Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rnrgrl

Double Dipping

Recommended Posts

Lately I have come across cachers who either don't know about the "write note" feature or are just plain trying to get their numbers up in a less than rightful manner. ;) I realize as a cache owner, I can delete such logs but there is nothing one can do if the cacher does it on his or her own cache pages. I was wondering if at some point a feature could be in place on the site where such "double dipping" could be avoided. I also realize we all make mistakes and press the wrong buttons but this is just a game of fun.

Share this post


Link to post

... this is just a game of fun.

 

I think you said it best yourself with those words...it's just a game of fun. Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game. There are no set in stone rules when it comes to geocaching and everyone is open to interpret the guidelines as they see fit. Best thing to do is to get outside and find some caches and not worry what others do.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Nonsense. Of course it effects me. How can I rely on the find count to know who has found the most caches if someone is double logging or logging their own caches. I don't care if they did it inadvertantly or just to get their numbers up, it still messes with the count. And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :(

Share this post


Link to post

... but there is nothing one can do if the cacher does it on his or her own cache pages.

Almost correct. There is nothing you can do about getting rid of the bogus find, but you CAN decide not to let it bother you, and forget about it.

 

There are a small number of reasons why someone should actually log a find twice, so this is probably why the code doesn't disallow it.

Share this post


Link to post

so this is probably why the code doesn't disallow it.

 

Although it wouldn't bother me one bit if they did restrict it.

Share this post


Link to post

Recently someone logged a find on one of my caches. I sent them a very polite email asking how they liked the unique container, saying I was surprised they didn't mention it in their log.

 

Turned out, they had meant to write a Note. They went back and changed the log.

 

Other times, new caches haven't realized the second "Found It" when they returned to a cache to retrieve a TB, added to their count. A polite email was all they needed to change the second "Found It" to a "Note." :(

 

As for the others . . . if they can justify the additional "Found Its," okay . . . :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Miragee makes a good point - a polite email may clear things up quickly.

 

My own personal rule is one GC number equals no more than 1 find - ever.

 

In the case of adoptions - a log on your own (adopted) cache is not a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.
And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :(
While some people are trying to find ways to log more, some like me are trying to find ways to log less. :anicute: It's actually nice not log certain caches anymore, and to just hit the ignore button instead! :anicute: I don't like the feeling of some useless thing pulling me or obligating me to do something. So worrying about some number is one of those things I can do without. So for those certain caches out there: "No more soup for you!" :unsure:

 

180px-Sein_soup_nazi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

so this is probably why the code doesn't disallow it.

 

Although it wouldn't bother me one bit if they did restrict it.

I'm sure it wouldn't, but it would bother other people. Would you be okay if other folks got upset about not being able to log events the way they enjoy?

Share this post


Link to post
Uh Oh!! :anicute:
Can you pass me some of your popcorn MIragee? Oh thanks! :(

:anicute:

Hope everyone likes A&W....

Share this post


Link to post

Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Nonsense. Of course it effects me. How can I rely on the find count to know who has found the most caches if someone is double logging or logging their own caches. I don't care if they did it inadvertantly or just to get their numbers up, it still messes with the count. And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :(

yeah, you were trying to be funny but:

I do rely on the find count and logs to know how my cache is doing. If someone with 500 finds listed but all of them are 3 events where they found easter eggs in a sand box. It's going to lead me astray on their real skill. They didn't find 500 area caches that would give me an idea if they had the experience to find my cache. Also if I get an email out of the blue from a non logger saying "Your cache has issues" and I check their profile and see zero finds I thend to think "sock puppet" and the guy is pulling my leg or wants me to see that they have stolen my cache and is trying to get a rise out of me.

 

That said and back on topic: If you find a cache then adopt it, you will have "found" your own cache. That's ok. Sometimes other things happen like the owner moves the cache enough to have a new cache experience and lets old finders find it again. Yes they should have just listed it as a new cache. But they didn't. For the most part though I wish this site would just limit find logs to 1 on a cache. While there are fair reasons for more than one find on a cache, it's not kosher most of the time.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

There a a couple examples of this in my area.. some of the examples I think are cool.. other seem strange to me but I'm not complaining. Here are the examples I'm referring to..

