Multi Cache "Finds"

[+Hartbreaker]

If there are 3 stages to a multi-cache, does each stage count as a "find" or does it count as 1 "Find" for the entire Multi-cache?

[+Isonzo Karst]

One GCxxxx number generally means one find. Or, one find per multi cache.

 

I have seen a few caches where cache owners specified that an additional find could be logged for performing some additional task, or for locating an extra stage. Not common though.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+Miragee]

One GC # equals one "Found it."

[+briansnat]

Yep, generally one GC number, one logbook = one "found it" log. If you find the other stages and not the actual cache you simply haven't found the cache.

[+KoosKoos]

Except in those areas of the country where people routinely log each stage of a multi-cache as a "find".

[+Knight2000]

One GC # equals one "Found it."

I agree that it should be like that. Some people don't play like that though.

 

From what i hear you play the game however you want, since there really aren't any rules.

[+Miragee]

One GC # equals one "Found it."

I agree that it should be like that. Some people don't play like that though.

 

From what i hear you play the game however you want, since there really aren't any rules.

Oh . . . goodie. Since there aren't any rules, does that mean I can log a find on my own caches I revisited last night on a Moonlight hike, and log another "Found it" on all the other caches we found on that trail, since it has been a while since I last found those caches . . . ?

 

I could reach a new "milestone" more quickly if that is the way I decided to "play the game."

 

 

j/k

[+KoosKoos]

One GC # equals one "Found it."

I agree that it should be like that. Some people don't play like that though.

 

From what i hear you play the game however you want, since there really aren't any rules.

Oh . . . goodie. Since there aren't any rules, does that mean I can log a find on my own caches I revisited last night on a Moonlight hike, and log another "Found it" on all the other caches we found on that trail, since it has been a while since I last found those caches . . . ?

 

I could reach a new "milestone" more quickly if that is the way I decided to "play the game."

 

 

j/k

 

Sure you can...after I found my 10th "physical" cache, I decided it was way too much effort...so now, I just do searches for various caches and log them from my house. I save on gas, don't get mosquito bites, and don't waste any of my precious time out walking around in the heat.

 

It's SO much easier to play the game my way and keep racking up smileys. I make sure that I don't play TOO often to keep owners from being suspicious and actually expecting to find my signature in their silly logbooks.

[+wavector]

If there are 3 stages to a multi-cache, does each stage count as a "find" or does it count as 1 "Find" for the entire Multi-cache?

 

You should log caches as the owner of the cache intends. If the cache owner instructs you to log each stage of the cache as a Find then you should do that.

 

There are moving caches where the owner intends that you log the cache each time you find it, there are recurring Events caches where the owner recycles a cache page and the cache owner intends that attendees log the cache each time they attend the event and there are Event caches that encourage attendees to log each temporary event cache found using the event cache page. I have never seen a multi where the owner intends that each stage should be logged as a find but I am certain they exist.

Practices may vary greatly from region to region but logging a cache as the owner intends is an infallible guideline that works everywhere in the world on every cache. Adopting any other standard makes no sense (0.00¢) because the only standard that ever matters is the standard being applied by the cache owner.

 

If the cache owner intends that you log each stage of a multi as a Find then you should do that, if they intend that you should log one find for the multi then you should do that.

[+briansnat]

If the cache owner intends that you log each stage of a multi as a Find then you should do that, if they intend that you should log one find for the multi then you should do that.

 

I would add though that barring any instructions to the contrary, it should be assumed it's one cache page = one "found it". That's the standard in most places.

[+StarBrand]

Usually one GC# equal 1 and only 1 find. Be it a multi or regular or virtual or event.

 

Not a rule - but it should be.

[vagabond]

Usually one GC# equal 1 and only 1 find. Be it a multi or regular or virtual or event.

 

Not a rule - but it should be.

 

The way the game was originally played, with the exception of moving caches which have now been grandfathered, and caches that had been moved. I think I have 3 or 4 caches that I have logged twice and they had been moved a mimimun of a 1/4 of a mile

one was moved about 10 miles, which as we all know we can no longer do.

