find your own cache

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation for you to comment on, remembering the caveat that was stated at the beginning of the list on geocacheuk website:

"Note that some caches move from place to place by their nature, or are transferred for other reasons, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be logged by the person who originally placed them."

Cacher A and Cacher B agree to put out a cache in both their names. Cacher A picks the area, type of cache, sets it and ompletes the cache page. Cacher B is not aware of the location, type or any other details of the hide as they were not present or informed of it. Would it be acceptable for Cacher B to claim it as a find, if they go find it and log it having not known about it's location, contents etc?

 

Cacher B can log it with a clear conscience.

[+The Mars Bars]

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation for you to comment on, remembering the caveat that was stated at the beginning of the list on geocacheuk website:

"Note that some caches move from place to place by their nature, or are transferred for other reasons, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be logged by the person who originally placed them."

Cacher A and Cacher B agree to put out a cache in both their names. Cacher A picks the area, type of cache, sets it and ompletes the cache page. Cacher B is not aware of the location, type or any other details of the hide as they were not present or informed of it. Would it be acceptable for Cacher B to claim it as a find, if they go find it and log it having not known about it's location, contents etc?

 

Cacher B can log it with a clear conscience.

 

Go on then, why has cacher B credited with owning/hiding it on the cache page if he had nothing to do with it whatsoever in the first place????...

 

Sounds like Cacher A and Cacher B are trying to wind people up a bit !

 

Cheers

Dave

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation for you to comment on, remembering the caveat that was stated at the beginning of the list on geocacheuk website:

"Note that some caches move from place to place by their nature, or are transferred for other reasons, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be logged by the person who originally placed them."

Cacher A and Cacher B agree to put out a cache in both their names. Cacher A picks the area, type of cache, sets it and ompletes the cache page. Cacher B is not aware of the location, type or any other details of the hide as they were not present or informed of it. Would it be acceptable for Cacher B to claim it as a find, if they go find it and log it having not known about it's location, contents etc?

 

Cacher B can log it with a clear conscience.

 

Go on then, why has cacher B credited with owning/hiding it on the cache page if he had nothing to do with it whatsoever in the first place????...

 

Sounds like Cacher A and Cacher B are trying to wind people up a bit !

 

Cheers

Dave

 

Well, the way I was reading it was that the cache page is owned by cacher A and got the hide stat. Cacher B doesn't, wasn't there, and knew nothing about the hide. So what's the big deal?

 

Not sure why B got his name on the cache, maybe A hid it and B is maintaining it for A.

 

In fact I have a cache like this. monimoni buildt a container and logbook, stocked it and made the theme. She wanted it hid in Iowa but was moving to California so she asked me to hide it and post the cache page. Her names on it but she's never been to where it's hid.

 

Uniquely Iowa

Edited December 28, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+Simply Paul]

This discussion seems to have splintered a bit, so I'll summarise my take on it for those wishing for a quick and simple overview:

 

Finding your own cache is ok if:

i) It's an event (should be an attended rather than a found though, and only if you were there for it!)

ii) It was moved significantly by another party, and you had the same information as everyone else when you went to look for it. This is a grey area, but you can see where and when it's appropriate to allow a find. 'Rehidden 10ft away under a hedge' isn't good enough, for example.

iii) An adopted cache which the new owner didn't set - or help set(?)

 

Most caches are logged as finds by their owners in error when they meant to use a note. They're usually -but not always- spotted and fixed. Looking at the 'found by owner' link above is a good way of checking this. The other group who typically find their own caches are newbies who know no better. A helpful, polite note may put them on the path of righteousness.

 

The other limb of this thread is about logging the same cache twice as a find. There's a list here: http://stats.guk2.com/cachers/view_duplicates.php - Again, there are good reasons why this can happen.

 

Finding a cache twice is ok if:

i) The cache hider says it is on the page.

ii) The cache was moved a significant distance. Letting the owner know it's your second visit is polite though, and they may wish to delete your second find. If they do, that's their prerogative.

iii) The challenge of finding the cache changes significantly (from a trad to a multi perhaps) AND the final box has moved a reasonable distance. Again your log should make it clear you've found it before though, so the owner can object if she or he feels it's inappropriate for you to find it twice.

iv) A new cache, with a fresh listing and GC number is placed near, or at, the location of an older one. It's a new cache, and logging a find doesn't mean you've 'cheated'.

