Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
doingitoldschool

Multiple finds on same cache

Recommended Posts

I just noticed that you can post multiple finds on the same cache, and that your find count goes up when you do! I had seen that a cacher logged three finds (actaully smiley face finds, not just notes) on a local cache. He is doing it every time he dropped a new TB into the cache. So I did a quick experiment, posting a second find on a local cache (my find note said "experimental find - will delete soon") , and my find count went up!

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

Share this post


Link to post

It could be done.

 

I have always believed in the concept of one GC number equals one and only one find. However....

 

TPTB have stated that they will not program that out of the site and they see at least a handful of valid reasons to allow that functionality. A very vocal group of cachers agree.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

Share this post


Link to post

When I see multiple finds by one person on a cache, there are usually three reasons: 1) they simply don't know any better (newbie cacher), or have posted a log twice by accident. 2) Multiple found/attended logs on event pages for temporary caches, which is an accepted (but highly controversial) practice in some areas. 3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

The third is a valid reason, IMO, to allow multiple finds. The second is controversial, but some people see nothing wrong with it and if the ability to post multiple logs to an event is removed, many people will complain. As for the first reason, I suggest that TPTB implement a verification button when posting an additional found log (much like you get when posting a needs archived). For example, something that reads, "You have already found this cache. Would you like to post an additional found log, or change your log to a note?"

Share this post


Link to post

I have the same feelings as the OP - seems like 1 found it, one attended log, etc, should be allowed for any - they say "One GC #, one smiley" - and Most (not all) people seem to agree with this to varying degrees. Counting temporary caches as finds, when the site doesn't support this concept (because they refuse to list temporary caches), seems like it's pretty clearly defined as cheating.

Share this post


Link to post

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

 

While I agree with 1 GC = 1 Find (you can't "find" something you already "found"), there are a couple valid reasons. The one that jumps to mind right away is the grandfathered moving caches. There are also abuses that jump to mind, like the multiple event logs.

 

Per the current guidelines, it is the responsibility of the cache owner to delete any bogus logs, which with the few exceptions, these obviously are. With this guideline in place and GC's position that the owner is solely responsible for the cache, and GC views this as the experience and not the numbers, I can see their reasoning for not wanting to address this through programing.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

 

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that you can post multiple finds on the same cache, and that your find count goes up when you do! I had seen that a cacher logged three finds (actaully smiley face finds, not just notes) on a local cache. He is doing it every time he dropped a new TB into the cache. So I did a quick experiment, posting a second find on a local cache (my find note said "experimental find - will delete soon") , and my find count went up!

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

You could always suggest to the cache owner that he delete the duplicate "find" logs.

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny in my experience the ones that say the numbers don't matter are the biggest numbers chasers and multi log events for temp caches that don't meet gc.com guidelines. Using their logic one could and should be just as correct in multi logging a multi for each stage.

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

Share this post


Link to post

I have always believed in the concept of one GC number equals one and only one find.

I agree. I can't see a valid reason for logging more than one find per GC#, at least not on my own caches. Fortunately, those are the ones for which I can enforce that policy, by deleting 'bonus' finds.

Share this post


Link to post

When I see multiple finds by one person on a cache, there are usually three reasons: 1) they simply don't know any better (newbie cacher), or have posted a log twice by accident. 2) Multiple found/attended logs on event pages for temporary caches, which is an accepted (but highly controversial) practice in some areas. 3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

The third is a valid reason, IMO, to allow multiple finds. The second is controversial, but some people see nothing wrong with it and if the ability to post multiple logs to an event is removed, many people will complain. As for the first reason, I suggest that TPTB implement a verification button when posting an additional found log (much like you get when posting a needs archived). For example, something that reads, "You have already found this cache. Would you like to post an additional found log, or change your log to a note?"

 

2) I would never attend an event more than once. But, I've never attended one of those Third Thursday Events that keeps the same GC number. Seems to me they should get a new GC number every month.

I would never log a cache not listed on GC.com. Event caches are for fun. But they do not have a GC number, and should not be logged.

3) Hunh? I've seen this done. But it would never occur to me to log the same cache fifteen times because cache owners didn't accept my log. If I find a cache, but have my log deleted, I would keep logging it. :unsure: Cache owners determine which logs are permitted. Not the cache finder.

 

I will add:

4) Moving caches. (grandfathered) Yup. I found it twice. Once in Central Park in NY, and a month later in Central Jersey. Seventy miles apart.

5) (Since archived) Locationless/mystery caches with changing objectives. They were permitted and accepted while they lasted. But they no longer exist (with one or two exceptions). They were a lot of fun!