In the early days 1 GC # 1 find with those exceptions, but now people play by their own rules

[+admo1972]

One other exception to the 1GC# 1 find rule is a recurring event that keeps the same GC#. It's simply a decision of the organizer and/or group to either reuse the GC# or to get a new one. In either case, an "attended" log is accurate.

[+wavector]

briansnat and Starbrand are both wrong.

 

The standard may be something that has substance where they live but where I live it isn't even on the horizon. There is no correlation between GC #'s and Finds and this listing service allows cache owners almost complete control in determining when a cache is found, a find has absolutley nothing to do with the GC number.

In places like Alberta or Wisconsin the one GC number rule is a bit of nonsense, it isn't accepted here, it is not even a standard, Alberta is not alone in being a place that rejects that standard as a bit of nonsense. Where I live it is simply horsepuckey and always will be because we have many cache types where the cache owner intends that seekers log the cache each time it is found. Many people have standards they apply to their own conduct but advising new geocachers that it is a guideline (it isn't) or a rule (it isn't) or whining because such a standard hasn't been enshrined in the rules is counterproductive. Asserting that "local customs" are the way things should work is very poor advice especially when given to new geocachers.

In the case of your multicache it is very easy to check with the owner or read the cache page for directions. Most simple multis are caches where one "Found It" log is appropriate but that is not a reliable guideline. Here is an exception where the cache is actually a moving multicache and multiple Found logs are appropriate.

 

New geocachers should ignore other people's adopted standards because they simply don't work in many areas. A standard that applies to every cache and one that will actually work everywhere is not very hard to figure out or follow : Log caches as the owner intends.

 

This is an infallible rule and it is good advice.

[+Miragee]

briansnat and Starbrand are both wrong.

No they are not. They are giving excellent advice about standards accepted in most of the Geocaching commuinity.

 

New geocachers should ignore other people's adopted standards because they simply don't work in many areas. A standard that applies to every cache and one that will actually work everywhere is not very hard to figure out or follow : Log caches as the owner intends.

 

This is an infallible rule and it is good advice.

New cachers should never ignore advice about the "adopted standards." That could lead to a lot of embarrassment if they cache in a different area from one that uses non-standard logging practices. What happens if they are visiting a friend and the do a Multi-cache and expect to be able to log a find for each of the waypoints? Or if they attend that out-of-town Event and expect to be able to log the temporary caches as multiple "Attended" logs.

 

When I was in Colorado, I DNF'd a cache. When I got back home, I got an email from the cache owner saying I could go ahead and log a "Found it" since I was from out of town.

 

That practice, of "giving away" Smilies is not an accepted practice here, although apparently it is in that part of Colorado.

 

I chose to do things the way they are done in most places and did not accept the gift "smilie." I did not log that cache "as the owner intends."

[+Knight2000]

When I was in Colorado, I DNF'd a cache. When I got back home, I got an email from the cache owner saying I could go ahead and log a "Found it" since I was from out of town.

 

That practice, of "giving away" Smilies is not an accepted practice here, although apparently it is in that part of Colorado.

I have gotten emails like that before. It makes me think of the parting words in this post. I think of it often and it makes me smile.

[+StarBrand]

My opinion is wrong??????

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Simple really...

 

>> Choose a Geocache to find on geocaching.com

>> Use the coordinates provided to find said Geocache

>> Sign the log book inside the cache container

>> Log that find at geocaching.com

 

Easy stuff. 1 find, 1 log.

 

Driver Carries Cache

[+wavector]

My opinion is wrong??????

 

No, this part is wrong.

 

Usually one GC# equal 1 and only 1 find

 

I thought that was clear from the information I posted.

Every cache owner controls their own cache. Every cache owner decides what will constitute a find, this is "usual" everywhere, not what you said.

 

There is no guideline or rule that a newcomer can use to clarify what is acceptable but logging a cache as the owner intends is actually applicable everywhere, your local standard is clearly not. Your local standard isn't even on the horizon here in Alberta and there are many other places where that standard is just a bit of nonsense, referring to your standard as "usual practice" is incorrect because it isn't. I understand your desire to have your personal standards enshrined as rules but telling new geocachers that your standard is "usual", or it is a "guideline", or it is a "widely accepted practice" or a "rule" is not a substitute for giving them good advice.

