Jump to content

Why you should log 'found it'


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

When ever I DNF a cache I add it to my DNF bookmark list and get notified the next time someone logs the cache. I've notice that with the increased number of caches to find, when someone DNFs a cache it doesn't seem to get searched for as often. I suspect some people are filtering caches that haven't been found in a long time. My guess it that many people don't like to be disappointed by a DNF so they only look for caches that have been found recently. Why, some people have even claimed to have driven hundreds of miles to look for a cache just because someone did log that they found it recently.

 

When someone logs a note when dropping a TB in cache they have already found, or when a cache owner does maintenance on their own cache, the last found date is not updated. Someone has been to a cache and knows it it there, yet unless others read the logs they may skip the cache because the last 'found'/'DNF' log is a DNF or because the last 'found it' is a year old.

 

I think that you should always log either 'found it' or 'DNF' each time you visit a cache. If the cache is there you have found it - even if is in the same place you left the last time you were there. If the cache is not there you did not find it. Your DNF might indicate the cache is missing or at least hard to find. If a previous finder happens to be in the area, he can check on the cache, and if he finds it and logs a find other cachers will know the cache is still there.

 

If people started to view the 'found it' and 'couldn't find it' logs as simply reporting on whether the cache was there instead of some silly competition to count new caches found there would be fewer lonely, abandoned caches that people stop looking for. If you really insist there should be a find count that follows the traditional view, a count of unique caches with finds would be close enough.

Link to comment

Or maybe new tags. Not just what is available now, but a found it-new and a found it-tb drop or a found it-maintenance run. Of course the opposing DNF tags would also have to get created.

 

Or - and this is completely programming here - when a maintenance run or tb drop is made the person making the log would have the option to check a box indicating that yes the cache is present. This would then reflect as a "found it" for filtering purposes, but would do nothing to increase the find count.

Link to comment
My guess it that many people don't like to be disappointed by a DNF so they only look for caches that have been found recently. Why, some people have even claimed to have driven hundreds of miles to look for a cache just because someone did log that they found it recently.

 

That is very true. I'll have a cache that might go 6, 10or more months without a find, then there is a find and suddenly the floodgates open and everybody and their mother goes after it.

 

.... or when a cache owner does maintenance on their own cache, the last found date is not updated.

 

I wish a maint log would update the last found date. I've asked for this a few times, but apparently TBTP don't agree.

 

If the cache is there you have found it - even if is in the same place you left the last time you were there. If the cache is not there you did not find it.

 

Now there is a novel concept (actually it is with some).

Link to comment

It wouldn't make any difference if you only got 1 increment increase in find count per cache listing.

 

That would be even easier for the site to implement. Slightly altering 1 SQL statement would change it so that no matter how many found it logs you made on one cache, it would only count as 1, yet would update the found it date stamp for the person filtering on the OP method.

 

Nice and clean idea, at least as far as programming is concerned.

 

Edit: Stupid sphel scheker

Edited by martinell
Link to comment

not have multiple finds and cache count would remain accurate

 

A cache count can be completely accurate and still contain multiple Finds. There are many caches that are designed to be found multiple times, in many cases it is the intent of the cache placer that each time the cache is found the seekers log a "Found it", some common examples are moving caches, multiple target caches and recurring events that recycle the same cache page.

 

Those who express the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard are deliberately ignorant of the facts or they don't mind bracketing themselves with a rudimentary metric that controls and restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed, they are free to wear that straightjacket but I don't have to, no one does. In my opinion the entire 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log camp is irrelevant and pushing that simplistic metric as a standard just underscores the fact that they really don't understand geocaching. There is no value in pushing a standard that makes no sense.

 

There is no such thing as an "accurate" Find count, you can only apply a standard to the claims made by other geocachers. Even if you find them "wanting" the only thing they have failed to do is meet some arbitrary standard. The only standard that needs to be met on every cache hunt is the standard imposed by the cache owner, standards that others adopt can be safely ignored.

Link to comment

not have multiple finds and cache count would remain accurate

 

A cache count can be completely accurate and still contain multiple Finds. There are many caches that are designed to be found multiple times, in many cases it is the intent of the cache placer that each time the cache is found the seekers log a "Found it", some common examples are moving caches, multiple target caches and recurring events that recycle the same cache page.

 

Those who express the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard are deliberately ignorant of the facts or they don't mind bracketing themselves with a rudimentary metric that controls and restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed, they are free to wear that straightjacket but I don't have to, no one does. In my opinion the entire 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log camp is irrelevant and pushing that simplistic metric as a standard just underscores the fact that they really don't understand geocaching. There is no value in pushing a standard that makes no sense.

