Jump to content

Two Smiley for a Traditional Cache ?


Recommended Posts

There's no guideline against logging a cache more than once, so it's not something that would give the reviewer reason not to list it. No grandfathering needed.

 

It's up to each cacher whether or not they want to log twice. Some do, and have no problem with it, and some don't, and have a problem with those that do.

Link to comment

Mushtang covered it correctly. Except

Some do, and have no problem with it, and some don't, and have a problem with those that do.
and some don't, and don't care what others do. A third option.

 

The cache owner can permit multiple finds on their cache just as they can add additional logging requirements. This is not a guidelines violation.

Link to comment

If this site would create a simple "one find per cache per account" rule we would not even have the question come up.

 

However some caches get moved enough to where the owner allows the person who found it before to find it again in it's new spot.

 

Some events are logged a bazillion times to reflect even only caches.

 

Some caches have a bonus find that there is no other way to log, or they have an additonal rule for an additional smilie.

 

Those are the quick ones I can think of. There are no doubt others. Each has it's on debate with no universal agreement.

Link to comment

Mushtang covered it correctly. Except

Some do, and have no problem with it, and some don't, and have a problem with those that do.
and some don't, and don't care what others do. A third option.

 

The cache owner can permit multiple finds on their cache just as they can add additional logging requirements. This is not a guidelines violation.

Agreed. In fact, that's the catagory I'm in too, so I don't know why I left it out.

 

I don't multi-log (anymore), but don't care if others do.

Link to comment

Now I would argue with Brian's theory that you can only find a cache once. Seems like every time I go to do maintenance on some of my hides, I gotta spend 10 minutes searching ground zero just to locate the dern ammo box. Of course, I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, either. Maybe I should submit "Found" logs every time I do a maintenance run? :blink:

 

Nah, I'll stick to my "one cache = one smiley" rule. What others do is their business. :blink:

Link to comment

Unethical? Many would consider it so. Finding the same cache more than once, or attending an event a gazillion times would certainly seem to be contrary to generally accepted practices. Who am I to criticize the morals and ethics of others? But a cacher who does so regularly would certainly not be my choice for a doctor, lawyer, or other professional. Thank you, but I would seek a professional whose ethics more closely coincide with mine.

I did a cache once, the owner of which listed a 'bonus' nearby site. The cache owner was taken to task by the reviewer for permitting multiple logs - one for the cache and one for the bonus. I considered the 'bonus' to be an interesting place to see, and never considered logging the cache twice. Found the cache, signed the log, got the smiley, enjoyed the bonus locale.

Link to comment

If I get this multiple logging for the bonus right.. Then a multi cache is a cache with several bonus caches after the first one. Ever thought of logging for evey stage of the multi?

 

And in some regions, that's what people typically do...log each stage of a multi. Not me, but I don't care what other people are logging...I just know that the smiley count for other cachers may not mean the same thing as mine does and act accordingly...ie ignore it! :blink:

Link to comment

There are multis in some regions where smileys are doled out for completing each stage. I've found a few, and logged a single smiley.

 

There are event caches in some regions where multiple "attended" logs attest to finds of temporary event caches. I've been to those events, and attended each event just once.

 

There are traditional caches where bonus smileys are available for completing some task. I've found a few, and have claimed one find since I found one container and signed one log.

 

In each of these examples, many other people claimed the extra smilies. You know what? It did not diminish my enjoyment of the caches and events even one little tiny bit. :blink:

Link to comment

Unethical? Many would consider it so. Finding the same cache more than once, or attending an event a gazillion times would certainly seem to be contrary to generally accepted practices. Who am I to criticize the morals and ethics of others? But a cacher who does so regularly would certainly not be my choice for a doctor, lawyer, or other professional. Thank you, but I would seek a professional whose ethics more closely coincide with mine.

 

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

 

With all the varieties of "the new numbers game," nothing surprises me anymore. :blink:

 

I'm all for one find per cache, but It's not my website. On my caches, the maximum smiley per cache is ONE. :blink:

Link to comment

There are multis in some regions where smileys are doled out for completing each stage. I've found a few, and logged a single smiley.

 

There are event caches in some regions where multiple "attended" logs attest to finds of temporary event caches. I've been to those events, and attended each event just once.

 

There are traditional caches where bonus smileys are available for completing some task. I've found a few, and have claimed one find since I found one container and signed one log.