 

All caches should be logged as the owner intends.

 

If a geocacher places a cache and requests that seekers log it in a certain fashion, I comply. Since the cache owner is the arbiter of every find this practice can be suggested as good advice that can be given to new geocachers, it isn't a personal standard that I have adopted, it works everywhere, it is already in the rules and the guidelines, it is how things work.

 

I am not sure where the disconnect is, you are giving bad advice and incorrect information to a new geocacher who is asking a simple question.

[+TrailGators]

My opinion is wrong??????

 

No, this part is wrong.

 

Usually one GC# equal 1 and only 1 find

 

I thought that was clear from the information I posted.

Every cache owner controls their own cache. Every cache owner decides what will constitute a find, this is "usual" everywhere, not what you said.

 

There is no guideline or rule that a newcomer can use to clarify what is acceptable but logging a cache as the owner intends is actually applicable everywhere, your local standard is clearly not. Your local standard isn't even on the horizon here in Alberta and there are many other places where that standard is just a bit of nonsense, referring to your standard as "usual practice" is incorrect because it isn't. I understand your desire to have your personal standards enshrined as rules but telling new geocachers that your standard is "usual", or it is a "guideline", or it is a "widely accepted practice" or a "rule" is not a substitute for giving them good advice.

 

All caches should be logged as the owner intends.

 

If a geocacher places a cache and requests that seekers log it in a certain fashion, I comply. Since the cache owner is the arbiter of every find this practice can be suggested as good advice that can be given to new geocachers, it isn't a personal standard that I have adopted, it works everywhere, it is already in the rules and the guidelines, it is how things work.

 

I am not sure where the disconnect is, you are giving bad advice and incorrect information to a new geocacher who is asking a simple question.

I only log caches once but the guidelines do seem to leave this open.....I have reached the point where I don't care what people do just to get more smileys. It's a tiresome subject.

[+Miragee]

My opinion is wrong??????

No, this part is wrong.

Usually one GC# equal 1 and only 1 find

I thought that was clear from the information I posted.

Every cache owner controls their own cache. Every cache owner decides what will constitute a find, this is "usual" everywhere, not what you said.

 

<snip>

 

All caches should be logged as the owner intends.

 

<snip>

 

I am not sure where the disconnect is, you are giving bad advice and incorrect information to a new geocacher who is asking a simple question.

I agree, the OP's question was very simple.

If there are 3 stages to a multi-cache, does each stage count as a "find" or does it count as 1 "Find" for the entire Multi-cache?

However, you are confusing the issue with your comments. I bet 99% of the Multi-caches a cacher will encounter are meant to be logged once, regardless of how many waypoints makeup the cache.

[+wavector]

What happens if they are visiting a friend and the do a Multi-cache and expect to be able to log a find for each of the waypoints?

 

It won't happen if the seeker logs the cache as the owner intends, what part of that sentence don't you understand?

 

Someone following local practices, like you or Starbrand, might get caught in such a situation because you have elevated your personal standard to a "guideline" and you wish to advance it even at the epxense of common sense, this makes no sense. (0.00¢)

 

Seekers logging a cache as the owner intends will never run afoul in the manner you propose in your example but people who think adopted standards are always applicable will run afoul of cache owners just as you have described.

 

The cache owner in Colorado made a friendly offer, if you think that your derogatory attitude to that cacher or his friendly offer is good practice then we probably don't have much in common in regards to our approach to geocaching. I would have thanked the cache owner for the friendly offer and carried on. I would not have felt any requirement to run down the owner, the state or the offer.

 

It may come as a surprise to you but I think your finds are just as meaningless as my finds or anyone else's finds for that matter. Regardless of how proud you are of your finds or how sure you are that your finds are better than those people in Colorado I don't agree. I think my find count (and yours) is far less important than the connections we make to other geocachers when we go geocaching.

 

I think that cache owner in Colorado was a good guy and I don't even know him.

