Multiple Finds on one Cache

[+wavector]

This topic came up in another thread and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

A well known geocacher said this

Every find on my list is a unique find and every find was actually found. I found all my finds and logged every find that I claim to have found.

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous to have to explain this?!?!?

 

My reply was straightforward:

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find...

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

Edited March 14, 2007 by wavector

[+Bill & Tammy]

This topic came up in another thread and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

A well known geocacher said this

Every find on my list is a unique find and every find was actually found. I found all my finds and logged every find that I claim to have found.

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous to have to explain this?!?!?

 

My reply was straightforward:

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find...

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

 

I fail to understand why we go over this again and again, people play this game the way they want to play it. Why does it matter to anyone else? There is no sanctioning body or rules that govern play. Find your caches, enjoy your find and smiley and move on.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Bill & Tammy

[+ReadyOrNot]

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find...

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

Ok, I'll bite. What are the GC #'s of caches that can be found more than once? And please explain exactly how you "FIND" something that you are already aware of its location? You can sign the log book more than once and unfortunately, you can log the find more than once, but you CANNOT find it more than once.

[+StarBrand]

One GC number should equal exactly 1 allowable find. Not sure how it is that anybody can do it twice or more.

 

I know it isn't that way right now but it should be - IMHO.

[+wavector]

people play this game the way they want to play it. Why does it matter to anyone else?

 

When and how a Find is claimed does matter and plenty of good examples were given in the other thread.

I gather you are in the camp that doesn't care.

[+wavector]

Ok, I'll bite. What are the GC #'s of caches that can be found more than once?

 

Here is one : Stash n Dash.

 

Stash n Dash is an example of a Moving Cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Ok, I'll bite. What are the GC #'s of caches that can be found more than once?

 

Here is one : Stash n Dash.

 

Stash n Dash is an example of a Moving Cache.

 

Ok. That's a grandfathered cache. They are no longer allowed. Just like logging a virtual. You can log them, but they aren't allowed anymore. Your example doesn't go along with your original premise. Can you give an example that's not of a grandfathered no longer allowed cache that meets TODAYS guidelines?

[+wavector]

One GC number should equal exactly 1 allowable find.

 

The Brass Cap Cache is an example of a Multi-target cache. There are 340 (so far) distinct targets outlined in the GC listing. Some are on the tops of mountains, some are in city parks, some have never been located as they are in the remote wilderness, each target is a unique hunt, a unique journey and a unique Find.

[+ReadyOrNot]

One GC number should equal exactly 1 allowable find.

 

The Brass Cap Cache is an example of a Multi-target cache. There are 340 (so far) distinct targets outlined in the GC listing. Some are on the tops of mountains, some are in city parks, some have never been located as they are in the remote wilderness, each target is a unique hunt, a unique journey and a unique Find.

 

Ok.. That's a virtual. They are no longer allowed. That's a grandfathered cache. Please refer to my previous post.

[+wavector]

Can you give an example that's not of a grandfathered no longer allowed cache that meets TODAYS guidelines?

 

Here is a Monthly Event that uses a recycled cache page each month. Every month the Event is in a new location, there is a different group of Attendees, the activites are different and the cache hunts afterwards are different. Each Event is unique yet all are hosted under one GC number. It is not a Grandfathered cache.

 

Wether or not a cache is grandfathered has nothing at all to do with my question. Is your answer that it is OK to have multiple Finds on one cache because we have Grandfathered cache types or Grandfathered cache types are a weak excuse for a practice that you deem unacceptable?

Edited March 14, 2007 by wavector

[+StarBrand]

One GC number should equal exactly 1 allowable find.

 

The Brass Cap Cache is an example of a Multi-target cache. There are 340 (so far) distinct targets outlined in the GC listing. Some are on the tops of mountains, some are in city parks, some have never been located as they are in the remote wilderness, each target is a unique hunt, a unique journey and a unique Find.

Please refer to the 2nd half of my above post.

 

I know it isn't that way right now but it should be - IMHO.

[+wavector]

I know it isn't that way right now but it should be - IMHO.

 

Thanks StarBrand.

[+Iowa Tom]

I was wondering about something somewhat related to this topic. My question has, I'm sure, come up before, but I am going to ask it here because I don't know what words to use to conduct a search.

 

My question is this, can a person hide a cache for a week (or whatever) then archive it and move it to a new spot? That way a person could find the same cache over again but get credit for each find. I thought of doing this with a very unique cache I have that lends itself to being a temporary cache. It uses batteries and I don't want to leave it out indefinitely. I would set it out now and then.