 

In each of these examples, many other people claimed the extra smilies. You know what? It did not diminish my enjoyment of the caches and events even one little tiny bit. :blink:

 

I agree 100%.

Unfortunately, it DOES diminish my respect for those cachers (in general) and their find counts (in particular).

Frankly, when attending an event I have deliberately avoided contact with 'multi-finders' just so I wouldn't have to discuss the issue with them.

It's not so much of a problem here in AZ!

Link to comment

I have at least one multi that allows two smileys and its set up that way for a specific reason. The first smiley is for those that are handicap can find the intown smiley. The last part is someplace in the hills and is given for those that can walk the extra distance. On all of my other multis they have only one smiley per cache unless I move the darn thing about a mile or two and then they can look for it again.

Link to comment

I have at least one multi that allows two smileys and its set up that way for a specific reason. The first smiley is for those that are handicap can find the intown smiley. The last part is someplace in the hills and is given for those that can walk the extra distance. On all of my other multis they have only one smiley per cache unless I move the darn thing about a mile or two and then they can look for it again.

I have done this cache (GCF32F) and have logged the two smilies due to the separate and optional part of the multi. (It's the only time I've logged a cache twice) Most would consider this 'Grand Slam option' as a second cache if they did it. Even the cache page warns about earning the extra smiley:

"If you find Home Plate you are really a dedicated Cacher and deserve the Grand Slam." Believe me when I say a numbers ho would be crazy to earn Tahosa's extra smiley because it's an all day killer hike in the mountains!

Link to comment

I personaly do not double log, but as there is no rule that says you cannot, you may do as you wish, but if a cache owner dislikes your double find he will remove it.

 

I do not see the problem ether way, since to me, numbers are just that. numbers do not make the cacher. And anybody worried about other people double finding for numbers obviously numbers are the point of the game for them.

 

I say do what you want, if you choose to double find, every time you look as how many you've found, you will know that number includes ones you've gone back to. If you choose not to double find, you know that number represents the number of diffrent caches you've been to.

 

I don't think anyone should have a problem with numbers since you can just click on a profile and see for yourself if they have double found.

It's just oranges and apples.

Edited by Harley of the StonedCachers
Link to comment

Unethical? Many would consider it so. Finding the same cache more than once, or attending an event a gazillion times would certainly seem to be contrary to generally accepted practices. Who am I to criticize the morals and ethics of others? But a cacher who does so regularly would certainly not be my choice for a doctor, lawyer, or other professional. Thank you, but I would seek a professional whose ethics more closely coincide with mine.

 

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

 

Absolutely! All we can do is patiently wait until the 1 find = 1 cache rule is enforced.. You are more than welcome to log multiple smiles per cache, but there may come a time when TPTB enforce the 1 cache=1 smiley rule. For those that have been playing straight, it won't matter one bit, but there may be some unhappy folks playing catch-up.

Link to comment
Absolutely! All we can do is patiently wait until the 1 find = 1 cache rule is enforced.. You are more than welcome to log multiple smiles per cache, but there may come a time when TPTB enforce the 1 cache=1 smiley rule. For those that have been playing straight, it won't matter one bit, but there may be some unhappy folks playing catch-up.

 

As more and more people start using extra found it logs to get around the guidelines by using them for caches that do not go through the review proccess (and would not be published if they did), I see the possibility of this happening.

Link to comment

All we can do is patiently wait until the 1 find = 1 cache rule is enforced..

 

And exactly where is this Rule posted? Not here in the forums, but in the actual Guidelines, as they are the rules, not some fallacy dredged up here in the forums. I reread the guidelines and Terms of Service again this morning and didn't find that "Rule" anywhere...

Link to comment

All we can do is patiently wait until the 1 find = 1 cache rule is enforced..

 

And exactly where is this Rule posted? Not here in the forums, but in the actual Guidelines, as they are the rules, not some fallacy dredged up here in the forums. I reread the guidelines and Terms of Service again this morning and didn't find that "Rule" anywhere...

 

It's not a rule per se, but the original intent of found it logs was simply to be a log type to indicate that you found a geocache. I doubt that TBTB envisioned them being used as they are in some regions as a commodity and/or a way to circumvent the guidelines.