 

1. Logging your own caches as "found": A geocacher in my area - who will remain nameless - has done this at all of his caches.. I don't know if its done intentionally to increase his numbers, or if its just a misinterpretation of how to keep track of your finds. Regardless, if this is how that person want to play the game then I have no objection to it. My caching buddy on the other hand doesn't think its legit. Perhaps its a bug in the system - or perhaps its a feature - I don't know. My thinking is that if I once found a cache - then eventually ended up adopting it - then I would not want to loose my record of having found it before it became mine.

2. Multiple 'found' logs are part of the cache by design:

2a.
A recurring event cache local to me (
) allows me to log it as "attended" (e.g. found) each time I attend. Same event, same owner, same GC#, etc. - just a new date for each month's occurrence. I think its cool.. and I've heard nobody complain.

 

2b.
A now-archived cache (
) included instructions to log the standard find as 'found'.. then there's an 'extreme' extension to the cache - sort of like a 2nd stage of a multi - which the cache owner instructed finders to log as a second find. I had never seen this before - but I thought it was an interesting use of this bug/feature. Unfortunately, the cache was retired before I could go for the 'extreme' stage.

To me its all part of the ever-evolving game. Its all good to me!!!

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post

There a a couple examples of this in my area.. some of the examples I think are cool.. other seem strange to me but I'm not complaining. Here are the examples I'm referring to..

 

1. Logging your own caches as "found": A geocacher in my area - who will remain nameless - has done this at all of his caches.. I don't know if its done intentionally to increase his numbers, or if its just a misinterpretation of how to keep track of your finds. Regardless, if this is how that person want to play the game then I have no objection to it. My caching buddy on the other hand doesn't think its legit. Perhaps its a bug in the system - or perhaps its a feature - I don't know. My thinking is that if I once found a cache - then eventually ended up adopting it - then I would not want to loose my record of having found it before it became mine.

2. Multiple 'found' logs are part of the cache by design:

2a.
A recurring event cache local to me (
) allows me to log it as "attended" (e.g. found) each time I attend. Same event, same owner, same GC#, etc. - just a new date for each month's occurrence. I think its cool.. and I've heard nobody complain.

 

2b.
A now-archived cache (
) included instructions to log the standard find as 'found'.. then there's an 'extreme' extension to the cache - sort of like a 2nd stage of a multi - which the cache owner instructed finders to log as a second find. I had never seen this before - but I thought it was an interesting use of this bug/feature. Unfortunately, the cache was retired before I could go for the 'extreme' stage.

To me its all part of the ever-evolving game. Its all good to me!!!

 

:(

1) I agree with your buddy. I won't log my own caches.

2a) Sounds OK, but why don't they just make a new event each month?

2b) Why didn't they just make this into two caches?

Share this post


Link to post

I've logged some event related multi caches, that move around to different locations and have different number of intermediate points, multiple times. But only when I actually find it and not see a hundred people congregating around it.

 

I have logged some other caches twice. If I'm on my way to a new cache and know I'm passing by a cache I've visited a couple years ago i might pop in to find it again. But only if I find it without using the GPS as I would not have the coords for an already found cache in it anyway. And only if it's a challenge to remember where it was and hike a goodly long distance to it out of the way to theother cache.

 

I have logged some multi caches twice. Back when I was a newby I found part 1 of somethig one day but didn't get back to find the final for several months. In another case I found part 1-5 one afternoon/evening, but had to return the next day to go the last 1.5 miles to find the final. 2 Find logs, many actual finds, 2 actual days.

 

If there are numbers police then there are much more important situations to write citations about. I won't name names or numbers other than over 20,000?

Share this post


Link to post

Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Nonsense. Of course it effects me. How can I rely on the find count to know who has found the most caches if someone is double logging or logging their own caches. I don't care if they did it inadvertantly or just to get their numbers up, it still messes with the count. And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :(

 

You are kidding, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Nonsense. Of course it effects me. How can I rely on the find count to know who has found the most caches if someone is double logging or logging their own caches. I don't care if they did it inadvertantly or just to get their numbers up, it still messes with the count. And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :anicute:

 

You are kidding, right?

I'm sure that he is... :(

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone logging a cache twice as found or logging a find on their own cache really has no effect on your or anyone's enjoyment of the game.