 

I don't suppose this would be the best idea but, if a person did do this, could they use the same cache name over again? Maybe the name followed by the number of times it has been hidden would be better.

 

-it

[+wavector]

My question is this, can a person hide a cache for a week (or whatever) then archive it and move it to a new spot?

 

The guidelines are pretty clear about this, you cannot list a cache on GC.com which is intended to be temporary. Your comment raises an interesting point though. If I archived a cache and then relisted it in the same place with the same name would it be a different cache becaue it had a new GC number?

 

The "GC number is sacrosanct" group of geocachers would probably have no problem logging it as a second Find whereas those who were interested in a unique experience probably wouldn't even come back.

Edited March 14, 2007 by wavector

[+Iowa Tom]

I have used the cache in question at an event. I suppose that's the only place I'll be able to use it. I have two others that use batteries. One requires the person to plug their own 9V in before they can get it to work and the other one has batteries that are only used when they press a button. Those batteries have lasted a good year per set.

[+Mudfrog]

Can you give an example that's not of a grandfathered no longer allowed cache that meets TODAYS guidelines?

 

Here is a Monthly Event that uses a recycled cache page each month. Every month the Event is in a new location, there is a different group of Attendees, the activites are different and the cache hunts afterwards are different. Each Event is unique yet all are hosted under one GC number. It is not a Grandfathered cache.

 

Wether or not a cache is grandfathered has nothing at all to do with my question. Is your answer that it is OK to have multiple Finds on one cache because we have Grandfathered cache types or Grandfathered cache types are a weak excuse for a practice that you deem unacceptable?

 

I wonder why they recycle the cache page like that? We have a monthly Event here as well but it's submitted as a new event each month. Since each has it's own GC number, i claim my "attended" every time i attend a meeting. I would certainly have to rethink this practice if it was an event with the same GC number on it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

My question is this, can a person hide a cache for a week (or whatever) then archive it and move it to a new spot?

 

The guidelines are pretty clear about this, you cannot list a cache on GC.com which is intended to be temporary. Your comment raises an interesting point though. If I archived a cache and then relisted it in the same place with the same name would it be a different cache becaue it had a new GC number?

 

The "GC number is sacrosanct" group of geocachers would probably have no problem logging it as a second Find whereas those who were interested in a unique experience probably wouldn't even come back.

 

I don't understand why these things have to be so complicated to some people. You can find a cache once. If you already know where it's at, it's not a find. I suppose if the event were at a different location, then it would be okay, but I don't understand why the same event is being recycled. Sounds like it should be a completely different event if it's at a different location.

 

Unfortunately, most of the multiple logs are not for the reasons you stated, but for padding numbers. Is that an acceptable reason to you?

[+briansnat]

Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

 

I generally think that there should be one find per cache. The only possible exception I can think of would be moving caches. I admit to multiple finds on the one moving cache in my area, but when I plugged my stats into "Its notaboutthenumbers" and saw the discrepency between unique finds and finds, I changed the extra finds to notes. Still, I don't have a quarrel with anyone who logs a moving cache multiple times. Each one is a unique adventure.

 

For events you log an "attended". Being that you can only attend an event once, logging multiple attends is nothing more than a shameless numbers pumping scheme. So is logging multiple "found its" on multi caches.

 

As for logging extra "found its" for performing some stunt associated with a cache, I think that is just plain silly.

 

If people are able to look at their artifically inflated numbers with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, that's their delusion. Its not the game I play. I'm into finding and hiding geocaches.

 

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

 

Each of my found it logs = one cache actually found. Each of my attended logs = an event attended. Is that better? That's for others to judge. It is more accurate though.

Edited March 14, 2007 by briansnat

[+Kit Fox]

I'm very passionate about caching with integrity. I only log finds on caches with their own GC #s, I attend event caches only once, and i'll never log a pocket/temp cache as a legitimate find. I also debated this three times already.

 

Pocket Caches are Back? (8 pages of debate)

 

The New Numbers Game I hate to admit it: Jeremy was right (20 pages of debate)

 

Rediculious Event: Number Game???? Is this an abuse or valid (7 pages of debate)

 

In the linked threads, the debate falls into three categories: Those who don't care either way, those that do care, and those that defend the practice, when it is discovered that over 50% of their finds are of non-existant caches.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Totem Clan]

Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

If I have given anyone the idea that I think that way, I'm sorry. That's not how I feel.

 

I will log one cache or event one time. That is not because of some high and mighty principle I'm trying to uphold. The main reason I do it is, that way is that how I keep a record of each one unique cache or event I've found or attended. Sort of a record keeping thing for me.

