What are the rules for claiming a "Find" on revisited caches?

[+Highcountryhikers]

What are the rules for posting a "find" on revisited caches. We have always understood that if a cache has not been visited in over a year, or if the cache owner has moved the cache...you are allowed to claim another "find" (thus earning another smilie ). Is this true? We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find". Got a response from another cacher wondering if that was allowed? Now we're not sure if we should go back and delete our log entry or leave it as is.

[+StarBrand]

See your own other thread in the Getting Started forum: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=180540

 

And please - post your topic in just one forum - thanks!!

[+Team Crime Scene]

Ouch

[+wimseyguy]

You can call whatever you want a find. I don't give a rat's rear about your numbers, and don't really care what you think of mine.

There are no official rules on this subject.

 

But I don't see how you can 'find' something that you have already found once before?

[+9Key]

 

But I don't see how you can 'find' something that you have already found once before?

Bingo!

[+TexasGringo]

***But I don't see how you can 'find' something that you have already found once before?***

 

I once had a TV remote...and lost it somewhere...then I found it changed the channel and put it down...but where...I had to find it again. I've found that TV remote hundreds of times.

 

Just Kidding.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Fun! Is this what we're doing today

 

Answer: You can't find something if you already know where it is.

 

1 gc# = 1 find

[+tozainamboku]

I wish that Keystone had locked this thread and kept the one in getting started opened. When a newbie asks "What are the rules for claiming a 'find' on revisited caches" they probably don't intend to start the holy war of 1 find per GC # vs. the cache owner can give out smileys for any reason they want. But since Keystone decided to keep this version of the discussion opened I feel free to give my opinion. briansnat's post in the other thread sums up what a newbie needs to know

There are no rules regarding what is a "find" in this sport. The generally accepted practice however is one find per cache and if you re-visit it, you log a note mentioning your visit.

 

If the cache is moved by the owner and he wants to allow re-finds, that is between you and the owner. The owner will usually mention this on the page if it's OK with him. If not, you can ask.

 

I don't know why anybody would even WANT to log multiple finds on the same cache (moving caches aside), unless their goal is numbers pumping.

I decided I didn't need to post there because this is exactly the answer I would have given. I'm a bit disappointed that some people wanted to impress on the newbie their opinon in the 1 find per GC number controversy, and that this often came across as dogmatic and conceited. First of all, there are cases where it makes sense to log a cache more than once. The most common example are the few grandfathered moving caches. But in any case, if someone wants to accept the offer that a cache owner has made to relog a cache that was moved or rehidden differently or where a cache owner is giving out bonus smileys to encourage visits to an old cache that hasn't been found for some period of time, I don't really see why this should make any difference to the puritans who believe you should only get one find per geocache. It doesn't effect any one else find count except the person who log multiple finds on one cache. No one is forced to log multiple finds on caches. I can understand the belief that a 'found it' log is for finding a cache and that once you have found a cache you can't find it again. But this seems to only go so far. Because of the way the website is set up, where the cache owner has a great deal of leeway in determining the validity of a find, the 'Found It' log/smiley gets a meaning beyond simply finding a cache whether you like it or not. Cache owners are awarding smileys for whatever reasons they feel is appropriate. If your "goal" is to get more smileys whether or not you find caches, you may take up the offer of one of these cache owners. If your goal is to find caches, you probably will only log the caches you found and take a pass on the offers of cache owners who wish to award bonus smileys.

[+ReadyOrNot]

When a newbie asks "What are the rules for claiming a 'find' on revisited caches" they probably don't intend to start the holy war of 1 find per GC # vs. the cache owner can give out smileys for any reason they want.

 

I agree completely... But once the swords come out

[+Harry Dolphin]

I will take the exception for the moving cache. It moved 30 miles away in the few weeks between my finds. Defiitely a different hide. I will also claim the exemption for (archived) Locationless or mystery caches with changing objectives. Other than that, for me: One cache equals one find. I would never even consider claiming another find on a cache that I found a year ago. Found it already. As ReadyOrNot noted: You can't find something if you already know where it is.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found!

[+PhxChem]

I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found!

 

If I see its icon on my GPS, I've found it.....right?

[+egami]

I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found!

 

Hey, at least you aren't logging a ton of DNF's on them...

[+TexasGringo]

***I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found! ***

 

Wow! Why didn't I think of that? All this time I've been driving all over the state finding new caches. THANKS for the tip.