Link to comment

I think I remember Jeremy saying that if he did something someday, it would be to allow the owner of a cache to check a box that would disallow multiple logs if he chooses. That way, event owners that didn't care, would continue to allow it. Event owners that did care, wouldn't have to deal with it.

 

That solution would allow the caches mentioned in the OP to exist, and allow people who don't agree with it to check their own box. It sounds like a good solution to me.

Link to comment

One of the first caches I did was Feel the Need for Greed

This was a multi-cache laid out over several city and county parks. It required driving (many miles) between legs and allowed you to log each part seperately on the cache page.

Now in this case, every leg was a worthy cache in and of itself. They just happened to be laid out in a series that required the cacher to find them in order. So this cache placer decided to allow multiple finds -- one per leg of the multi-.

 

If the "one log per cache" rule does go into effect, caches like this would have to be listed seperately. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would certainly change the way that particular cache hider wanted their idea carried out.

 

What it boils down to in my opinion is that GC.com has created a fun game with some very basic rules. If individual players want to play by those basic rules but expand upon them a little bit, then so be it. In the grand sceme of things, does anyone's overall caching experience become degraded because some other cacher got a bonus smiley?

Link to comment

I only log my cache finds once, even if I revisit a cache. There are several Travel Bug Hotels in my area. When I find a TB that the owner wants to travel out of state (or country), if I have time, I will take the TB to a local TB Hotel (near a major Highway Route) in hopes of getting the TB out of state on its way. I don't think it is ethical to relog the cache since I obviously know where it is. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Take care,

Outspoken1

Link to comment

There are multis in some regions where smileys are doled out for completing each stage. I've found a few, and logged a single smiley.

 

There are event caches in some regions where multiple "attended" logs attest to finds of temporary event caches. I've been to those events, and attended each event just once.

 

There are traditional caches where bonus smileys are available for completing some task. I've found a few, and have claimed one find since I found one container and signed one log.

 

In each of these examples, many other people claimed the extra smilies. You know what? It did not diminish my enjoyment of the caches and events even one little tiny bit. :mmraspberry:

 

We've got both types in our area. I did one a few weeks ago where there was one cache, but you had to go to multiple locations and look for things in painted murals in order to assemble the coordinates. There is also one nearby that is a series of seven or eight individual caches (with their own logs, containers, trade items etc..) which contain parts of the coordinates for the final "mega-cache". Because you could find any one of the smaller ones, and not go for the big one, each cache can be logged individually. Seems like two different things.

 

And for those who think it is not for us to judge the ethics of others in the community.... it absolutely is! It is in fact the community that sets the standards. :signalviolin:

 

Driver Carries Cache

(madmike)

 

Dr

Link to comment
If the "one log per cache" rule does go into effect, caches like this would have to be listed seperately. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would certainly change the way that particular cache hider wanted their idea carried out.

 

Why would it have to be listed separately?

 

It would have to be broken into seperate caches and listed seperately if the owner of the cache wants to allow cachers to log each stage sperately and grant these finders the ability to receive multiple smileys.

 

If you read the cache description I had referred to, it was intended to be done in a certain order So a cache like this, with a distinct theme that has to be done in order, would be difficult to assemble as multiple separate caches while retaining the original "do in in this order" type of theme.

Link to comment

I think I remember Jeremy saying that if he did something someday, it would be to allow the owner of a cache to check a box that would disallow multiple logs if he chooses. That way, event owners that didn't care, would continue to allow it. Event owners that did care, wouldn't have to deal with it.

 

That solution would allow the caches mentioned in the OP to exist, and allow people who don't agree with it to check their own box. It sounds like a good solution to me.

No need for a new rule, that's the way it works today. The owner decides whether Pocket Caches or other caches where the event is logged multiple times is permissable. A checkbox would be pointless.

Link to comment

It would have to be broken into seperate caches and listed seperately if the owner of the cache wants to allow cachers to log each stage sperately and grant these finders the ability to receive multiple smileys.

 

If you read the cache description I had referred to, it was intended to be done in a certain order So a cache like this, with a distinct theme that has to be done in order, would be difficult to assemble as multiple separate caches while retaining the original "do in in this order" type of theme.

 

This may be a valid reason for multiple logs, although there are many ways to handle it with separate caches and still keep them in order.