 

There is a CITO event just over the border in Minnesota that is an on going event. In order to log the event you must CITO a public area in Minnesota. You are allowed to do so once a month. I have logged it as an attend once. When I CITO there now I log a note on the event. I have no problem with others logging it as attend every month. That is just not what I want to see when I go to look at my stats.

 

As long as you are doing so in accordance with the rules/guidelines set up by GC.com, and are not doing things that are to the detriment of other cachers or the public, I have no problem with you logging caches however you want.

[+sbell111]

Can you give an example that's not of a grandfathered no longer allowed cache that meets TODAYS guidelines?

Here is a Monthly Event that uses a recycled cache page each month. Every month the Event is in a new location, there is a different group of Attendees, the activites are different and the cache hunts afterwards are different. Each Event is unique yet all are hosted under one GC number. It is not a Grandfathered cache.

 

Wether or not a cache is grandfathered has nothing at all to do with my question. Is your answer that it is OK to have multiple Finds on one cache because we have Grandfathered cache types or Grandfathered cache types are a weak excuse for a practice that you deem unacceptable?

I wonder why they recycle the cache page like that? We have a monthly Event here as well but it's submitted as a new event each month. Since each has it's own GC number, i claim my "attended" every time i attend a meeting. I would certainly have to rethink this practice if it was an event with the same GC number on it.

I had a Christmas cache that I had intended to place every year with gifts for local cachers. Since it is somewhat temporary in nature, I was told that it would be best to unarchive the old page annually, rather than create a new cache. The cache page would be reused, but the cache would likely be placed in a different place each time. Certainly, it would be OK for people to log it each year.

[+sbell111]

... Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

Not in the same way that you are asking. Certainly, I wouldn't want people to re-use cache pages for completely different caches, thereby changing history. (An exception to this would be the example I gave in my previous post.)

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

Of course they are. They're mine. For the most part, I don't really care about other people's smilies.

[Mushtang]

These forum discussions changed my mind a couple of years ago about how willing I am to post multiple Finds on caches and events.

 

There are a couple of events that I've logged 2 or 3 times for temporary caches, and there's one cache that the owner moved about .10 miles and told folks to re-log if they wanted to, so I did.

 

Since then I've decided I didn't want to play that way anymore, and wouldn't do those things today, but I didn't go back and change my bogus finds.

 

If someone asks me what I think about a certain practice (such as logging multiple finds, MIA caches, etc) I'll give my opinion, but I would never tell someone else how they should play (or at least I try very hard not to do so).

 

Everyone has their own valid reasons for playing the game the way they do. I LOVE the diversity in this game. The lack of actual competition (nobody can win, no numbers comparisons are actually valid) makes it possible for everyone to decide for themselves what kinds of finds they're willing to claim.

[+The Fun Group]

We have several examples of "potential multiple find" caches in our area. One cache was adopted by another cacher, moved to a new location in the same park, but retained the cache name and GC number. I found that one in each of it's locations and logged it each time. We have another that used to be a puzzle cache but is now a traditional. Instead of solving the coords, they are now given. Same location as before, different name and GC number. I found it and logged it as a puzzle, but won't re-sign the log book and re-log it as a traditional.

 

ed. for spelling

Edited March 14, 2007 by The Fun Group

[+ePeterso2]

The Brass Cap Cache is an example of a Multi-target cache. There are 340 (so far) distinct targets outlined in the GC listing. Some are on the tops of mountains, some are in city parks, some have never been located as they are in the remote wilderness, each target is a unique hunt, a unique journey and a unique Find.

Sounds like a locationless disguised as a virtual.

 

I only log one find per cache. When I ran my stats into itsnotaboutthenumbers, I found two double-finds and changed each of them to a note.

 

-eP

[+baloo&bd]

My question is this, can a person hide a cache for a week (or whatever) then archive it and move it to a new spot?

 

The guidelines are pretty clear about this, you cannot list a cache on GC.com which is intended to be temporary. Your comment raises an interesting point though. If I archived a cache and then re-listed it in the same place with the same name would it be a different cache because it had a new GC number?

 

The "GC number is sacrosanct" group of geocachers would probably have no problem logging it as a second Find whereas those who were interested in a unique experience probably wouldn't even come back.

 

I think I am following your original question, although not sure why you don't come right out and ask the one aspect up front: Is it OK to log pocket caches or caches hidden specifically for the event? If I am wrong, sorry.