[+TexasGringo]

***I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found! ***

 

Wow! Why didn't I think of that? All this time I've been driving all over the state finding new caches. THANKS for the tip.

[+wandering4cache]

I recently noticed a cacher had logged 3 founds on one of our caches. I've since added something to the page stating that "subsequent visits should be logged as notes, not as additional founds." I emailed them to let them know that I'm not the caching police & not asking them to change their extra "founds" to "notes", but to please log notes in the future since that's how cachers in this area play the game. Now its up to them if they wish to return under the current logging conditions.

[+ArcherDragoon]

When a newbie asks "What are the rules for claiming a 'find' on revisited caches" they probably don't intend to start the holy war of 1 find per GC # vs. the cache owner can give out smileys for any reason they want.

 

I agree completely... But once the swords come out

 

I just remember the five D's

 

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive...and Dodge!!!

 

(it has been a while since watching the movie...order may be wrong...and hopefully the D's are correct )

 

Other than that...briansnate prior post and tozainamboku's further statement explain the general view on this topic...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+Rattlebars]

We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find".

 

What I wanna know is why you all are calling Highcountryhikers "Newbs" or NOOBs or whatever. If they've been caching for over two years, thay ain't noobs and should know better.

[+StarBrand]

...

I decided I didn't need to post there because this is exactly the answer I would have given. I'm a bit disappointed that some people wanted to impress on the newbie their opinon in the 1 find per GC number controversy, and that this often came across as dogmatic and conceited.

...

 

While there is clearly no "rule" my own personal belief is: 1 GC# = 1 and only 1 find.

 

I assume you are reffering to my post which is clearly marked as my own opinion and mentions the fact that thier are no "rules". It is quoted by several others. Don't see why it should be labeled as conceited as it substantially repeats what briansnat said.

[+Sagefox]

Now we're not sure if we should go back and delete our log entry or leave it as is.

 

The best thing would be to go back and change your "Found It" to a "Note". Cache owners most likely will appreciate reading about your second visit.

[+geowizerd]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

[+tabulator32]

I thought of keeping my keys and wallet in an ammo box by my dresser each night. Every morning, I log a new find before I head off to work. It helps keep my "cache-a-day" goal.

 

Really, I'm surprised more people don't do it!

[+briansnat]

We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find". Got a response from another cacher wondering if that was allowed?

 

What is allowed is between you and the cache owner. What most people actually do (I base this on empirical evidence) is log a note when they revisit a cache.

[+joranda]

I have had a cache in my area start off as a multi cache. Went out and found it, one smiley. A year later it became a new listing as a traditional cache, a new listing, went out to find it same cache, same name, same spot, new listing= a new smiley.

[+tozainamboku]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

Maybe some cache owners associate a cache with the physical container, so if they rehide the same container they believe it is correct to reuse the same cache page.

[+TrailGators]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

Maybe some cache owners associate a cache with the physical container, so if they rehide the same container they believe it is correct to reuse the same cache page.

Here's a thought. What if someone archived a cache and then hid a new cache in the exact same way and in the same spot. Should you log it?

[+egami]

We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find". Got a response from another cacher wondering if that was allowed?

 

What is allowed is between you and the cache owner. What most people actually do (I base this on empirical evidence) is log a note when they revisit a cache.

 

What's the reason for that that you generally see in the notes? I've never noticed it before on any logs personally, but have seen it mentioned here numerous times...just curious, because I've revisited a cache or two on occasion with some people I was introducing to caching and never felt compelled to note it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

Maybe some cache owners associate a cache with the physical container, so if they rehide the same container they believe it is correct to reuse the same cache page.

Here's a thought. What if someone archived a cache and then hid a new cache in the exact same way and in the same spot. Should you log it?

 

Hmmmmm. 1 GC# = 1 FIND.. ABSOLUTELY! But I'm just a dirty purist

[+TrailGators]

We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find". Got a response from another cacher wondering if that was allowed?

 

What is allowed is between you and the cache owner. What most people actually do (I base this on empirical evidence) is log a note when they revisit a cache.

 

What's the reason for that that you generally see in the notes? I've never noticed it before on any logs personally, but have seen it mentioned here numerous times...just curious, because I've revisited a cache or two on occasion with some people I was introducing to caching and never felt compelled to note it.

I have done this countless times myself and have never noted them either. To me it's a bonus not to have to log it again!