 

Some double finds are accidents. Locations can look very different when approached from a new direction, in a different season, and cache names can change, causing confusion. And there's always the note logged as a find in error too. The link above will help you check this hasn't happened to you.

 

Is that fair enough?

[+Haggis Hunter]

with regard to armchair caches. I think if you have gone to the effort of finding/solving them then you have just as much right to claim the find as any other caches. now dose anyone know if there is a list of them somewhere?!

 

edited to add comment on armchair caches!

I have a list here. If you read the feedback not everyone likes the idea!

[+Pieman]

I am not bothered personally at all about other people boosting their numbers by nefarious means. So does that mean it should be allowed? Of course not. It isn't actually a victimless crime. There are lots of cachers who are interested in the numbers as an integral part of the game and so faking finds is messing it up for them. Some people, quite reasonably, like the competitive aspect of caching.

 

Everyone plays by their own rules is the way to anarchy. There don't need to be many rules but there have to be some- like not sitting at home and logging a hundred finds, for instance. That still leaves a lot of room for people to approach the game in their own way, it seems to me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Okay, here's a hypothetical situation for you to comment on, remembering the caveat that was stated at the beginning of the list on geocacheuk website:

"Note that some caches move from place to place by their nature, or are transferred for other reasons, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be logged by the person who originally placed them."

Cacher A and Cacher B agree to put out a cache in both their names. Cacher A picks the area, type of cache, sets it and ompletes the cache page. Cacher B is not aware of the location, type or any other details of the hide as they were not present or informed of it. Would it be acceptable for Cacher B to claim it as a find, if they go find it and log it having not known about it's location, contents etc?

 

Cacher B can log it with a clear conscience.

 

Not sure I like the whole idea of team accounts. Maybe Cacher B should make their own account?

[+currykev]

Agreed, if the cache is an event or adopted after an earlier find then those are good reasons for an owner to log, but otherwise the owner should not log as found but post notes.

 

This isn't uncommon, here's a list of caches logged by their owner.

 

ALL adopted!..so don't jump to any conclusions!

But...I could increase my numbers! ..If only I knew where I had hidden them.

Edited December 28, 2006 by currykev

[+pirate_matt]

with regard to armchair caches. I think if you have gone to the effort of finding/solving them then you have just as much right to claim the find as any other caches. now dose anyone know if there is a list of them somewhere?!

 

edited to add comment on armchair caches!

I have a list here. If you read the feedback not everyone likes the idea!

 

thanks. have already logged a couple!

[+dino-irl]

.....It isn't actually a victimless crime.....

Hmmmm.....it's not a "crime" of any sort. I'm sorry but far too many people take this game far too seriously.

 

It's supposed to be fun and the stats are just a way of keeping track

[+ReadyOrNot]

.....It isn't actually a victimless crime.....

Hmmmm.....it's not a "crime" of any sort. I'm sorry but far too many people take this game far too seriously.

 

It's supposed to be fun and the stats are just a way of keeping track

 

Certainly not a crime, but just because something isn't against the law doesn't make it right. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean it's the good and prudent thing to do. If I'm confronted with a cheater, I think they ought to be called out for what they are doing, regardless of whether it affects me or not. How often do we say, "That's not my problem, I'll let someone else deal with it".. That's a huge problem and does not lead down a good road. It may not seem like logging a cache twice or logging your own cache is a big deal, but it's a symptom of a larger societal problem, one that will ultimately ruin this game.

 

Just my 2 cents (actually, I'm up to about $1.50)

[+ReadyOrNot]

See my comments in red. I certainly would not agree with most of your summary.

 

This discussion seems to have splintered a bit, so I'll summarise my take on it for those wishing for a quick and simple overview:

 

Finding your own cache is ok if:

i) It's an event (should be an attended rather than a found though, and only if you were there for it!)

* How is an event a cache? An event should have a different log type

ii) It was moved significantly by another party, and you had the same information as everyone else when you went to look for it. This is a grey area, but you can see where and when it's appropriate to allow a find. 'Rehidden 10ft away under a hedge' isn't good enough, for example.

* If the coordinates have changed that much, it should be republished as a new cache

iii) An adopted cache which the new owner didn't set - or help set(?)