 

The answer to this question, you answered yourself above. Temporary caches do not meet the guidelines. Another point to be made is that these "event caches" may be hidden in an illegal or dangerous manner with no means for GC to review. They are intended to be temporary. Around where I am from, cachers do hide caches specifically for events, but they are permanent and there after the event and approved by a reviewer.

 

Does it hurt anyone? Aside from the illegal/dangerous aspect, only the ones logging them.

 

As to re-using a cache page for a monthly event, technically that is not logging the same cache multiple times. It is an entirely different event. I am not sure why they just don't save the HTML and re-submit it every time. For the many who set up their PQ's to only show caches and events they have not found or attended, they will never see it.

 

You have asked for opinions on a subject that has been raised many times. Those of us who are in it for more than the numbers and respond will, inevitably, be accused of being "all about the numbers" because we respond. We just can not understand finding something more than once.

 

Jeff Foxworthy used to ask "why do people always say they found it in the last place they looked? Well duh!, why would you keep looking once you found it?". That more or less sums it up.

[+Ambrosia]

I have used the cache in question at an event. I suppose that's the only place I'll be able to use it. I have two others that use batteries. One requires the person to plug their own 9V in before they can get it to work and the other one has batteries that are only used when they press a button. Those batteries have lasted a good year per set.

If you don't mind having a cache at your home, you could use it there. Some people have home caches in their yard where they change the cache container seasonally or at a whim. You can have something for christmas, easter, etc. Front yards can be small, and you could even move the cache slightly by 10 feet or so, as long as it is within the coordinate area. That way, you could use your special container sometimes, and use something else at other times.

 

If I didn't mind giving out my home coordinates, I'd love to do that. It sounds like a lot of fun. It's a good way to meet other cachers!

[+wavector]

I'm very passionate about caching with integrity. I only log finds on caches with their own GC #s

 

You are entitled to your opinion on what constitutes "integrity" but it doesn't define integrity. Every cacher logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times can make the same claim as you in regards to integrity without adding the qualifier about GC#'s. Your assumption that your practices represent "integrity" in geocaching is just that, your assumption.

 

People who claim a Find when a cache is MIA are doing a disservice to the community, there are numerous examples of this in the other thread, it does matter. Moving caches exist in many places and to infer that those who log them twice, or 60 times for that matter, are lacking in integrity is ignorant.

 

briansnat may not be wrong , but he is certainly in a small select group when he says he logs Moving caches with Notes. Don't take my word for it, just check out Lord Elwood's bookmark list and read the logs on the Moving caches that are bookmarked. Note that in most cases the cache placer specifically states it is OK to log the cache multiple times, those who log the cache multiple times are not doing anything wrong. To suggest or even infer that they are puts you into the "my smilies are better" camp, this is my opinion, call it my assumption if you will.

 

When a cache is designed to be found multiple times it is fine to do so and people who do that aren't doing anything wrong.

 

Is it just me or is it ridiculous to have to explain this?

 

The Brass Cap Cache is not a locationless cache, every target is a clearly specified point and the Finder must take a picture of the target that is at the listed coordinates or retrieve a code from the target and submit it to claim a Find, it is a Multi-target Virtual cache and it is perfectly legitimate. The monthly events are new unique events that use the same cache page. The moving cache is a moving cache. In every case the Find or the Event are unique and singular experiences, a modicum of common sense should make this apparent to any reader, the GC is irrelevant, totally.

 

The practices in the area where you live will determine your views in regards to integrity. Here is an excellent example. I met a geocacher online and his profile will probably bug a lot of the "my smilies represent integrity" group. He is a new geocacher and he lives in Wisconsin and he has gone to an event. I don't think he is "pumping" numbers. I think he is a new geocacher who lives in Wisconsin. If his profile bothers you, then I think you have a problem.

 

Jay

 

The numbers really aren't important, the GC number is just another number. Accepting that the numbers aren't important is simply admitting that you expect nothing for finding tupperware in the woods, no great loss. Correct logging is essential to avoid impacting others enjoyment but that has nothing to do with the practices that I have highlighted. It is a good thing that these practices exist or the camp that thinks there smilies represent integrity in geocaching would be trying to bludgeon everyone who accepted different standards. The GC number is just a number, it needs to be shot down, the ridiculous assumption that each GC number should represent one Find and no more is in a word "ridiculous" and subscribers to that theory are simply looking for something that doesn't exist, unconditional respect for their smilies.

 

The numbers really aren't important.

Smilies make a poor bludgeon.

[+wavector]

We just can not understand finding something more than once.