[+TrailGators]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

Maybe some cache owners associate a cache with the physical container, so if they rehide the same container they believe it is correct to reuse the same cache page.

Here's a thought. What if someone archived a cache and then hid a new cache in the exact same way and in the same spot. Should you log it?

 

Hmmmmm. 1 GC# = 1 FIND.. ABSOLUTELY! But I'm just a dirty purist

It would be a new GC number in my hypothetical example.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found!

Man, I thought I was the only one doing that!

[+Jeep_Dog]

I always claim new finds every time I visit a cache which I have found before, or even when I end up driving near its location. In fact, the 2,000 or so finds which we have on our account are really multiple finds on two caches down the road from us; these are the only two caches we have ever found!

 

I claim a new find on Virtuals in Germany and Austria each time I look up the information on the Internet (or, in one case, look at an uploaded photo that is a spoiler).

 

I always wondered if this was a kosher form of caching, and now I know it is. Thank you.

[+larry739]

Rule number one is there are really no rules.

 

People can do whatever they want and about all that anyone can do about it is gripe or delete the log.

 

Either one are perfectly acceptable.

 

Those who like to compete can compare stats any way they like to appease their egos.

 

In the final analysis it really does not matter.

Edited December 28, 2007 by larry739

[+ReadyOrNot]

Rule number one is there are really no rules.

My Rule number one is that there are rules that should be followed. This seems to contradict your rule #1

 

People can do whatever they want and about all that anyone can do about it is gripe or delete the log.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

 

Either one are perfectly acceptable.

I disagree. Either one IS perfectly acceptable

 

Those who like to compete can compare stats any way they like to appease their egos.

Competition is bad! We should all hold hands and sing now?

 

In the final analysis it really does not matter.

In the final analysis it really does matter.

[+larry739]

Rule number one is there are really no rules.

My Rule number one is that there are rules that should be followed. This seems to contradict your rule #1

 

People can do whatever they want and about all that anyone can do about it is gripe or delete the log.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

 

Either one are perfectly acceptable.

I disagree. Either one IS perfectly acceptable

 

Those who like to compete can compare stats any way they like to appease their egos.

Competition is bad! We should all hold hands and sing now?

 

In the final analysis it really does not matter.

In the final analysis it really does matter.

Two out of five. I can live with that.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Time to release a little tension is this thread...

 

fa la la la la la la la la...

 

(now just waiting for the rest of the chior)

[+briansnat]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

 

It's not just a purist view. It's the view of most reviewers.

[+joranda]

[+tozainamboku]

I could possibly see it (dispite purist protests) if the cache has been moved/rehidden. I'm not talking about under the log next to where it previously was, but enough to generate new coordinates, like maybe >50 yards.

Of course the purists would say that if you moved or changed the hide significantly enough to justify allowing relogging, you should just archive the original cache and submit this as a new hide.

 

 

It's not just a purist view. It's the view of most reviewers.

And your point is?

 

If the cacher owner moves his cache less than .1 miles he can do this without getting the reviewer involved. If the cacher owner replaces an ammo can with a micro, he can do this without getting the reviewer involved. It doesn't matter that most reviewers, briansnat, and myself agree that if the cache was changed enough to justify relogging it would be better to archive the original and hide a new cache. However, this isn't what always happens. Many times a cache owner will make a change to the cache and invite previous finders to find the "new" cache and log another find. Each of those previous finders can make a decision whether or not to log another find on that cache.

 

What gets me is that some purist will go ballistic that someone logs a cache like this twice but if a cache owner archives a cache, then resubmits a new cache in same location using the same hide its OK to log because there is now a new GC number. BTW, I've logged two caches where the same cache was "reborn" with a different GC number. I have these listed in the Truth In Numbers section of my profile.

Edited December 29, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

Time to release a little tension is this thread...

 

fa la la la la la la la la...

 

(now just waiting for the rest of the chior)

fa la la la la la la la la...

[Mr.Yuck]

When a newbie asks "What are the rules for claiming a 'find' on revisited caches" they probably don't intend to start the holy war of 1 find per GC # vs. the cache owner can give out smileys for any reason they want.

 

I agree completely... But once the swords come out

 

I just remember the five D's

 

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive...and Dodge!!!