* This is the only viable reason I can see

 

Most caches are logged as finds by their owners in error when they meant to use a note. They're usually -but not always- spotted and fixed. Looking at the 'found by owner' link above is a good way of checking this. The other group who typically find their own caches are newbies who know no better. A helpful, polite note may put them on the path of righteousness.

 

The other limb of this thread is about logging the same cache twice as a find. There's a list here: http://stats.guk2.com/cachers/view_duplicates.php - Again, there are good reasons why this can happen.

 

Finding a cache twice is ok if:

i) The cache hider says it is on the page.

* Bah Humbug! The 1st is a find, the 2nd and subsequent visits are not finds. Why not use a note?ii) The cache was moved a significant distance. Letting the owner know it's your second visit is polite though, and they may wish to delete your second find. If they do, that's their prerogative.

* Same rule from above. If it's moved that much, it should be a new cache and the old archived.iii) The challenge of finding the cache changes significantly (from a trad to a multi perhaps) AND the final box has moved a reasonable distance. Again your log should make it clear you've found it before though, so the owner can object if she or he feels it's inappropriate for you to find it twice.

* Again, if it's changed that much, it should be a new cache

iv) A new cache, with a fresh listing and GC number is placed near, or at, the location of an older one. It's a new cache, and logging a find doesn't mean you've 'cheated'.

* Why would this be a two-finder? It's a new cache with a new number.

 

Some double finds are accidents. Locations can look very different when approached from a new direction, in a different season, and cache names can change, causing confusion. And there's always the note logged as a find in error too. The link above will help you check this hasn't happened to you.

 

Is that fair enough? :ph34r:

[+Simply Paul]

A lot of stuff to take up with cache owners there then, rather than cache finders. I agree, a cache that's changed or moved a lot probably should be relisted as a fresh one, but many are not. Ultimately if a cache owner wants to ok a find, it's their right to do so.

 

Edit: To answer one of your questions, I'll quote from the GC.com listing guidelines page:

 

"Event Caches

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers..."

 

Are events caches? Calling them event caches suggests they are.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Simply Paul

[+purple_pineapple]

In addition to SPs comments, can I add that event caches have attended logs - and these all show up as finds in the GCUK page - as they should! A different type of find, but still a 'find'

 

I'm glad to see that finds on subsequently adopted caches is 'acceptable'... but there may also be a valid reason for moving a cache and keeping the same listing - even by a considerable distance - the GC Code may form part of the puzzle - or the cache is essentially the same ( a multi or puzzle) but with the final site being moved... why repeat all the hard work of page prep if it isn;t necessary?

 

Anyway, as many have said, it doesn't harm me, I can't see how it ever would, despite all the comments about anarchy!

 

Happy Caching!

 

Edit to say - how many cases are we talking here? - I wouldn't mind betting that the VAST majority of those listed on GCUK are either events or adoptions - both perfectly valid and unavoidable! Many will be accidental, and only a few will be from 'moved' caches - the only case which might be open to even the slightest debate!

Edited December 28, 2006 by purple_pineapple

[+dino-irl]

......If I'm confronted with a cheater, I think they ought to be called out for what they are doing, regardless of whether it affects me or not.

They're not breaking any rules so they're not cheating. You (and I also by the way) may not agree with what they are doing but that doesn't matter

 

It may not seem like logging a cache twice or logging your own cache is a big deal, but it's a symptom of a larger societal problem, one that will ultimately ruin this game.

It's not a big deal and I think this issue is being blown way out of proportion. Maybe we ought to spend more time caching (and boosting our stats) than sitting in front of a PC criticising how others play the game

[+pirate_matt]

See my comments in red. I certainly would not agree with most of your summary.

 

[Finding a cache twice is ok if:

i) The cache hider says it is on the page.

* Bah Humbug! The 1st is a find, the 2nd and subsequent visits are not finds. Why not use a note?

 

I had to change the location of two parts of one of my multis as they had gone missing. i only moved them less then 100m but had to change the first part of the cache as well to take into account the new co-ordinates. although i kept the same name and all parts were in the same general area i decided to post a note to say that to me it was basicaly a different cache so those that found the origonal could relog if they wish. so far two people have taken me up on this offer. i, as the cache placer/owner don't have a problem with this and they as the cache finders don't have aproblem with this so i don't see any issues for anyone else to get worked up about.