Nonsense. Of course it effects me. How can I rely on the find count to know who has found the most caches if someone is double logging or logging their own caches. I don't care if they did it inadvertantly or just to get their numbers up, it still messes with the count. And what really ticks me off more are the people who don't log all of their finds online. That's right, some people find caches and sign the log in the cache and then never post online. I'll never know if one of them has more finds then me and that makes me mad. I was wondering if at some point there could be a feature in place on the site that would require everyone to log all their finds online. :(

 

You are kidding, right?

Only partially. Why are people worried about numbers so much? Can you really compare someone who has found 1000 1/1s with someone who has found 1000 but some were 5/5 or 5/4? RK says he used the find count to decide if a DNF is just a newbie having trouble with a difficult hide or an experienced cacher where there might be a problem with the cache. I'm not sure how much the occasional multi-log effects this number and in any case if he is not sure about the experience of the logger he can check their profile. On the other hand, if you have someone who never logs a find online, but does log DNF to let the hider know there is a problem, RK has no way of knowing how to judge this log. It really does seem to me, sometimes, that not logging finds is a bigger problem than logging multiple finds or logging your own cache. For me someone else's find count doesn't really matter.

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

 

Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

Share this post


Link to post

I've logged some event related multi caches, that move around to different locations and have different number of intermediate points, multiple times. But only when I actually find it and not see a hundred people congregating around it.

 

I have logged some other caches twice. If I'm on my way to a new cache and know I'm passing by a cache I've visited a couple years ago i might pop in to find it again. But only if I find it without using the GPS as I would not have the coords for an already found cache in it anyway. And only if it's a challenge to remember where it was and hike a goodly long distance to it out of the way to theother cache.

 

I have logged some multi caches twice. Back when I was a newby I found part 1 of somethig one day but didn't get back to find the final for several months. In another case I found part 1-5 one afternoon/evening, but had to return the next day to go the last 1.5 miles to find the final. 2 Find logs, many actual finds, 2 actual days.

 

If there are numbers police then there are much more important situations to write citations about. I won't name names or numbers other than over 20,000?

First I've ever heard of anyone doing this:

If I'm on my way to a new cache and know I'm passing by a cache I've visited a couple years ago i might pop in to find it again.

Last Tuesday, I went caching with someone and we revisited more than 30 caches I found more than a year ago. That day I logged two finds. Then last Thursday I went for two long hikes with another cacher. She found 32 caches that day. I found, and logged, the one I had not found before.

 

And, first time I've every heard of anyone doing this:

2 Find logs, many actual finds, 2 actual days.

If it was my Multi-cache, I would only allow one find on it. Two years ago, my caching partner had to make five trips to a distant park to figure out the waypoints and finally get to the final location of a tricky Multi-cache. We never gave a thought to logging that one Multi-cache five times. :unsure:

 

The Forums sure are interesting. I learn something new everyday! :(

 

Now, excuse me, I have to go log some finds . . . . :anicute::anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yeah.. the other topic mentioned in the first post is about people who find caches but never log it into the website. I know of at least a couple examples of this also.. a couple buddies of mine have geocaching website IDs with which they search for caches; after finding the cache, they never return to log the find on the cache description page. Again - I consider it as the individual's prerogative. I have no specific opinion about it being right or wrong.

:(

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

 

Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

 

There are no "found it" logs on Waymarking.com

Share this post


Link to post

...Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

 

There are no "found it" logs on Waymarking.com

 

Strange.

Every other non find log on GC can have a case made for why multiples should be allowed. Waymarking is either completely different, or there is a found it log by another name.

Share this post


Link to post

...I have logged some other caches twice. If I'm on my way to a new cache and know I'm passing by a cache I've visited a couple years ago i might pop in to find it again. But only if I find it without using the GPS as I would not have the coords for an already found cache in it anyway. And only if it's a challenge to remember where it was and hike a goodly long distance to it out of the way to theother cache....

 

By that logic,

I can find it once with my right hand, once with my left.

Once with a smooth chin and then with my cleft.

Once with my nephew, and then with my wife.

I can find it with a spoon followed by a knife.

One for each moon, full , new, harvest, and blue.

I can keep finding it until my count is two hundred twenty and two.

If I have Old Timers I can hide and and find it all day long.

And once each for each friend I bring along.

 

I'm beginning to like your way of thinking. :(

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

 

Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

 

There are no "found it" logs on Waymarking.com

But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Toz's avatar appears to be some sort of berry ice cream... but I like vanilla.

 

Is there any way to change the avatar setting so only vanilla ice cream is allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Toz's avatar appears to be some sort of berry ice cream... but I like vanilla.