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

 

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

 

Quoting myself. :lol: Eh, this is the best I can come up with: Jeremy speaks on logging a cache twice It must have been "take one leave one" rules on travel bug hotels that he called "stupid". Which I'm sure he regrets doing, seeing as geeks like me look up the stuff years later. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

Best I could find, this post by OpinioNate: [link]

I'll make this fairly brief so there is no confusion on Groundspeak's logging philosophy:

 

The find count is not a competition; It's there to help you keep track of your own finds. Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log.* Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

 

Play your own game and have fun. :unsure:

 

*Within reason (i.e. not 1000 finds or something ridiculous)

This quote is from a topic titled "A win-win idea to impede logging abuse", and as I remember, the discussions got quite heated. One side wanted unlimited finds for all caches (one event was mentioned where everyone logged 80 or so times), the other side wanted only one find per cache. The main point of the topic was a compromise proposal to request that TPTB implement a logging delay which would allow a few multiple logs but severely restrict abuse. OpinioNate nixed the idea.

 

Personally, I log one find per cache, and only if I physically found the cache and meet all requirements. I've politely declined offers by owners for allowed multi-logs and for "finds" when I didn't actually locate the cache (it was missing or similar). If a high find count makes you giggly happy, the by all means giggle away. Your find count doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
5) (Since archived) Locationless/mystery caches with changing objectives. They were permitted and accepted while they lasted. But they no longer exist (with one or two exceptions). They were a lot of fun!

Check out Terracaching.com. Locationless caches are still alive and happily being found every day all over the world!

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen multiple find logs in caches but usually only by newbies that haven't found the "note" option yet. Agree that one find = one log and on my own caches I'll delete multiples if I detect them.

 

However, I can think of just one situation where it would be permissible - when a cache owner moves a cache from one location to another and changes the container. This case just occurred here where the original location turned out to be beyond No Trespassing signs and thus illegal per the rules. He moved it 50 or so feet so it would be outside the signs and changed the container as well. Anyone finding the original cache (regardless of the fact that they trespassed) should be able to log two finds on this one. Technically, the owner should have archived the original and made a new cache with a new number (lazy???). It should be up to the owner to maintain the credibility of any log.

Share this post


Link to post
Play your own game and have fun

 

That part of OpinioNate's quote could be used in many threads.

Share this post


Link to post

:) I find it quite amusing that there is such a controversy over smiley faces - I thot the intent of this game was to trade equal when you trade and to get off the couch and go have fun - the smiley faces were just a personal record keeping system suppied for our convenience - a number is a number and nothing more - it doesn't even give you bragging rites because each person plays by what they think are the rules which are consequently made up by each individual - therefore imposing my rules on some-one else in a game that has no losers is a moot point - what I would like to see is a small change in the programing that would not allow me to see anyone elses numbers nor they see mine - That way I could still have my personal record available to me and no one else could scrutinize or feel offended by what I do or the practices I follow - no one is more right than anyone else - and I don't think we have the right to impose our personal take of the game on anyone except ourselves

 

:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny in my experience the ones that say the numbers don't matter are the biggest numbers chasers and multi log events for temp caches that don't meet gc.com guidelines. Using their logic one could and should be just as correct in multi logging a multi for each stage.

People use the found it log for different things. In general, the only thing you can say about it is that it is a way to keep track of your geocaching experience. At one point there were moving caches (a few grandfather moving caches still exist). The general consensus was that you could find moving caches multiple times just so long as someone had moved the cache to a new location in the interim. The now archived locationless cache was also a case where multiple finds were legitimate. A few caches which are technically locationless got listed a virtuals and some of these still exist.

 

Rather than having special code to handle these special cases the site simply chose to allow multiple found it logs on a cache.

 

In addition to the limited number of cases where it is OK to log multiple finds, the ability to do so has resulted in some other case where it is often done.

 

Cache owners allow bonus smileys for accomplishing a special requirement or finding a bonus cache.

Event owners allow bonus attended logs for find temporary caches places at an event.

Events that use the same GC number for a recurring event.

Cache owners who have moved or changed the nature of their cache and allow previous finders to log another found it.

Caches that are set up with multiple possible final targets. Depending how you do the cache you might find a different final. Cache owners might allow you to log a found for each of these.

 

While some cachers are bothered by these innovated uses of the found it log, others are not. Those who are bothered tend to call those in other group "numbers chasers" or cheaters. Those in the not bothered group tend to feel that they are simply recording that they have accomplished something that the cache owner has said they allow. Innovative use of the found it might make the game more enjoyable to some people. Others who don't need to have an innovated use of the found it log are never forced to log a find more often than once per cache.

 

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

Cache owners have the ability to delete logs. In fact, per the guideline cache owners should delete bogus or counterfeit logs. This is the rule that implies a cache owners ability to allow innovated use of the found it log - by judging these logs to not be counterfeit or bogus and allowing them to stand. A cache owner could delete a legitimate log just to be spiteful. Some people want their find count to accurately reflect the number caches they found. If they had a legitimate log deleted, it has been recommended that they log a find on one of their own unpublished or archived caches. If they had several legitimate logs deleted, they might want to log their own cache multiple times.