 

There is no such thing as an "accurate" Find count, you can only apply a standard to the claims made by other geocachers. Even if you find them "wanting" the only thing they have failed to do is meet some arbitrary standard. The only standard that needs to be met on every cache hunt is the standard imposed by the cache owner, standards that others adopt can be safely ignored.

The way I play this sport is that 1 GC#### = 1 Found it. If you refer to me as ignorant for that, then you need to look at that hand and think about where those other three fingers are pointing.

Link to comment

The way I play this sport is that 1 GC#### = 1 Found it. If you refer to me as ignorant for that, then you need to look at that hand and think about where those other three fingers are pointing.

 

:) I love it. Without multiple smilies you are not geocaching correctly you dang fool!

Link to comment

I understand the OP's topic (Or at least I think I do). I guess one issue would be how to separate notes/logs by people who actually visited and the ones who are posting 'remotely'.

 

Someone might post a 'Could someone retrieve my bug' the and other guy posted 'Revisited cache to grab TB'.

 

That would require different log types.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

The way I play this sport is that 1 GC#### = 1 Found it. If you refer to me as ignorant for that, then you need to look at that hand and think about where those other three fingers are pointing.

 

What I said is that those who adopt that standard are deliberately ignorant of the facts, a far cry from calling you ignorant. I did not call you ignorant so the other three fingers are still pointing the same way as my thumb.

 

Do you live in an area that has moving caches?

Do you live in an area that has recycled event pages?

Do you live in an area that has multiple target caches?

Do you believe they exist? :)

 

Your adopted standard fails to acknowledge that there are other methods of enjoying geocaching that are all perfectly legitimate. You are free to bracket yourself with a metric that restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed but you don't stop there. The fact is that you are the one who suggested that everyone else should have to do something (delete your previous "found it' log or convert them to notes) so that the standard you have adopted can be advanced. Keep your standard to yourself and don't inflict your "controls" on others and my fingers will be pointing the same way they are pointing now, not at you but at the ridiculous 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard.

Link to comment

Interesting. Over the 4th of July, I deliberately went after some caches that had NOT been found since last fall. Just for the fun and thrill of the experience. Sort of like a brand new cache (is it really there? - went through my mind), without the stigma of being burdened as an FTFer.

 

Someone who caches with me, lately on a fairly regular basis, as an exception actually logs on line. I believe her thoughts are something along the lines of geocaching not being about the smiley icon and being about finding geocaches in great places. After reviewing the guidelines, I can't point a finger at her as being "wrong" with this opinion. She finds a geocache, she signs the logbook, if she takes something, she leaves something. Besides, she knows I will log the geocache (since as I point out, it is nice as a cache owner to get instant gratification with an on-line notification when a cache is found).

 

I agree - one should log a "found it," but one does not have to log a "found it." Ah, such freedom, such Zen.

Link to comment

. . .you get the benifits of posting it found but you keep your count accurate in the long run. :)

 

Why is anyone concerned about My find count? And who to say whether its "accurate" or not?

 

I don't know or care what your personal find count is, I was thiinking more of my own, which I do care about.

More specifically I was thinking about the maintenece log I posted when I dropped the Red Jeep in my cache, I could have made it a found and changed it later.

Link to comment
Those who express the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard are deliberately ignorant of the facts or they don't mind bracketing themselves with a rudimentary metric that controls and restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed, they are free to wear that straightjacket but I don't have to

Wow. Some choice. I can either be an idiot, or a simpleton. Nice.

 

In my opinion the entire 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log camp is irrelevant

How can any particular group of players be irrelevant? We all contribute to this game in some fashion. Even the dullards spitting out film canisters as they drive by fast food joints are contributing in their own way.

 

and pushing that simplistic metric as a standard just underscores the fact that they really don't understand geocaching.

Who's pushing? If I state that I play by a 1 GC # = 1 find rule, than that is nothing more than an expression of how I choose to play a game that has no rules. Nothing in that statement implies or even suggests that others need to play that way. Now if I were to refer to those who don't play my way as "deliberately ignorant", then I could understand you thinking I was pushing some screwed up agenda. Can you elaborate on the whole, "I don't understand Geocaching" bit? I realize I've only been playing this game for 2.5 years, which is a blink of an eye to some, but I honestly believe I've got it pretty much figured out.

  1. Hide stuff
  2. Find stuff
  3. Write about it
  4. Whine about lame hides

Was their something I missed?

 

There is no value in pushing a standard that makes no sense.

Just because you are unable to grasp an idea, does not mean it doesn't make sense.