 

None of the examples I listed fall inside this parameter, not one. In every case it is a unique Find and a Unique hunt. Your assumption that it cannot be a unique experience without a unique GC number is wrong and it is limiting your viewpoint.

 

Here is alist of the Alberta cachers who hunt the Brass Cap Cache, as you can see most of our Charter Members and indeed most members of our community hunt the 340 unique targets represented by that GC number, they are not wrong, you are;

 

Ranking Cacher # Finds

1 nicolo 257

2 Sleepy_hollow 246

3 XRN95 228

4 RedRouge 179

5 Smrt_geer 163

6 Klondike Mike 147

7 3jaze 130

8 Judy-Wan Kenobi 124

9 Mr. Speedy 112

10 Tommi Potx 108

11 geonana 106

12 Bush Creatures 105

13 Cymbc 101

14 PDOP's 98

15 ibycus 92

16 Cap'n Cache & Lt. Geo 91

17 Ting 83

18 Red90 78

19 wavector 77

20 Stig Figger 74

21 EdgeMonks 74

22 GPSVixen 72

23 Mr. CanoeHead 67

24 reastick 64

25 kokoscoot 64

26 hurley_108 64

27 Viajero Perdido 58

28 Rocky 1 52

29 The4B's 48

30 balloonatic 41

31 The_Master_11 40

32 KappaAlpha Team 35

33 j2d2 35

34 Foster Bros 33

35 terradoug 31

36 New Direction 30

37 XIITerraPaws 28

38 GPSlug 26

39 Dog Knows 25

40 Everhollow 24

41 Softheads 21

42 GeoKs 21

43 CBfan 21

44 RoadsideTurnout 20

45 bish0p 20

46 LoomaLander 19

47 wildwoodke 18

48 squirmy wormy 17

49 Klimbing Kiddo 17

50 Sunshine* 16

51 ScouterHerb & MrsB 16

52 rubiconrunner 16

53 lil seeker 14

54 DungeonKeeper 14

55 Geomac 13

56 peanutbutterbreadandjam 12

57 DuckyJo 12

58 dhenley and max the dog 12

59 Brat & Testy 12

60 ROTC 11

61 Salsa girl 10

62 DanOCan 10

63 cyber-hunter 10

64 yantski 9

65 raw spirit 9

66 napgravy 9

67 Devochkagori 9

68 911turbos 8

69 thisismeisthatu 7

70 thibaug 7

71 Scratch_ 7

72 VE6SRV 6

73 Lemon Fresh Dog 6

74 grandpaloren 6

75 3 Bubbas 6

76 radcanhig 5

77 [ 5

78 ve6dave 4

79 TrollGRG 4

80 the nelsons 4

81 Team BKDD 4

82 red squirrel 4

83 JoeyTomato 4

84 Don VE6DKS 4

85 Tacoma Homer 3

86 shearzone 3

87 park2 3

88 mrbond 3

89 mhicks 3

90 Johnnygeo 3

91 ChiefPig 3

92 TeamARKY 2

93 SugarGlider 2

94 Scouter John 2

95 scooter&smiley 2

96 ron1337 2

97 ricklep 2

98 QuantumLeaper 2

99 Northern Explorers 2

100 Neko&Hiiri 2

101 MeeCachers 2

102 MacDoug 2

103 Lil'Romers 2

104 ladylitefoot 2

105 Kzam 2

106 Kodiaks 2

107 Killer Rabbits 2

108 Kaslo 2

109 Gryffen 2

110 graylling 2

111 Gate Keeper 2

112 Feather 2

113 CBMocha 2

114 byte 2

115 BHT cache finders 2

116 BearGPS 2

117 3Teas 2

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ok, I'll bite. What are the GC #'s of caches that can be found more than once?

 

Here is one : Stash n Dash.

 

Stash n Dash is an example of a Moving Cache.

 

Ok. That's a grandfathered cache. They are no longer allowed. Just like logging a virtual. You can log them, but they aren't allowed anymore. Your example doesn't go along with your original premise. Can you give an example that's not of a grandfathered no longer allowed cache that meets TODAYS guidelines?

 

You didn't ask about currently permitted caches that could be logged more than once.

I have multiple logs on a Locationless Cache (now archived), and perhaps on one of Markwell's Photographer's Caches. Multiple logs were permitted since the goals changed.

It would seem to me that recycling the page for a meeting/event would fall under that category of 'moveable cache', and not be permitted.

[+wavector]

It would seem to me that recycling the page for a meeting/event would fall under that category of 'moveable cache', and not be permitted.

 

It is permitted, look at the example. Apparently TPTB are not going to disallow meetings of geocachers because they didn't get a new GC number.