 

The problem comes for a possibly valid idea like this when there are abuses to multiple logs, where someone puts on an event and throws out several film canisters around a park and allows each of them to be logged as a separate "attended" log on the event page just to get the smiley count up. It is a (un)popular practice not too far north of where I am at.

 

As always, abuse by a view makes it more difficult for the rest when there is a rare occurrence of a reason that warrants consideration.

 

Flame suit on. Someone will go OT and argue it does not affect anyone so why is it a problem. Since it does not meet the requirements for a cache listing (temp, too close, etc), which other guidelines can we choose to ignore? The 528 rule? Train tracks when it is only a spur? etc.

Link to comment

It's certainly contrary to accepted practices among those who frequently use the forums. But I don't see anything about it on gc.com's Finding Your First Geocache or Getting Started FAQ, so how is someone who doesn't read the forums to know it's immoral, unethical, and against generally accepted practices? The fact that this question is asked every few weeks suggests that it's not common knowledge. It'd be one thing, of course, if someone was doing it on every cache they ever found. But if somebody has some extraneous finds that say "Found it a few weeks ago and came back to show my brother" -- I really think that's just a case of not knowing better.

Link to comment

so how is someone who doesn't read the forums to know it's immoral, unethical, and against generally accepted practices?

 

You've perfectly stated the problem. If someone goes to an event where the behavior occurs, they will assume that it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do. What is going to happen is very similar to what happened with Virtuals. The practice of multiple-logging will get out of hand to the point where TPTB will have to step in and put an end to it.

 

I'm patiently waiting for the day to happen. I'll be the first to admit that it really doesn't affect me one bit, but I just love it when justice wins out.

Link to comment

It's certainly contrary to accepted practices among those who frequently use the forums. But I don't see anything about it on gc.com's Finding Your First Geocache or Getting Started FAQ, so how is someone who doesn't read the forums to know it's immoral, unethical, and against generally accepted practices? The fact that this question is asked every few weeks suggests that it's not common knowledge. It'd be one thing, of course, if someone was doing it on every cache they ever found. But if somebody has some extraneous finds that say "Found it a few weeks ago and came back to show my brother" -- I really think that's just a case of not knowing better.

While I generally agree that most double logs are the result of a newbie not knowing the "accepted" rule, far too many use this "loophole" for different reasons. We should all strive to do a better job of being civil towards new cachers while trying to encourage a more accepted use of "found it" logs. And even then - the question will always come back.....

Link to comment
Absolutely! All we can do is patiently wait until the 1 find = 1 cache rule is enforced.. You are more than welcome to log multiple smiles per cache, but there may come a time when TPTB enforce the 1 cache=1 smiley rule. For those that have been playing straight, it won't matter one bit, but there may be some unhappy folks playing catch-up.

 

As more and more people start using extra found it logs to get around the guidelines by using them for caches that do not go through the review proccess (and would not be published if they did), I see the possibility of this happening.

 

If geocaching ever becomes a competitive sport with a recoginized leader board and RULES for determining when a find is legitimate, then Geocaching.com may change the code to enforce one found it log per cache (assuming that the World Geocaching Association (WGA) rules state that you can only get one find point per cache). Since geocaching is not a competitive sport, Geocaching.com is not likely to change their code to enforce any non-existent rule. Logging of finds is enforced by the cache owner. Some cache owners will allow multiple finds while other cache owners will delete logs if someone logs a 'found it' twice. Many cachers will log a find only once even when the owner allows multiple find because that is their personal rule. Others will take any smiley they can get.

 

If I parse briansnats' comments, he may be right about one thing. The pratice of logging multiple attended logs on an event to get credit for temporary caches or logging a bonus find for finding a cache that wasn't listed on geocaching.com because it failed to meet the guidelines, may one day result in some kind of published guideline to prevent this. If Geocaching.com has to prove to land managers that there isn't some back door for getting these caches listed they will likely have to address this issue. Rather than enforcing one find per cache, a more likely solution would be to archive and lock caches that are being used to circumvent the cache approval process.

Link to comment

If geocaching ever becomes a competitive sport with a recoginized leader board and RULES for determining when a find is legitimate

 

Explain to me one thing then. Why would TPTB implement a 1 visit per waymark rule over at Waymarking.com? To me this tells me that realize the error of their ways over here at geocaching.com. The fact that it hasn't been changed yet is because they haven't had to change it yet. But if they implemented it over at Waymarking, it's only a matter of time before it happens over here. The truth speaks for itself, no matter what your arguments are.

