groundspeak is not and should not be "log police"

 

However I think that having an additional number on the stats page that shows the total "unique" finds (a total number that excludes multiple logs of the same cache) would help to quell the problem to some degree. But better than that, it would be a more accurate total of caches found in most cases.

 

This should a compromise solution for both camps.

 

Unfortunately this would not discount the logs that a few people make on caches they never found - the so called armchair caches in states/countries that they have never visited. What kind of sick mind does that anyway?

[+Glenn]

Not implementing this feature hurts cache owners. Implementing this feature hurts no one.

This is similar to a feature that I've asked for: I want my cache page to disallow logging by a cacher who is not from my state. The web page is plainly marked "no logging by out-of-state cachers," but some people ignore that and log it anyway. It's a lot of work for me to review every log, check the logger's profile, and delete those from another state. The web site should be able to do this for me.

 

Not implementing this feature hurts screwball cache owners like me. Implementing the feature hurts no one. Well, except people who want to "play the game their way," but my will as cache owner trumps theirs.

If you follow some of the threads on this board then you will know that when someone has a complaint about an unusual logging requirement it is usually the cache owner that wins.

 

If you want to know if I would be for the feature that you described the answer is yes. Do I think someone like would have have a change of being implimented at this time? No, there doesn't seem to be enough support. But, if there ever is then I think it would have a very good chance. However, I have seen quite a few threads about multiple logs on caches. Do I think that enough people would use the feature that I described for it to be considered? Maybe not right now but soon.

[+Glenn]

<snip>

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. I have two very old traveling caches. If you can find it again, you can log it as a find again. One travels the country and no one has found it twice yet. The second one hangs around Metro Atlanta and I think it only has one or two people who caught up with it twice. (I do not allow multiple logs if you see it at an event.)

Who is asking Groundspeak to police cache logs? That is the job of the cache owner. I am suggesting a feature that will aid cache owners in the policing or management of their own cache pages.

[+ThePropers]

This is similar to a feature that I've asked for: I want my cache page to disallow logging by a cacher who is not from my state. The web page is plainly marked "no logging by out-of-state cachers," but some people ignore that and log it anyway. It's a lot of work for me to review every log, check the logger's profile, and delete those from another state. The web site should be able to do this for me.

 

Not implementing this feature hurts screwball cache owners like me. Implementing the feature hurts no one. Well, except people who want to "play the game their way," but my will as cache owner trumps theirs.

 

1) Why do you want to limit caches to exclude out-of-staters? Do you hate us?

2) Which cache is this? I just went through all of your caches, and saw none that were marked this way. of course, I did just skim the descriptions, but if it was "plainly marked" I think I would have seen it.

3) I doubt this will ever be implemented. This would affect (I'm guessing) your cache and maybe 2 or 3 others. There are many many many more useful suggestions that time would be better spent on and would affect a wider variety of cachers. Just my .02.

[+Wacka]

There is one cacher that is listed in various top 10 lists with over 1000 event caches. It is obvious he is cheating. I know several other cachers in the top ten and they just ignore him when discussing where they are on the list (if they do it at all).

[+mtn-man]

I sort of doubt anything will be done either from a Groundspeak perspective. ...

 

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. ...

 

I agree completely that Groundspeak is not and should not be "log police"

 

However I think that having an additional number on the stats page that shows the total "unique" finds (a total number that excludes multiple logs of the same cache) would help to quell the problem to some degree. But better than that, it would be a more accurate total of caches found in most cases.

 

This should a compromise solution for both camps.

 

Unfortunately this would not discount the logs that a few people make on caches they never found - the so called armchair caches in states/countries that they have never visited. What kind of sick mind does that anyway?

You are taking my quotes out of context. Those quotes relate to the next line after the first snipped line in you quoted above.

The practice of huge multiple logging of events in WI has been going on for some time.

I was talking about stopping multiple logs on event pages. I don't see Groundspeak stopping that practice any time soon.

 

I actually *LOVE* the suggestion of showing unique caches found, as ThePropers illustrated. (That graphic you created is just hysterical, but almost right.) I do wish TPTB would run with that idea. Another thing this solution would not account for is if the cache was moved, which happened with older caches sometimes. My first find was an easy 1/1.5. It was moved and made a much more difficult cache and I found it again for my 100th cache. Two totally different caches, but one cache page. That is no big deal though, and ThePropers suggested method would not bother me with my double find in the least.