 

i think this will be my last post on this thread as it seems to be going round in circles. some people want to go out enjoying the benifits of caching and play the game in a way which is acceptable to them (and many others) while others just seem to want to moan on the forums about things which don't really matter!

 

as the generic reply goes 'everyone plays the game in their own way' this is one of the positives of the game but also one of it's downfalls it would seem. at the end of the day unless there are a comprehensive set of rules covering every eventuality (i am not calling for these!) you are going to get people who play the game in differen ways so i think we should except this, move on and go and hide/find some caches.

 

pirate_matt out!

 

edited to sort out some of the spelling mistakes.

Edited December 29, 2006 by pirate_matt

[+Pieman]

.....It isn't actually a victimless crime.....

Hmmmm.....it's not a "crime" of any sort. I'm sorry but far too many people take this game far too seriously.

 

It's supposed to be fun and the stats are just a way of keeping track

No, it's not a crime- I was just falling back on a cliche, I'm afraid. It's being a bit disrespectful to those who wish to play by the very small number of rules that there are in the game. As I have said it doesn't actually bother me but it must be a (slight) irritation to those for whom the numbers are a key part of the game. It's very easy to dismiss other people's concerns as petty when you don't hold them yourself.

[+dino-irl]

No, it's not a crime- I was just falling back on a cliche, I'm afraid. It's being a bit disrespectful to those who wish to play by the very small number of rules that there are in the game.

I believe that the the vast majority of cachers play by the guidelines. However, logging a cache twice by accident or when it has changed significantly and with the permission of the owner isn't against any rules. In fact there are no "rules", they're just "guidelines"

 

As I have said it doesn't actually bother me but it must be a (slight) irritation to those for whom the numbers are a key part of the game.

Numbers should only really be important to individuals. It's not a competition after all. If a group of individuals want to compete with each other then that's fine but it should be between themselves to set the rules. This doesn't affect the rest of us though.

 

It's very easy to dismiss other people's concerns as petty when you don't hold them yourself.

And it's very easy to over-emphasise the importance of minor concerns of a small group of people. In all the replies here I see very few people raising this issue as a major problem.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Edit to say - how many cases are we talking here? - I wouldn't mind betting that the VAST majority of those listed on GCUK are either events or adoptions - both perfectly valid and unavoidable! Many will be accidental, and only a few will be from 'moved' caches - the only case which might be open to even the slightest debate!

As mine are!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Despite SP's efforts, I really can't see any valid reason to log a "find" on your own cache (or "find" the same cache twice). If you found it then adopted it later, or logged your own event, it only appears in the "naughty" list due to the limitations of the software that produced the list. Both these log types should have been filtered out as we all agree that they are not "naughty".

 

I have had occasion to move a cache a good distance, and amend a cache to change the experience significantly. I considered the feelings of those who have already logged it and, rather than give them a dilemma or invite them to log the cache twice, have simply archived the original cache and created a new cache page for the amended version.

 

IMO, the common reason that people log their own cache is that they didn't realise they shouldn't.

But if a cacher does deliberately inflate his find figures (on a large scale) then I don't care, but would expect that someone would let him know that it had been noticed!

 

HH

[+purple_pineapple]

Despite SP's efforts, I really can't see any valid reason to log a "find" on your own cache (or "find" the same cache twice). If you found it then adopted it later, or logged your own event, it only appears in the "naughty" list due to the limitations of the software that produced the list. Both these log types should have been filtered out as we all agree that they are not "naughty".

 

fair point - although I'm not sure how the software could change this - events could simply be excluded from the list altogether (which should be relatively simple) but I don;t know if the GPX files or whatever the list uses contain any information relating to whether a cache was adopted, and who the original owner was, so I would imagine this is impossible to detect.

 

I have had occasion to move a cache a good distance, and amend a cache to change the experience significantly. I considered the feelings of those who have already logged it and, rather than give them a dilemma or invite them to log the cache twice, have simply archived the original cache and created a new cache page for the amended version.

 

again, fair point, and i suppose its down to the owner... if they do keep the original cache, but it is substantially different to the extent that it is deemed reloggable, then a cacher has no option to relog - assuming they want to do it again!

 

One key advantage of archiving and creating a new one is that your total number of caches placed increases (for the numbers people!)