 

Is there any way to change the avatar setting so only vanilla ice cream is allowed?

I think his flavor is Mocha Java (the hut) :(

Share this post


Link to post
Toz's avatar appears to be some sort of berry ice cream... but I like vanilla.

 

Is there any way to change the avatar setting so only vanilla ice cream is allowed?

I think his flavor is Mocha Java (the hut) :(

Oh.. okay then! As long as there's some sort of vague "Star Wars" reference, I'm fine. :anicute::anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

 

Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

 

There are no "found it" logs on Waymarking.com

But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

I would be interested in clarification about this as well. I "own" two Waymark categories, and several Waymarks. Very few of them have even gotten one visit, but someone could write a unique "Visited" log for each time they Re-visit one of the Waymarks, just as someone can write a unique "Found It" log on this site, for something they have already found. :(:anicute::anicute:

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post

 

You are kidding, right?

 

Oh yes. He's kidding.

 

We don't plan on making a restriction to double log caches, so if you like I can move this out of the tech section of the forums and into the general area, let me know. With no change to the site code it becomes a social issue not a technical one.

 

Why did you put the restriction on the Waymarking site and not GC.com?

 

There are no "found it" logs on Waymarking.com

But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

I would be interested in clarification about this as well. I "own" two Waymark categories, and several Waymarks. Very few of them have even gotten one visit, but someone could write a unique "Visited" log for each time they Re-visit one of the Waymarks, just as someone can write a unique "Found It" log on this site, for something they have already found. :(:anicute::anicute:

I don't think you have to log waymarks. To me most of them are basically POIs that you can visit when you are in that area. Plus, it seems like the fun for most seems to be creating waymarks. It is really a different aninal to me.

Share this post


Link to post

...But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

 

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people log their "Visits" to Waymarks. I have, and did . . . until I lost interest . . . :(

Share this post


Link to post

......

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post

...But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

 

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

Now, that is interesting . . . pardon me while I ponder this for a second . . . . . . . :anicute:

 

On GC.com, I think a "Found It" log should only be allowed once per GC#. That would be proper implementation. :( I mean, how many times can you "Find" something? :anicute:

 

However, since Waymarking is different, I can see how someone could "Visit" a location several times and log each Visit, writing a unique, descriptive log each time. :anibad:

 

I guess they could just log a Note for their additional Visits, but isn't Waymarking about "Visiting" Waymarks? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's one of those things that you just have to let go. I had a problem with people that go caching in groups, doesn't matter if it's 2 or 20. One person finds it, and everyone else gets to log it as FOUND even though they just tagged along. In my mind it's just padding numbers.

 

I'm in this for the new places and the challenge of finding it on my own. I've learned to focus on that and pretty much ignore everyone else's stats, but I still can't help but look at some people's numbers and think "yeah, but how many did YOU actually find?"

Share this post


Link to post

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

 

How finding a statue and a micro are the same is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

I have to agree that a visit should be duplicated. I'll see if we can make that happen.

Share this post


Link to post

......

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

Agreed

I disagree. But I think I understand what happened. The Waymarking community was looking for a way to score their game. I would have prefered that there was no score in Waymarking but there is. You get a point for each waymark you create (I think the current term d' jour is establish) and you get one point for each waymark you visit. They decided you should only get a point for each unique waymark you visit - I have no problem with this - but they implemented this score by allowing only one visited log per waymark.

 

BTW, the waymark establisher can visit his/her own waymark and in fact is often encouraged to do so.

 

The waymarkers have also established a bingo game. In your Waymarking profile there is a grid of all Waymarking categories and it gets filled in for each category you either establish or find a waymark in. So now there are compititions to fill in a row or column of the grid.

 

Another issue is that you can find a location that fits several different Waymarking categories and you can cross post this to each of the categories. So it is possible to go to one location and establish 10 different waymarks. What's more is you can visit this location and get 10 visited logs for visiting one location - one in each category. The whole thing doesn't make sense as a game that you score and perhaps neither does geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
The waymarkers have also established a bingo game. In your Waymarking profile there is a grid of all Waymarking categories and it gets filled in for each category you either establish or find a waymark in. So now there are competitions to fill in a row or column of the grid.
I can see how a grid would make it more fun. But hopefully that grid doesn't have categories that I've ignored......