[+wavector]

However, you are confusing the issue with your comments. I bet 99%

 

I don't have to bet, I gave good advice that covers your 99% and the other 1% as well.

You are the one who is confused.

I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, did you read something else?

[+Thrak]

Just like the multi I did last Saturday - 2 stages, 1 log. I signed the log in the second stage. I logged one find online. Yes, I found 2 items but one was simply a stage of the multi. It's 1 online "found it" log. If that bothers folks then perhaps they should simply ignore multi-caches.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I understand your desire to have your personal standards enshrined as rules but telling new geocachers that your standard is "usual", or it is a "guideline", or it is a "widely accepted practice" or a "rule" is not a substitute for giving them good advice.

 

Log caches as the owner intends. This is an infallible rule and it is good advice.

 

 

Your advice = infallible rule

Everyone else = worthless (in your words)

 

Now that we've "ensrhrined the new rule", would everyone please hold still... it's time for this new "infallible rule" to be crammed down your throat...

 

DCC

[+CYBret]

However, you are confusing the issue with your comments. I bet 99%

 

I don't have to bet, I gave good advice that covers your 99% and the other 1% as well.

You are the one who is confused.

I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, did you read something else?

 

Personally, I think the final authority has to be what the cacher themselves feels is right about their own logging practice. I've had several opportunities to log an extra smiley on caches, but one per GC# is the way I want to play.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

Bret

[+TrailGators]

However, you are confusing the issue with your comments. I bet 99%

 

I don't have to bet, I gave good advice that covers your 99% and the other 1% as well.

You are the one who is confused.

I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, did you read something else?

 

Personally, I think the final authority has to be what the cacher themselves feels is right about their own logging practice. I've had several opportunities to log an extra smiley on caches, but one per GC# is the way I want to play.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

Bret

It's not just you.

[+Teach2Learn]

I understand your desire to have your personal standards enshrined as rules but telling new geocachers that your standard is "usual", or it is a "guideline", or it is a "widely accepted practice" or a "rule" is not a substitute for giving them good advice.

 

Log caches as the owner intends. This is an infallible rule and it is good advice.

 

 

Your advice = infallible rule

Everyone else = worthless (in your words)

 

Now that we've "ensrhrined the new rule", would everyone please hold still... it's time for this new "infallible rule" to be crammed down your throat...

 

DCC

 

Glad to know I'm not the only one who felt insulted, since I was evidently "confused" like Miragee and "wrong" like briansnat and Starbrand.

 

I understand wavector's thinking. I just respectfully disagree and feel it's easier to have a one gc# = 1 find policy. I wish gc.com would define it that way as the default while still allowing for owners to individually add expectations. However, those should cases should be the exception, not the "infallible" rule.

 

Of course, maybe it's just easier for TPTB to keep it as is and let us figure it out for ourselves, to each his/her own.

[+StarBrand]

Ok - 99% looks like the "usual" way to do things to me.

 

I am glad that you agree that on 99% of multicaches - the usual thing to do is a single "find" log.

 

Oops - there is that pekey "usual" word again.

 

My personal Geoethics still says - 1 GC # equals 1 and only 1 find log. I wish it were built into the system.

[+tozainamboku]

I really don't like it when the Getting Started forum is used to fight the religious wars like 1 find per GC#. The OP asked how a multicache should be logged.

 

The generally accepted practiced is to log one 'found it' log when you have completed all the stages of the multi. You can log a note or DNF, if you like, if you only get part way through it. In some cases, the cache owner may state that you may log a found it for each stage, but this is rare and if you personally only want to log once in this case, I doubt the owner would mind.

Edited July 30, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Markwell]

really don't like it when the Getting Started forum is used to fight the religious wars like 1 find per GC#.

 

Excellent point - people are trying to learn how it works here. Some of the tones of the posts in this thread are alarmingly ruffled. Might want to tone it down.

[+briansnat]

I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, did you read something else?

 

If I've been wrong about the way I've been doing it all these years, I certainly want to get on the right track.

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to e-mail each cache owner to find out how he intends for us to log it before we can do so?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

... snip ... I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, ... snip

Suppose it were a traditional cache and the cache owner specified that everyone should log their find 10 times? Would that be acceptable?