 

There is no such thing as an "accurate" Find count

Of course there is. Just look at mine. It's accurate within the biased guidelines imposed by me. I imagine your find count is equally accurate, to you.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I think there should be a "Signed Cache Log" online log. This type of on-line log should tally a count, but not count as a smilie find. See, that way, those who like to keep track of how many caches they have been to and signed the log, but don't want a "cache found" count, would still have a (unofficial) number.

 

See?

 

:)

Link to comment
Do you live in an area that has moving caches?

Yup. I found one of those. If I find it again, I'll post a note.

Do you live in an area that has recycled event pages?

Unfortunately, yes. I haven't been to any of these events. I figure if the event is so lame that the sponsor can't even be bothered to write a new cache page, why should I bother going? Maybe I could order a different flavor of syrup to go on my pancakes? At least then, something would be original. :)

Do you live in an area that has multiple target caches?

I don't think so.

 

What you can't seem to grasp is that some of us who have adopted the 1 GC # = 1 Find rule did so because that's part of what makes the game fun for us. If finding the same cache 77 times is fun for you, then have at it. It's perfectly acceptable. It would not be fun for me, which is why I choose to play a slightly different game than you. The object here is to have fun. If you fail, you're doing something wrong. Just because a particular standard doesn't meet your particular aesthetics, doesn't mean it's idiotic.

Link to comment

I think additional attributes would just make things more confusing. If I went to log my first cache and had a choice between "Found it" and "Signed log", I wouldn't know what to do. But, I am a "less is more" kind of guy when it comes to features.

 

The SQL change, while simple, could be slower to execute since you would have to check history instead of simply updating a value. Site gets enough load as it is and a small change could have a big impact. And that would require recalculating everyone's current find counts which wouldn't go over well.

 

I like simply changing the term "Found" to "Visited", but that would never happen as the current system seems to be too entrenched at this point.

 

I do think that a DNF shouldn't have an icon of a blue frown face. I've DNFed many times having a great time and was never sad.

Link to comment

I think additional attributes would just make things more confusing. If I went to log my first cache and had a choice between "Found it" and "Signed log", I wouldn't know what to do. But, I am a "less is more" kind of guy when it comes to features.

 

The SQL change, while simple, could be slower to execute since you would have to check history instead of simply updating a value. Site gets enough load as it is and a small change could have a big impact. And that would require recalculating everyone's current find counts which wouldn't go over well.

 

I like simply changing the term "Found" to "Visited", but that would never happen as the current system seems to be too entrenched at this point.

 

I do think that a DNF shouldn't have an icon of a blue frown face. I've DNFed many times having a great time and was never sad.

Ah! But then you'd have the "a DNF is a visit to the cache site" crowd all excited and cause even more confusion! :)

Link to comment
Those who express the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard are deliberately ignorant of the facts or they don't mind bracketing themselves with a rudimentary metric that controls and restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed, they are free to wear that straightjacket but I don't have to

 

Wow. Some choice. I can either be an idiot, or a simpleton. Nice.

 

Yah, that reads right, what you said makes perfect sense in light of what I said, you can see the word idiot and simpleton right there, in your post. :)

 

I find caches and log them as the owner intends, you find caches and log them as your standard allows.

You have bracketed yourself with a metric which restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed.

People who adopt a standard which restricts the way geocaching can be enjoyed are free to do that, the poster I was responding to didn't stop there.

 

I won't even try and guess why you restrict the way geocaching can be enjoyed, I can tell you that your adopted standard is perfectly clear to me, it is a restriction you impose on yourself, it goes further than that though, you will ignore the owner of a moving cache and log it as you see fit rather than as the owner intends and you will do this because you have adopted a standard.

 

Being relevant has nothing to do with contributing. If your adopted standard is one that ignores the cache owners intentions and ignores other parts of the world where geocaching differs from your standard of comfort then I am not likely to follow your lead, in that respect everyone in the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log camp is, in my opinion, irrelevant, they cannot advance a single sensible argument supporting the standard.

 

Who's pushing? If I state that I play by a 1 GC # = 1 find rule, than that is nothing more than an expression of how I choose to play a game that has no rules.

 

This might make sense if I was actually talking to you when I made my initial comments, I wasn't though. I was responding to poster who said that others should delete previous "found it' logs or convert them to notes and that is pushing the standard. The 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log standard doesn't acknowledge reality, that has little to do with my aesthetics and more to do with the actual caching landscape. Recycled event pages are still a lot of work to maintain, the owners are not "lame" nor are the events. The moving caches are a source of competition and fun, the people who log them as the owner intends are respecting the owner and playing the game to have fun. Multiple target caches are a lot of work and introduce a whole new aspect to the geocaching, those who won't find and log these caches because they have adopted a standard are restricting the way they can enjoy geocaching.