Share this post


Link to post
The waymarkers have also established a bingo game. In your Waymarking profile there is a grid of all Waymarking categories and it gets filled in for each category you either establish or find a waymark in. So now there are competitions to fill in a row or column of the grid.
I can see how a grid would make it more fun. But hopefully that grid doesn't have categories that I've ignored......

Nobody is forcing you to play bingo ;)

Share this post


Link to post
The waymarkers have also established a bingo game. In your Waymarking profile there is a grid of all Waymarking categories and it gets filled in for each category you either establish or find a waymark in. So now there are competitions to fill in a row or column of the grid.
I can see how a grid would make it more fun. But hopefully that grid doesn't have categories that I've ignored......

Nobody is forcing you to play bingo ;)
Oh I get it. If you don't like every category then Bingo is not the game for you. Then, I guess I won't play..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It's interesting that the majority of the replies to this are against double posting. I, too, was once against this practice, but have since come to the realization that my enjoyment of this hobby is totally on me.

 

So, while some get fun out of posting a find for finding a cache, then another for taking a picture of themselves in a costume at the cache site, then another for etc, etc, etc, I've stopped worrying about it.

 

I know that my 1200 finds are for 1200 different GC numbers. If they don't mind knowing that their 1200 finds are for 1100 GC numbers, that's fine with me.

 

That said, I still believe in one for one.

Share this post


Link to post

...But on Waymarking you can only log "visited" once per waymark. Which makes no sense. I may visit the museum or a MacDonald's restaurant many times and want to write about it each time but on Waymarking.com I can only add a note if I already have a visted log. I could see an argument for showing a count of unique Waymarks visited but I can't figure out why the use of the visited log is restricted the way it is.

 

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

Now, that is interesting . . . pardon me while I ponder this for a second . . . . . . . ;)

 

On GC.com, I think a "Found It" log should only be allowed once per GC#. That would be proper implementation. ;) I mean, how many times can you "Find" something? ;)

 

However, since Waymarking is different, I can see how someone could "Visit" a location several times and log each Visit, writing a unique, descriptive log each time. :)

 

I guess they could just log a Note for their additional Visits, but isn't Waymarking about "Visiting" Waymarks? :)

 

I see what you are saying, but by that same logic, caches can be found again and again. Just like your car keys. "Now where did I place those...ok found em..."

 

It's not so much the exact defintion of the word as it is the intent of what we are doing.

Share this post


Link to post

Visit = Find. A rose by another name, implemented correctly on Waymarking I'd say.

 

How finding a statue and a micro are the same is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

I have to agree that a visit should be duplicated. I'll see if we can make that happen.

One more way Waymarking isn't a substitue for a virtual cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's stupid and lame of folks to log caches over and over. I've heard of (but never come across) "pocket caches" that go around at events. I think that's weird as well.

 

However, it really doesn't affect me at all. I log the caches I've found. I keep track of MY numbers for MY OWN gratification. I would actually be happy with a lower number of finds and a higher quality of caches found. If someone else feels the need to fudge their numbers in order to feel "cool" or "superior" or whatever other kind of enjoyement or self-aggrandizement they may get out of it then I don't really care. If they lie to themselves and the rest of the world then that is THEIR problem. I don't really care how many caches they have found or how many they "faked" finding or how many they "found" multiple times.

 

Actually, there are some caches in this area that were found, then they were archived (rather than simply being disabled - it's a personal dispute with a couple of cachers) - and then put back as "new" caches when they were actually the same cache (they had a new GC number.) . There's also a local cache that was originally a puzzle cache - where you had to find info on a bunch of other caches in order to finally find the end cache - which was later converted to a stand-alone cache due to the loss of some intermediary caches. (This also had a new GC number.) These caches showed up as "new" and "unfound" caches for all the folks who had already done them long ago. The choice was to either place them on the ignore list or to "find" them again. Some chose to ignore them, some logged a "found it note", and some chose to log a new find. I'll freely admit that I logged the new find in order to make the thing stop showing up on my "unfound" list. Was it the "right" thing to do? I don't know. I really don't think it mattered to anybody else anyway.