 

What I said was;

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

 

This is a very simple statement, it has nothing to do with when a cache was listed, when goals changed, what might be permissable today or any other red herring. Accepting that it is true means that a new definition of integrity might be required for some people who think they have pure smilies.

[+wavector]

bogus finds.

 

Your assumptions are showing.

[+CYBret]

This topic came up in another thread and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

A well known geocacher said this

Every find on my list is a unique find and every find was actually found. I found all my finds and logged every find that I claim to have found.

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous to have to explain this?!?!?

 

My reply was straightforward:

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find...

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

Do you believe that a GC number is sacrosanct?

Are your smilies better than other people's smilies?

 

Gee, maybe I'm taking this a little personally....especially since the quote was mine.

 

When did I ever say that my smilies are better than anyone else's smilies?

 

Multiple finds on one cache wasn't the topic of that discussion, it was people logging DNF's as finds. My point was that every smiley on my stats page points to a cache that I found. For whatever reason you chose to lead this topic off with my quote which wasn't even about this topic.

 

As for this topic, I decided some time ago that I wanted my stats page to reflect one smiley for each cache I found. I just don't see the point of showing that I attended 75 events when I've only been to 50, or found 500 traditional caches when it's really only 498. The fact is, it's just easier for me to keep track of this way.

 

Maybe you call it sacrosanct, but people who know me would say I'm just being anal.

 

Each of my found it logs = one cache actually found. Each of my attended logs = an event attended. Is that better? That's for others to judge. It is more accurate though.

 

There...what he said.

 

Bret

[+The Herd]

I just had this discussion today with another cacher. I don't myself cache for the numbers, but it IS rather humerous to go to INATN.com and looking at peoples unique finds. I have seen some cachers on that site with over 200 mulitiple logs. While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds...it's not my problem. I used to have alot of them, ie...events and such. However, when I started getting closer to my 500 finds milestone, I felt I should go back and fix my multiple finds. Not for anyone, other than myself. They are my numbers. Other numbers belong to other cachers...and I myself will not waste ANY good caching time on worrying about other peoples numbers!

[+wavector]

Each of my found it logs = one cache actually found. Each of my attended logs = an event attended. Is that better? That's for others to judge. It is more accurate though.

There...what he said.

Bret

 

You are supposed to take it personally!

I cited the same three examples I used in this thread in that other thread but you didn't answer my question over there so it is good that you showed up over here.

I used exactly the same examples but added a Wisconsonian (Wisconsinite?) for good measure.

 

Here is what I said over there:

 

There are caches that are designed to be found multiple times, these caches are within the guidelines.

People have fun finding them and they are not doing anything wrong.

Their Finds are entirely legitimate and each is a unique experience, a unique Find.

They are not claiming a Find when a cache is missing in action.

In fact they can say the same thing that you said, is this not obvious?

 

It is nice to hear you admit that seeking a correspondence between unique GC numbers and the Find count is simply being "anal" and that you don't consider the GC number sacrosanct. On the other hand Kit Fox is implying that the correspondence between the two numbers represents "integrity" which is clearly very wrong, at least that is obvious to me, is it obvious to you?

[+wavector]

While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds.

 

Perhaps you didn't have this conversation but a different one.

 

If you read the examples I have cited you will see that each represents a case where every Find is unique.

You are implying that a GC number is the only thing that represents a unique Find or a unique geocaching experience and this is incorrect.

 

This is what we are discussing, how incorrect assumptions lead people to think they have good smilies or that others have tainted smilies.

 

Since the numbers are meaningless I will assume you meant "people on the list that tallies some meaningless number" rather than an actual "top ten geocaching scores".

Edited March 14, 2007 by wavector

[+The Jester]

 

As to re-using a cache page for a monthly event, technically that is not logging the same cache multiple times. It is an entirely different event. I am not sure why they just don't save the HTML and re-submit it every time. For the many who set up their PQ's to only show caches and events they have not found or attended, they will never see it.

 

One advantage of using the same page every month, is that the people wanting to attend can just keep a watch on that page and no matter where the event is they can know about it. The WSGA used to do that and as the meetings could be 30+ miles apart it was an easy way to see them. I don't log the monthly meetings as attended, it started back when the same page was used, they "wiped" the logs each month. Now I just don't think they are 'unique' enough to warrant an event log - my personal opinion.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The Brass Cap Cache is not a locationless cache, every target is a clearly specified point and the Finder must take a picture of the target that is at the listed coordinates or retrieve a code from the target and submit it to claim a Find, it is a Multi-target Virtual cache and it is perfectly legitimate.