[+mtn-man]

<snip>

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. I have two very old traveling caches. If you can find it again, you can log it as a find again. One travels the country and no one has found it twice yet. The second one hangs around Metro Atlanta and I think it only has one or two people who caught up with it twice. (I do not allow multiple logs if you see it at an event.)

Who is asking Groundspeak to police cache logs? That is the job of the cache owner. I am suggesting a feature that will aid cache owners in the policing or management of their own cache pages.

It was asked in the original post for heaven sake.

They even suggested having GC.com go back and delete past multiple found logs off of all old caches.

Is there a way in the system that it could be set up that you can only log a cache once, not just events attended even regular caches should only be able to be "found" once by each geocaching account. This would make the numbers game a little less inflated, would be really nice if this would go retroactive and fix all past logs too.

If you read my entire post you quoted again, you will see that I was talking to the OP. I even suggested that they hold a purely social event to show you can go to an event and only get one smiley and still have fun.

[+ThePropers]

I actually *LOVE* the suggestion of showing unique caches found, as ThePropers illustrated. (That graphic you created is just hysterical, but almost right.) I do wish TPTB would run with that idea. Another thing this solution would not account for is if the cache was moved, which happened with older caches sometimes. My first find was an easy 1/1.5. It was moved and made a much more difficult cache and I found it again for my 100th cache. Two totally different caches, but one cache page. That is no big deal though, and ThePropers suggested method would not bother me with my double find in the least.

 

Thanks....obviously I exaggerated a bit for effect. The nice thing about this solution is that I don't think it would take long to implement (on the backend I believe it would be another select just like the current finds count, but a "select distinct" instead and then some coding to add the new column).

 

Also, it doesn't affect anyone logging multiple finds if they choose to do so.

Edited September 8, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Isonzo Karst]

I can already do what ThePropers propose, just by grabbing a PQ of my finds. GSAK then very nicely talleys up the number of unique cache types, and that lets me know about the duplicates. I have a ton of logs on Dash for Cache, and some other Locationless multiples. Why would you care? I hardly do.

[+AB4N]

You are taking my quotes out of context. Those quotes relate to the next line after the first snipped line in you quoted above....

 

Just to clarify that I actually was not taking your quote out of context. I was using your quote as a contrast between what we both agree will not happen, which is delete multiple logs, to what we both hope will happen, which is include a unique finds count.

[+AB4N]

I can already do what ThePropers propose, just by grabbing a PQ of my finds. GSAK then very nicely talleys up the number of unique cache types, and that lets me know about the duplicates. I have a ton of logs on Dash for Cache, and some other Locationless multiples. Why would you care? I hardly do.

Yes, we all know about the power of GSAK. However GSAK doesn't do anything for the public display of stats.

[+Deliveryguy428]

My favorite is when someone logs they "attended" the event then turned around and logged a "found it" also on the event...saw half a group do this once

[+Glenn]

<snip>

Groundspeak isn't the "log police", so I doubt anything will be done. I have two very old traveling caches. If you can find it again, you can log it as a find again. One travels the country and no one has found it twice yet. The second one hangs around Metro Atlanta and I think it only has one or two people who caught up with it twice. (I do not allow multiple logs if you see it at an event.)

Who is asking Groundspeak to police cache logs? That is the job of the cache owner. I am suggesting a feature that will aid cache owners in the policing or management of their own cache pages.

It was asked in the original post for heaven sake.

They even suggested having GC.com go back and delete past multiple found logs off of all old caches.

Is there a way in the system that it could be set up that you can only log a cache once, not just events attended even regular caches should only be able to be "found" once by each geocaching account. This would make the numbers game a little less inflated, would be really nice if this would go retroactive and fix all past logs too.

If you read my entire post you quoted again, you will see that I was talking to the OP. I even suggested that they hold a purely social event to show you can go to an event and only get one smiley and still have fun.

 

Oh I see. You read "fix all past logs" and interpreted it as meaning each and every log on each and every cache page on GC.com. I read the same thing but interpreted as meaning each and every log but just for caches which the owner designates as single find caches. This is how I came up with the idea of making it an option, to allow a cache owner to turn on a single find log feature if they want to or leave it off if thats what they prefer.