 

I understand that it really upsets some folks when others "fake" their numbers by logging their own caches or logging a cache a bunch of times, or by logging stupid "pocket caches" at events but the only people that are REALLY affected by such things are the folks who do that sort of logging. Perhaps they like to delude themselves. Perhaps there is another reason we know nothing about. Perhaps it is really important to them for some reason to show a larger "found" number than is true. My thought on the matter is WHO CARES? I'd suggest that, if you really "need" to worry about something, you should find something worthwhile to worry about. If I go to the page for a cache I placed and then spend the next 8 hours logging and re-logging my own cache as a find in order to get some huge and aritficially increased "find" count is it really going to affect YOU or YOUR caching experience? The world is filled with people I don't understand. They will constantly do things that make no sense to me. Life is far to short to spend it worrying about those people.

 

HAVE FUN CACHING. That's what this is all about. Geocaching has been very good for me and I do it because I enjoy doing it. When it ceases to be fun I'll stop but I really don't see why I should let some other person's sellf-centered "number fixing" affect me.

 

Sorry about the rant but these threads seem to pop up a lot and I'm always somewhat boggled by the fact that anybody seriously cares about the artifically inflated "find" numbers of anybody else.

Edited by Thrak

Share this post


Link to post
Uh Oh!! ;)
Can you pass me some of your popcorn MIragee? Oh thanks! ;)

;)

Hope everyone likes A&W....

 

Is that as in "A&W Root Beer?" If so I really miss that as one of the good things of my youth. I belive it's still around - and partnered with KFC in some places! - but it isn't available in my area. Remember the song? A&W Root Beer has that Frosty Mug taste............. Or was it A&W Root Beer has that Musty Frog taste? Hmmmmmmmm........ Yeah, I know. It was the first one. I still miss having the A&W franchise around though. They came out to your car and hung the tray off of your car window. It's just one of the things we old folks misss. :)

 

Ok, now back to your angst-riddled thread. Here's some extra popcorn on the house.

 

:):D:D

Share this post


Link to post
I've logged some event related multi caches, that move around to different locations and have different number of intermediate points, multiple times. But only when I actually find it and not see a hundred people congregating around it.

 

I have logged some other caches twice. If I'm on my way to a new cache and know I'm passing by a cache I've visited a couple years ago i might pop in to find it again. But only if I find it without using the GPS as I would not have the coords for an already found cache in it anyway. And only if it's a challenge to remember where it was and hike a goodly long distance to it out of the way to theother cache.

 

I have logged some multi caches twice. Back when I was a newby I found part 1 of somethig one day but didn't get back to find the final for several months. In another case I found part 1-5 one afternoon/evening, but had to return the next day to go the last 1.5 miles to find the final. 2 Find logs, many actual finds, 2 actual days.

 

If there are numbers police then there are much more important situations to write citations about. I won't name names or numbers other than over 20,000?

 

I've logged caches this way but -- I logged them as a note. I did it as a favor to the cache owners to let them know that I checked on their cache while in the area and found that it was in good shape. I really appreciate it when someone logs a note on one of my caches in this manner. Some caches are a bit of a pain to hike to in order to do a maintenance check and, if someone else passes by the cache and checks on it and then logs a note saying that it is in good shape or perhaps that it needs a little TLC, then that is very much appreciated by myself and other cache owners. We don't log it as a find though - just as a note.

Share this post


Link to post
Uh Oh!! ;)
Can you pass me some of your popcorn MIragee? Oh thanks! ;)

;)

Hope everyone likes A&W....

 

Is that as in "A&W Root Beer?" If so I really miss that as one of the good things of my youth. I belive it's still around - and partnered with KFC in some places! - but it isn't available in my area. Remember the song? A&W Root Beer has that Frosty Mug taste............. Or was it A&W Root Beer has that Musty Frog taste? Hmmmmmmmm........ Yeah, I know. It was the first one. I still miss having the A&W franchise around though. They came out to your car and hung the tray off of your car window. It's just one of the things we old folks misss. :)

 

Ok, now back to your angst-riddled thread. Here's some extra popcorn on the house.

 

:):D:D

Yes,it is!There's one over to Lake George,NY but it's seasonal.Everytime I've tried to go there it's packed or closed. :D

 

OK,NOW back to your regularly scheduled agnst-ridden thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not have a log type of "re-found it" - which wouldn't add to any scores but could be useful simply to record your experience of going back there, and to let the cache owner know it's still present? Some of us might be reluctant to add a note (which may be perceived as odd) but if it was commonly acceptable to add a Re-Found log, maybe many of us would. I can't see any problem with that... anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...