 

Edited to add: To the OP, I just noticed that you are in my area. Around here, it's one GC = one find.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+TrailGators]

... snip ... I told the OP that he should check with the cache owner and log the cache as the owner intends, ... snip

Suppose it were a traditional cache and the cache owner specified that everyone should log their find 10 times? Would that be acceptable?

 

Edited to add: To the OP, I just noticed that you are in my area. Around here, it's one GC = one find.

I think it's always GC = one find as the default. I've never written on any of my cache pages to only log them only once. I guess it never dawned on me that I would ever have to do that.... Edited July 30, 2007 by TrailGators

[+andGuest]

Can't resist the temptation but in the websites own description it is ambiguous: Multi-Cache (offset Cache)

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

 

I starts by saying 2 or more locations (my interpretation = multiple locations for 1 cache). Later in the description it states it states "the second cache" (hmm that sounds like more then one to me).

 

Personally I log every multi as one find regardless of stages. I think I have done 1 cache that the owner said to log each stage but only logged it once. I could be wrong and that could just be a caching wives tale that I heard.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

You can create a series of caches... Here in the SF Bay Area, one of our local cachers has done a series of "Simpsons" themed caches. I think there are five of them. Each has it's own cache page, GC#, log book etc. All five can be logged individually, but inside each of the five is a piece of a final set of coordinates for a big "final" cache (which also has it's own cache page and GC#). See links below:

 

The Simpson's Wicked Evil Hide #1

The Simpson's Wicked Evil Hide #2

The Simpson's Wicked Evil Hide #3

The Simpson's Wicked Evil Hide #4

The Simpson's Wicked Evil Hide #5

Itchy and Scratchy's Ginormous Hide

 

If you want people to get credit for multiple finds for a multi (this isn't really a multi, but a puzzle) this is one way to do it properly, and within the rules.

 

DCC

[Uberquandary]

I found a multi with two logbooks: One at stage four, and one at stage five. I found stage five a year after stage four because it was fifteen miles and a good hike away from stage four. That's what the owner wanted, and probably why you can get stats for 'unique' finds.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Not a rule - but it should be.

 

Why??? Why make rules, for an activity/hobby/game/obsession with no winner??? Guidelines work fine.

 

Of course, maybe it's just easier for TPTB to keep it as is and let us figure it out for ourselves, to each his/her own.

 

Yep. Easier, less stressful, and more enjoyable. If smiley's are so "not important", as some people claim, why are they continually discussed?

[+briansnat]

If you want people to get credit for multiple finds for a multi (this isn't really a multi, but a puzzle) this is one way to do it properly, and within the rules.

 

Officially there are no rules. I think that is a big part of Wavector's argument and he is correct.

 

We do however have generally accepted standards, though there are some pockets where their

accepted standards differ from the norm.

 

So my point is that someone who is logging a find in absence of any directive from the cache owner should

use the most common standard, which is one GC# = one smiley.

[+Always & Forever 5]

So my point is that someone who is logging a find in absence of any directive from the cache owner should

use the most common standard, which is one GC# = one smiley.

 

Fair enough. I don't know anyone who wouldn't think that was a good standard to follow.

[+shmidly1909]

It usually counts as one find.

Edited August 2, 2007 by shmidly1909

[+badlands]

briansnat and Starbrand are both wrong.

 

The standard may be something that has substance where they live but where I live it isn't even on the horizon. There is no correlation between GC #'s and Finds and this listing service allows cache owners almost complete control in determining when a cache is found, a find has absolutley nothing to do with the GC number.

In places like Alberta or Wisconsin the one GC number rule is a bit of nonsense, it isn't accepted here, it is not even a standard, Alberta is not alone in being a place that rejects that standard as a bit of nonsense. Where I live it is simply horsepuckey and always will be because we have many cache types where the cache owner intends that seekers log the cache each time it is found. Many people have standards they apply to their own conduct but advising new geocachers that it is a guideline (it isn't) or a rule (it isn't) or whining because such a standard hasn't been enshrined in the rules is counterproductive. Asserting that "local customs" are the way things should work is very poor advice especially when given to new geocachers.