 

You can restrict yourself in a lot of ways, I have seen people who won't log any Virtuals, I have seen people who won't log any Events, a lot of people refused to log Locationless caches, these are all self imposed restrictions, they differ not one whit from the 1 GC#### = 1 Found Log restriction. It is a standard which makes no sense, like any other restrictive standard those under the standard think everything is fine and the rest of the world has issues, they even feel free to chime in and tell everyone how to play. What seems to have escaped you is that I have not told you how to play, I have simply dismissed your standard as irrelevant, simplistic and restrictive.

 

I am not even implying that my rules are better because I don't have any rules, the only basic rule that I follow is I log caches as the owner intends.

 

toz has made an excellent observation, the Found log is an excellent way to communicate that the cache is there and findable. If numbers were relegated to total unimportance then all of us might already be following this practice.

Link to comment
toz has made an excellent observation

I see. It's all so clear now. When Toz said;

I think that you should always log either 'found it' or 'DNF' each time you visit a cache.

even though he was pushing his personal agenda on everyone else by implying how "it should be done", you're OK with that, but when Sadie posts her beliefs, I.e;

I agree.

 

But under the condition that you either delete your previous "found it' log or convert them to notes

which are every bit as restrictive and compelling as Toz's, somehow (s)he is wrong.

 

Gotcha! Imposing your values on others is OK, as long as Wavector agree with those values. :)

Link to comment
You can restrict yourself in a lot of ways

Thanx! :o It's always nice to know I have your permission. I also restrict myself by not logging finds on caches that I have never searched for. I even restrict myself further by only hiding caches that conform to the guidelines. How else do I restrict myself?... I obey a self imposed "Trade Up/Trade Even" rule. I practice T.R.E.A.D. principles. I make sure my mark is in each logbook that I claim a find on. I don't hide or hunt for film canisters. I obey the posted rules for wilderness areas I visit. I adhere to the Geocacher's Creed.

 

Yup. Lots of self imposed restrictions. :)

Link to comment

Ah! But then you'd have the "a DNF is a visit to the cache site" crowd all excited and cause even more confusion! :)

 

Yeah, I guess you are right. That wouldn't solve anything. Maybe it should be:

 

Single: Getting to the cache site

Double: Touching the cache

Triple: Opening the cache

Home Run: Signing the log

 

If the previous log entry states they only got to the site and then you follow up by signing the log, you can score 2 RBI!

Link to comment
I think that you should always log either 'found it' or 'DNF' each time you visit a cache.

Can I log a find for each maintenance visit I make? :o

If you found the cache when you did your maintenance visit you would log a 'found it'. If you didn't find it and didn't replace it then you would log 'DNF'. I'm not sure what you should do if you don't find your own cache on your maintenance visit and you leave a replacement. I guess you should log a 'found it' so others will know that the (replacement) cache is there. I have seen some cachers leave a replacement for someone else's cache that they thought was missing and claim a find for it, so I guess this would be the same thing. :)

Link to comment
My guess it that many people don't like to be disappointed by a DNF so they only look for caches that have been found recently. Why, some people have even claimed to have driven hundreds of miles to look for a cache just because someone did log that they found it recently.
That is very true. I'll have a cache that might go 6, 10 or more months without a find, then there is a find and suddenly the floodgates open and everybody and their mother goes after it.
It is true and is further support for my contention that you should not log frivilous DNFs. :)
Link to comment
Do you live in an area that has moving caches?

Yup. I found one of those. If I find it again, I'll post a note.

Do you live in an area that has recycled event pages?

Unfortunately, yes. I haven't been to any of these events. I figure if the event is so lame that the sponsor can't even be bothered to write a new cache page, why should I bother going? Maybe I could order a different flavor of syrup to go on my pancakes? At least then, something would be original. :)

Do you live in an area that has multiple target caches?

I don't think so.

 

What you can't seem to grasp is that some of us who have adopted the 1 GC # = 1 Find rule did so because that's part of what makes the game fun for us. If finding the same cache 77 times is fun for you, then have at it. It's perfectly acceptable. It would not be fun for me, which is why I choose to play a slightly different game than you. The object here is to have fun. If you fail, you're doing something wrong. Just because a particular standard doesn't meet your particular aesthetics, doesn't mean it's idiotic.

I'm with CR on this because this is the way I do it too. All of my finds are unique finds. I believe when you find a cache it should have it's own unique listing. Everyone should have a chance to find every cache that is logged on this site. That is the point of the cache permanence guideline. As far as Toz's thing if you log a find and erase it does the last find date change back or does it get faked out and stay with the new date? This might be a way to jump start a cache.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...