 

(it has been a while since watching the movie...order may be wrong...and hopefully the D's are correct )

 

Other than that...briansnate prior post and tozainamboku's further statement explain the general view on this topic...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

 

I can say with about 99% certainty the order is wrong, and it's Dodge, Dip, Duck, Dive, and Dodge.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[+DocDiTTo]

What are the rules for posting a "find" on revisited caches. We have always understood that if a cache has not been visited in over a year, or if the cache owner has moved the cache...you are allowed to claim another "find" (thus earning another smilie ). Is this true?

 

I've never heard of this "second find after a year" thing. No one in my area logs second finds once they've found a cache once. Repeat visits for any reason are logged as "notes", not "finds". Ultimately it's up to each cache owner. I don't allow multiple finds on my caches, regardless of how much time elapsed since someone found it. I've seen multiple "attend" logs on event caches, but that practice isn't the norm in my area. Geocaching.com doesn't have any hard, fast rules as far as logging goes, just commonly accepted practices which vary from place to place.

[+FireRef]

1 GC # = 1 Find - that's what I follow.

 

Unless the owner of the cache sets some other listing requirements, such as bonus finds or allowing multiple finds due to a rehide, etc.

 

Just my opinion...

[+TexasGringo]

I Really Don't Care How They Log My Caches...Once, Twice...a 1000 Times.

 

It is a Game / Sport / Hobby...whatever...it is supposed to be fun for you. If you have fun logging the same cache over and over...more power to you...I'm glad you like that cache.

 

The only thing I ask...is to rehide it again. And, If you take or place a Geocoin or TB...Please log it out or in.

[+Glenn]

1 GC # = 1 Find - that's what I follow.

 

Unless the owner of the cache sets some other listing requirements, such as bonus finds or allowing multiple finds due to a rehide, etc.

 

Just my opinion...

 

I never understood the bonus find thing. If you want to give me a bonus find then hide another cache!

 

I had someone try the I'm logging an additional find on this cache because you moved the cache thing with me. It didn't fly with me because I only moved the cache a few feet. It didn't significantly change the nature of the hide. If I make a significant enough change to a cache that I own that it is no longer recognizable as the original I will archive the old listing and submit a new listing. It makes a intentions very clear. What I don't understand are people that swap out the container and move the cache to a significantly new location. Completely changing the nature of the hide and then just update the coordinates on the cache page. If you are going to make such a drastic change to the cache why not archive the old cache and make a new listing for the new cache. It would save a lot of angst and it would be obvious that logging the new cache as a find is what the owner wants instead of having to guess if a coordinate change is significant enough to warrant an additional find on the cache.

[+egami]

I had someone try the I'm logging an additional find on this cache because you moved the cache thing with me. It didn't fly with me because I only moved the cache a few feet. It didn't significantly change the nature of the hide.

 

Heck, this one cache I went to 5 times including my original find the subsequently with my kids and other new cachers, and every time the cache was in a different spot near this huge hollowed out log. I am 4 finds short!

 

What I don't get is why people even bother making notes on subsequent trips to a cache...never read any personally, maybe like me they are back with other cachers. I guess I feel like it was their day...I don't even note, I just let them mark their finds. Only time I've made another post on a cache, outside of an event cache, is for maintenance purposes. Just me though...but I definitely wouldn't log a second find.

[+webscouter.]

I'll post a note on subsequent visit for a couple of reasons.

 

1. If I am alone it shows the cache owner that the cache is still there.

 

2. If I am with someone it will show if the hide is basically the same as the first time I found it. Helps to reduce cache drift

[+edscott]

What are the rules for posting a "find" on revisited caches. We have always understood that if a cache has not been visited in over a year, or if the cache owner has moved the cache...you are allowed to claim another "find" (thus earning another smilie ). Is this true? We recently revisited a couple caches down in Florida we hadn't been to in over 2 years and claimed another "find". Got a response from another cacher wondering if that was allowed? Now we're not sure if we should go back and delete our log entry or leave it as is.

 

Sorta like the 5 second rule for food dropped on the barn floor. If it's OK with you, go ahead and enjoy it.

[+TexasGringo]

***I'll post a note on subsequent visit for a couple of reasons***

 

A NOTE is one thing...a FIND is another.

 

I have people post notes for TB drop offs or exchanges...etc. But not another Find.

[+Bad_CRC]

I've seen someone log like 60 finds on the same cache.

 

 

it was an event cache.

 

 

I also attended an event where most people were logging it over a dozen times (once for each temp cache they found) I didn't do it, but I considered it since everyone else did.