 

According to your own argument, Waymarking would have to be a competitive sport then?

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment
This may be a valid reason for multiple logs, although there are many ways to handle it with separate caches and still keep them in order.

Agreed. I too would prefer that the cache owner make separate caches in a series instead of multiple finds on a single cache with an optional smilie.

 

The same goes for when a cache owner decides to move his cache. I prefer that the cache in question is archived and a new cache is listed in a different location. It's most confusing to go after a newly listed cache and find your name already in the paper logbook. If the cache has moved a mile instead of 50 feet isn't it a new cache? All this confusion could be easily avoided if the cache owners in question would do things differently.

Edited by n0wae
Link to comment

If geocaching ever becomes a competitive sport with a recoginized leader board and RULES for determining when a find is legitimate

 

Explain to me one thing then. Why would TPTB implement a 1 visit per waymark rule over at Waymarking.com? To me this tells me that realize the error of their ways over here at geocaching.com. The fact that it hasn't been changed yet is because they haven't had to change it yet. But if they implemented it over at Waymarking, it's only a matter of time before it happens over here. The truth speaks for itself, no matter what your arguments are.

 

According to your own argument, Waymarking would have to be a competitive sport then?

I am fairly certain that there isn't a one visit per waymark rule. I believe that not only can you log every time you visit a waymark, you can also visit your own waymark. If they have made a change recently please point me to where there is a one visit per waymark rule.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

against generally accepted practices?

 

 

These generally accepted practices seem to have been "accepted" by those that feel numbers really mean something.

Personnaly, I have attended events where we were given sheets or info to find several caches, and each of those caches were harder to find than the typical "WalMart Parking lot micro" cache. At some of the events they told us to log each cache as a find, and at other events they told us not to. I would not log multis more than once, but I have added a log when the owner had additional coordinates listed in the first container that led to a second hide that was just as good.

To me the numbers are a way for me to record my own accomplishments, I dont compare my finds to other cachers, because I dont know if 90% of their finds are "WalMart micros. A cacher with a couple hundred finds that all involve long hikes through tough terrain could very easily be prouder of his finds than a fellow cacher with several thousand drive-up micros.

The cool part of this activity is that everyone can enjoy it in whatever manner they prefer. Let's not force TPTB to change that and cause people to quit because the changed rules spoil their enjoyment.

 

Enjoy the Adventure, don't sweat over the way other people play.

Link to comment

If geocaching ever becomes a competitive sport with a recoginized leader board and RULES for determining when a find is legitimate

 

Explain to me one thing then. Why would TPTB implement a 1 visit per waymark rule over at Waymarking.com? To me this tells me that realize the error of their ways over here at geocaching.com. The fact that it hasn't been changed yet is because they haven't had to change it yet. But if they implemented it over at Waymarking, it's only a matter of time before it happens over here. The truth speaks for itself, no matter what your arguments are.

 

According to your own argument, Waymarking would have to be a competitive sport then?

I am fairly certain that there isn't a one visit per waymark rule. I believe that not only can you log every time you visit a waymark, you can also visit your own waymark. If they have made a change recently please point me to where there is a one visit per waymark rule.

 

Why don't you do some research and then come back. I would suggest attempting to log a waymark more than once and see what happens. You can always delete your log after you are done checking it out. Then we can continue our discussion.

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

Well I tried this and ReadyOrNot is right. When I try to log a second visit it only allow me to post a note and says in red that I have already visited the waymark. I think this is a stupid change on the part of Waymarking.

 

It shows that there other reasons that TPTB are doing this besides the concept of competition. Clearly Waymarking is not a competitive site.

Link to comment

so how is someone who doesn't read the forums to know it's immoral, unethical, and against generally accepted practices?

 

You've perfectly stated the problem. If someone goes to an event where the behavior occurs, they will assume that it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do. What is going to happen is very similar to what happened with Virtuals. The practice of multiple-logging will get out of hand to the point where TPTB will have to step in and put an end to it.

 

I'm patiently waiting for the day to happen. I'll be the first to admit that it really doesn't affect me one bit, but I just love it when justice wins out.

If it gets to the point where a significant number of cachers is doing this, then isn't doing it the generally accepted behavior?