In the case of your multicache it is very easy to check with the owner or read the cache page for directions. Most simple multis are caches where one "Found It" log is appropriate but that is not a reliable guideline. Here is an exception where the cache is actually a moving multicache and multiple Found logs are appropriate.

 

New geocachers should ignore other people's adopted standards because they simply don't work in many areas. A standard that applies to every cache and one that will actually work everywhere is not very hard to figure out or follow : Log caches as the owner intends.

 

This is an infallible rule and it is good advice.

 

 

So if I place a cache, with the intention of logging a "Found It" every day (or maybe twice a day), then that's ok?

 

Stats should be shown in two ways, # of Found It Logs AND Unique Caches Found.

 

No doubt there are legitimate reasons that some caches may be logged more than once but there aren't many.

[+Markwell]

Question really has been answered as far as "Getting Started" - it's now becoming more of the same old arguments, right?

[+Hockeyhick]

I belive one cache listing = one find....unless the cache-owner (me) makes a rule change.

 

I created THIS CACHE for those with a numbers fixation.

 

You get to earn those extra smilies!

[+hdbluse]

I believe we already have enough rules governing our everyday lives, do we really need to make and enforce more rules in our hobbies also. What difference does it make on a multi if the owner wants to list the multi with seperate listings/finds for every stage or as a series with one log at the end. As long as some general rules are followed so we're all on the same page there should be a little leeway so the owner could play it either way. This is a game after all and I doubt there will be any tests at the end of the day. So lighten up people, we've got enough restrictions already in our lives!

[+DaFunkyFrogs]

AW Just when I thought I had this all figured out..............I didn't even know you COULD log more than once on one GC#. So does that mean that I can let people 'refind' caches that we have adopted from a cacher who moved out of state? They all have the original GC# but have been refurbished and restocked. Or is this gonna start a whole new argument?

[+softball29]

I didn't even realize you COULD "find" a cache after you already had and actually get a second find out of it. That seems weak.

 

I did my first multiple today and got one find for it. Works for me.

[+hdbluse]

Let me reiterate on my original post in a way that is easier to understand. Since the "guidelines" are "guidelines, (not written on 2 stone tablets), and there are many variations on a multi-cache, then why is it a problem to have a variation on a multi/theme cache that has a separate listing for each stage. Each stage having its own GC#, log and, associated smiley. This type of "multi-cache" has already been done. Shouldn't the owner have a say in his own cache placement and listing. I'm just saying that why is it a problem, if you prefer the "traditional" multi format then stick with that, if someone else wants to do it different then what concern is it to the other cachers. We have enough rigid rule already, hell N.Y. wants to force geo-cachers to get licensed.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Let me reiterate on my original post in a way that is easier to understand. Since the "guidelines" are "guidelines, (not written on 2 stone tablets), and there are many variations on a multi-cache, then why is it a problem to have a variation on a multi/theme cache that has a separate listing for each stage. Each stage having its own GC#, log and, associated smiley. This type of "multi-cache" has already been done. Shouldn't the owner have a say in his own cache placement and listing. I'm just saying that why is it a problem, if you prefer the "traditional" multi format then stick with that, if someone else wants to do it different then what concern is it to the other cachers. We have enough rigid rule already, hell N.Y. wants to force geo-cachers to get licensed.

 

Actually, a multi cache is fairly specific. See the Groundspeak definition. The other one you mention... a series of traditional caches (each a container, a log and a GC#) is not listed as a multi. Each cache in the series is a traditional. And with this "series" cache, each one in the series usually has a part of the final coordinates and you have to find all the caches in the series to get the complete coordinates for the final. The final would be listed as a puzzle cache (cache not found at the listed coordinates). It's kinda like a multi (and lots of fun) but it is in no way listed as a Multi-Cache.

 

DCC

[+softball29]

We have enough rigid rule already, hell N.Y. wants to force geo-cachers to get licensed.

 

Come again? Licensed? Where has this been mentioned? I haven't seen anything about this.