 

I wish there were more cache like that! But it does remind me of many locationless caches that were archived. Y'all Stop Fightin Now, Ya Hear?(Mason~Dixon Line) , for example. We arranged part of a vacation to log this one. (Okay, the main purpose of the vacation trip was to log the Project A.P.E. cache, and visit a friend in Maryland.) This cache presented an historically important endeavor. I was very sorry to see it archived because it was locationless. The only difference that I see between this one and Brass Cap is that for the Mason-Dixon Line, each marker could only be logged once.

[+wavector]

The only difference that I see between this one and Brass Cap is that for the Mason-Dixon Line, each marker could only be logged once.

 

You raise an interesting point here Harry. The Alberta geocaching community would certainly frown on a cacher who logged one of the unique Brass Cap targets more than once. The fact is that the local community usually observes a strict protocol on the unique caches that are in the area in which they live. Other cachers who live in a moving cache area could confirm that the rules on the cache are important. If the placer of a moving cache says you cannot log it until it has moved three times from your last Find then not following that rule would create a reaction from the local community. If a caching team was to try and bounce a moving cache like Stash n Dash back and forth to increase their Find counts it would be frowned upon (it has happened). I suspect that our friend Jay from Wisconsin would get feedback if he tried to log the event 18 times instead of 16, I am not sure that this is the case but I suspect it is.

 

Acceptable practices vary by region but the idea that a unique GC number is required to have a unique Find or a unique geocaching experience is just a silly straightjacket that makes no sense at all. What strikes me as really stupid is that this idea seems to spring from a program that analyzes PQ's and bills itself as "itnotaboutthenumbers" - that is not just stupid, it is ironic.

[+wavector]

I admit to multiple finds on the one moving cache in my area, but when I plugged my stats into "Its notaboutthenumbers" and saw the discrepency between unique finds and finds, I changed the extra finds to notes.

 

Perhaps you could explain why my read of this is wrong?

 

It appears to me that you rewrote your geocaching history so that it conformed to the expectations of the person who wrote the parsing program "itsnotaboutthenumbers". Your intial inclination was to log each Find as a Find because it represented a unique geocaching experience. It appears to me that you actually went to a unique location, you found a geocache that had been hidden there and logged it as a Find.

You later used a program to parse your geocaching history and you decided to go back and call one of your unique "Finds" a "Note" so that your "numbers" conformed to the expectations of the program writer. Is that correct or incorrect?

When the program writer said your Find was not unique did you regard that as a common sense assessment of your experience?

Is the program writer an authority on geocaching, moreso than you?

 

Thanks brian

[+The Herd]

While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds.

 

Perhaps you didn't have this conversation but a different one.

 

If you read the examples I have cited you will see that each represents a case where every Find is unique.

You are implying that a GC number is the only thing that represents a unique Find or a unique geocaching experience and this is incorrect.

 

This is what we are discussing, how incorrect assumptions lead people to think they have good smilies or that others have tainted smilies.

 

Since the numbers are meaningless I will assume you meant "people on the list that tallies some meaningless number" rather than an actual "top ten geocaching scores".

 

I wrote exactly what I meant. The only person I am concerned with seeing my numbers is me. Everyone elses are their own. As has been said MANY times, everyone plays the game their own way.

 

Please don't rewrite my posts to mean what you want them to mean. I wrote what I wanted to write, not what I wanted you to edit.

[+briansnat]

I admit to multiple finds on the one moving cache in my area, but when I plugged my stats into "Its notaboutthenumbers" and saw the discrepency between unique finds and finds, I changed the extra finds to notes.

 

Perhaps you could explain why my read of this is wrong?

 

It appears to me that you rewrote your geocaching history so that it conformed to the expectations of the person who wrote the parsing program "itsnotaboutthenumbers". Your intial inclination was to log each Find as a Find because it represented a unique geocaching experience. It appears to me that you actually went to a unique location, you found a geocache that had been hidden there and logged it as a Find.

You later used a program to parse your geocaching history and you decided to go back and call one of your unique "Finds" a "Note" so that your "numbers" conformed to the expectations of the program writer. Is that correct or incorrect?

When the program writer said your Find was not unique did you regard that as a common sense assessment of your experience?

Is the program writer an authority on geocaching, moreso than you?

 

Thanks brian

 

Actually no. I changed my finds to conform to my current feelings about how I should log caches. Looking at that program's results just brought the issue to my attention. The finds were several years old and I had forgotten about them.