 

I think the comparison to virtuals is only valid if multiple finds puts too much load on the gc.com server -- in which case, they'd also have to disallow Note logs -- or if multiple finds degrades the experience for other cachers. As far as I know, those were the reasons for discontinuing Virtuals (that, and the lack of a container).

 

(Incidentally, my logging practice is one Found log per cache page; Notes only for Locationless; and Founds on events if I found at least one event-specific cache, and then only one Found. I haven't attended such an event since the Attended log type was added).

Link to comment

I think the comparison to virtuals is only valid if multiple finds puts too much load on the gc.com server

 

I'm not so sure that the reason you stated is the reason that they got rid of them. I think they got rid of them because they realized that people were taking advantage and it was getting out of hand. There are people in these forums with the "Play how you want" attitude, which is fine, but I don't think TPTB have that attitude.

Link to comment

If it gets to the point where a significant number of cachers is doing this, then isn't doing it the generally accepted behavior?

 

Taking that into consideration, then the 1 log per cache/event would be the rule put in place.

 

I live in a fairly populated metro area, actually right between 3. There is one small group in a very specific region that does the multi-logging thing. I won't go as far to say it is not happening elsewhere in my area, but if it is, it is a rarity so much as to be invisible to most.

 

From what I have read here and seen in logs of caches and events stateside, it is also not the "norm" in other areas.

 

The original question was whether or not is was ethical, to which some have replied no. I agree. I for one would rather not see any more rules, or even guidelines, then are absolutely necessary however if what is in place gets abused it won't be too long before there is a limitation put in place.

 

The abuse, as many see it, is not from a normal cache but the events. These "pocket" caches are ways around the guidelines for cache permanency, safety issues and distance with the sole purpose of padding a meaningless number. The damage is done when rules are put in place because of a perceived problem with number hounds that affect everyone.

Link to comment

The abuse, as many see it, is not from a normal cache but the events. These "pocket" caches are ways around the guidelines for cache permanency, safety issues and distance with the sole purpose of padding a meaningless number. The damage is done when rules are put in place because of a perceived problem with number hounds that affect everyone.

 

Ah, but the log for an event is "Attended". How does one logically justify logging temporary caches with 'attending' an event?!? How does one 'Attend' and event twelve times by finding eleven temporary or pocket caches???

Maybe logic is the problem? Or semantics?

Did you have dinner yet?

Yes. I went for a walk.

Did you brush your teeth?

Yes. I washed my dishes.

What does one have to do with the other, I ask? No one has been able to offer an explanation as to how logging a temporary cache qualifies as 'attending' an event.

Must be fun to audit the tax returns for these people.

Well, my dog is like a child. So I'm claiming him as a deduction.

Link to comment
If the "one log per cache" rule does go into effect, caches like this would have to be listed seperately. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would certainly change the way that particular cache hider wanted their idea carried out.

 

Why would it have to be listed separately?

 

It would have to be broken into seperate caches and listed seperately if the owner of the cache wants to allow cachers to log each stage sperately and grant these finders the ability to receive multiple smileys.

 

If you read the cache description I had referred to, it was intended to be done in a certain order So a cache like this, with a distinct theme that has to be done in order, would be difficult to assemble as multiple separate caches while retaining the original "do in in this order" type of theme.

 

There is still no reason you can't do the cache in its entirety with one found it log.

 

I live in a fairly populated metro area, actually right between 3. There is one small group in a very specific region that does the multi-logging thing. I won't go as far to say it is not happening elsewhere in my area, but if it is, it is a rarity so much as to be invisible to most.

 

It does seem to be a regional thing. It's virtually unheard of in the NY-NJ Metro area but apparently the norm in Minnesota, parts of Florida and the south.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I think I remember Jeremy saying that if he did something someday, it would be to allow the owner of a cache to check a box that would disallow multiple logs if he chooses. That way, event owners that didn't care, would continue to allow it. Event owners that did care, wouldn't have to deal with it.

 

That solution would allow the caches mentioned in the OP to exist, and allow people who don't agree with it to check their own box. It sounds like a good solution to me.

No need for a new rule, that's the way it works today. The owner decides whether Pocket Caches or other caches where the event is logged multiple times is permissable. A checkbox would be pointless.

The way I understood it, the check box would make it so that multilogs weren't accepted. The way it works now the owner has to manually delete each bonus bogus Find.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...