 

A major disadvantage is that the original cache may be grandfathered. Take, for example, a virtual cache where the owner changes something substantial - enough to justify second logs. It cannot be resubmitted, as virtuals aren't allowed any more, but the original can be changed as it remains a grandfathered cache.

 

IMO, the common reason that people log their own cache is that they didn't realise they shouldn't.

But if a cacher does deliberately inflate his find figures (on a large scale) then I don't care, but would expect that someone would let him know that it had been noticed!

 

HH

 

Indeed, and I suspect the actual numbers who are deliberately relogging to inflate their numbers are miniscule, and moreover, if they do this on alarge scale, they'll have their logs deleted!

 

Dave

[+gingerbreadmen]

This isn't uncommon, here's a list of caches logged by their owner.

 

Being quite confident that I have never done this myself I was looking through the list and there I was . Only once, granted, but present nontheless. I discovered that I had inadvertantly marked myself down as a find when I meant to leave a note so I have now deleted the note. My problem now is that my 300th find is now my 299th, my 400th my 399th etc etc, and to think I'd saved up the odd good 'un for those "special landmarks" Oh bugger! All those congrat posts will have to be re-sorted

[+The Bolas Heathens]

I think we did some of the caches the OP is referring to yesterday. From the looks of their logs my guess would be they are totally unaware that you are not supposed to log your own cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think we did some of the caches the OP is referring to yesterday. From the looks of their logs my guess would be they are totally unaware that you are not supposed to log your own cache.

 

I find myself agreeing with both sides in this issue, but here's a different way of looking at this problem... There have been many arguments because of this issue. There have been many fights created because of this issue. As you mentioned above, "They are totally unaware that you are not supposed to log your own cache."

 

I believe this accounts for the VAST majority of cases.. Just disallow logging your own cache. Disallow multiple finds, etc. etc. etc. (except when adopting a cache) and the problem goes away. If your wife can't use your geocaching account to log your cache now, maybe it's time to get her own account if your finds differ so much. Seems like common sense to me, but I doubt anyone will ever agree on this issue anyways.

[+purple_pineapple]

I think we did some of the caches the OP is referring to yesterday. From the looks of their logs my guess would be they are totally unaware that you are not supposed to log your own cache.

 

I find myself agreeing with both sides in this issue, but here's a different way of looking at this problem... There have been many arguments because of this issue. There have been many fights created because of this issue. As you mentioned above, "They are totally unaware that you are not supposed to log your own cache."

 

I believe this accounts for the VAST majority of cases.. Just disallow logging your own cache. Disallow multiple finds, etc. etc. etc. (except when adopting a cache) and the problem goes away. If your wife can't use your geocaching account to log your cache now, maybe it's time to get her own account if your finds differ so much. Seems like common sense to me, but I doubt anyone will ever agree on this issue anyways.

 

This could be an option although, as ever, there are provisos. Events clearly should be allowed, as should adopted caches. However, how will GC.com know its an adopted cache. Usually, the cache will have been found before the adoption takes place, which doesn't pose a problem. However, we adopted 4 caches that we hadn't yet found, so we went and found them, and logged finds, even though they were listed as ours at the time.

 

As for multiple finds, there is a virtual cache in the UK that moves around the country, and can be logged by anyone, any number of times (assuming it is for a different location).

 

At the end of the day, I don't think it happens all that much, and there muct be better things to worry about!

 

Dave

[+Jaz666]

At the end of the day, I don't think it happens all that much, and there muct be better things to worry about!

 

Yes, like the worrying amount of threads devoted to congratulating people on finding 500 micros in dry stone walls next to motorways

[+browni]

Have been in touch with the people who prompted me to start this thread, they know what they are doing and it is to help their numbers.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Interesting........

[+Alibags]

There are several ways to 'cheat' that I can think of. There are some valid reasons for people logging caches that they own (eg adoption). Some people should just get over themselves and wind their necks in, I think. These loggers are not breaking gc.com rules, they are not harming anybody else... am I bovvered?

[+HazelS]

Have been in touch with the people who prompted me to start this thread, they know what they are doing and it is to help their numbers.

 

Hi Ian

 

You mean these people have ADMITTED that they are doing this to bump up thier numbers???

 

Amazing!!

 

Oh - and yes - I have logged some twice, some are adopted, some are events, and ther ewere one or two mistakes, which I will now go back and rectify....