 

I've done it before. Thre was one cache I was involved with where the cache was in a precarious spot. One particularly bold person climbed out to the spot, grabbed the cache and handed it to me. The owner was there and said it was OK for all of us who participated in the hunt to sign and log the find online, so I did. As my feelings about the propriety of this changed over time, the idea of that find started to bother me. I eventually realized that there is no point in having a find that bothered me, so I changed it to a note. I think it was nearly 3 years after the fact.

 

So its not a matter of changing my logs to fit someone else's expectations, but to fit my own evolving mores.

Edited March 15, 2007 by briansnat

[+wavector]

While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds.

 

I wrote exactly what I meant.

 

I didn't rewrite your post, I quoted you.

"Finds" on a Moving cache are unique, exactly the same as any other find on any other geocache.

[+The Herd]

While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds.

 

Since the numbers are meaningless I will assume you meant "people on the list that tallies some meaningless number" rather than an actual "top ten geocaching scores".

 

That is what I meant by you "rewriting" my post.

 

I do agree, finds on a "moving" cache are one thing. However, multiple logs on the SAME cache, in the same place, to me...is not the way I prefer to play the game.

[+wavector]

 

Actually no. I changed my finds to conform to my current feelings about how I should log caches.

 

I respect that it is your choice and they are your numbers. I respect common sense.

I know from dealing with you on these forums that you are a wellspring of common sense when it comes to geocaching so thanks for providing insight.

 

In my opinion the value of conforming to the one GC number = one Find is negligible and it follows no criterion that I can discern, I live in a part of the world that has conclusively and completely rejected that notion.

People who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing nothing wrong.

The Finds are not "bogus finds", they are not being "unfair" to others and they are not "pumping up the numbers". Every Find log corresponds to a unique geocaching experience. They are doing something which is perfectly acceptable and it is within the guidelines. There is no common sense reason to expect that the number of "Finds" should correspond to the GC numbers.

[+CYBret]

It is nice to hear you admit that seeking a correspondence between unique GC numbers and the Find count is simply being "anal" and that you don't consider the GC number sacrosanct. On the other hand Kit Fox is implying that the correspondence between the two numbers represents "integrity" which is clearly very wrong, at least that is obvious to me, is it obvious to you?

 

I have learned that integrity is what it is to each individual. If I'm living out my integrity I shouldn't have to defend or explain it. If Kit Fox sees cache logging as a matter of integrity, should I talk him out of that? And if I can talk him out of that, what does that say about his personal integrity anyway?

 

For me, I log each cache I find once and only once (wow, I'm explaining that again). I want my stats to stand for unique caches. I have many friends who don't play that way and I celebrate their milestones with them. As I've said many times, it's not a competition.

 

And you know what? For me--for my game--it is a matter of personal integrity. Because if I break the rules I've chosen to play with then I've sacrificed a little bit of my integrity. As someone once said, "Faithful in the small things...."

 

Bret

[+wavector]

While I think it is unfair to other people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds.I do agree, finds on a "moving" cache are one thing.

 

Finds on a Moving cache are not one thing, they are unique. Every example I gave represents finds that are unique. I gather your "unfair" comment is related to something I am saying?

Perhaps you could explain why it is "unfair to people on the top ten lists that have all unique finds" for others to log a moving cache multiple times as each finds is also "unique"?

Edited March 15, 2007 by wavector

[+wavector]

I have learned that integrity is what it is to each individual.

 

The simplest definition of integrity is honesty and virtue, this applies to all people, not individuals.

Which brings us full circle to my original satement;

People who are logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times are doing nothing wrong. The Finds are not "bogus finds", they are not being "unfair" to others and they are not "pumping up the numbers". Every Find log corresponds to a unique geocaching experience. They are doing something which is perfectly acceptable and it is within the guidelines.

No one should question their honesty or their virtue.

 

Here is what Kit Fox said;

I'm very passionate about caching with integrity. I only log finds on caches with their own GC #s

 

Creating a false correspondence between GC#'s/Finds and stating that it represents an act of integrity most certainly casts aspersions on the honesty and virtue of ALL geocachers who throw that stupid rule right out the window.

 

Is this not obvious?

Edited March 15, 2007 by wavector

[Pokagon Nature Center]

[+ReadyOrNot]

Creating a false correspondence between GC#'s/Finds and stating that it represents an act of integrity most certainly casts aspersions on the honesty and virtue of ALL geocachers who throw that stupid rule right out the window.

 

Is this not obvious?

 

If you truely play the game your way and don't care about how other people play, why are you posting so much to this thread?

 

Isn't it obvious?