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

How?

 

The cache owner has the power...

 

Why?

 

Ask the cache owner. The reasons vary.

 

I'll add here one reason why it used to be valid for logging a cache twice. Sometimes a cache would get moved due to muggling reasons. A player could conceivably refind the cache in its new location... usually upon the request of the owner for purposes of checking on the validity of the coordinates or a hastily replaced and relocated cache. That was back in the days before moving the cache to a new location was more severely restricted and the new practice of archiving it and creating a new one became the norm.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

:D I find it quite amusing that there is such a controversy over smiley faces - I thot the intent of this game was to trade equal when you trade and to get off the couch and go have fun - the smiley faces were just a personal record keeping system suppied for our convenience - a number is a number and nothing more - it doesn't even give you bragging rites because each person plays by what they think are the rules which are consequently made up by each individual - therefore imposing my rules on some-one else in a game that has no losers is a moot point - what I would like to see is a small change in the programing that would not allow me to see anyone elses numbers nor they see mine - That way I could still have my personal record available to me and no one else could scrutinize or feel offended by what I do or the practices I follow - no one is more right than anyone else - and I don't think we have the right to impose our personal take of the game on anyone except ourselves

 

:D:):D

That idea has been suggested before, but some of us LIKE to see each others numbers and can determine for ourselves whether someone is playing by the same rules as we are. I also like looking at the websites that give stats on players by state, country, etc. If there are people who really don't want there find total to be public, I suppose there could be a clickable option for this feature. But then what, you can't see a list of peoples finds in their profiles? I say, leave it as it is... even though I admit it annoys me that some people don't play the game my way :D I'm willing to take responsibility for dealing with my own feelings.

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

How?

 

The cache owner has the power...

 

Why?

 

Ask the cache owner. The reasons vary.

 

I'll add here one reason why it used to be valid for logging a cache twice. Sometimes a cache would get moved due to muggling reasons. A player could conceivably refind the cache in its new location... usually upon the request of the owner for purposes of checking on the validity of the coordinates or a hastily replaced and relocated cache. That was back in the days before moving the cache to a new location was more severely restricted and the new practice of archiving it and creating a new one became the norm.

 

I've never seen this posted anywhere in these forums, but I once stumbled upon a post in a regional geocaching organization forum where someone said they have had over 500 of their legitimate find logs deleted by others who don't like him for whatever local geocaching drama reason. This person said they log these finds (complete with photos of their logbook signature) on their own archived caches. And I've seen similar drama related deletions in my own area, maybe 5-10 times. :)

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post
<snip> . . .

 

Innovative use of the found it might make the game more enjoyable to some people. Others who don't need to have an innovated use of the found it log are never forced to log a find more often than once per cache.

 

<snip>

 

Thank you. :)

Share this post


Link to post

One real reason would be.......... IT'S------A------- GAME! It is suppose to be fun. I have worked my butt off finding 20 HARD event caches and if I choose to log them multiple times on an event, it should be no deferent than someone getting in their car and logging 20 light pole caches in a row. The numbers should not mater, but our Kentucky state park folks have put out some of the hardest event caches that I have ever found and most of the parks are out away from large concentrations of caches and the only way they can get cachers to travel that far is to allow multi-logging.

Edited by Turtle3863

Share this post


Link to post
Innovative use of the found it might make the game more enjoyable to some people. Others who don't need to have an innovated use of the found it log are never forced to log a find more often than once per cache.
So if multi-logging caches cause discontent in an area then that's OK? I think there are infinite ways to be innovative without resorting to multi-logging a cache. To me that isn't innovative at all. I still think it is bribery to get people to find your cache or come to your event. Why else would someone add extra smileys to there cache/event? If they didn't do it what would be the effect? Is the cache or event less enjoyable? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

One real reason would be.......... IT'S------A------- GAME! It is suppose to be fun. I have worked my butt off finding 20 HARD event caches and if I choose to log them multiple times on an event, it should be no deferent than someone getting in their car and logging 20 light pole caches in a row. The numbers should not mater, but our Kentucky state park folks have put out some of the hardest event caches that I have ever found and most of the parks are out away from large concentrations of caches and the only way they can get cachers to travel that far is to allow multi-logging.

I believe him folks---he goes caching places I won't (can't) go!

 

If he says it's rugged, then it's really rough going.

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

How?

 

The cache owner has the power...

 

Why?

 

Ask the cache owner. The reasons vary.

 

I'll add here one reason why it used to be valid for logging a cache twice. Sometimes a cache would get moved due to muggling reasons. A player could conceivably refind the cache in its new location... usually upon the request of the owner for purposes of checking on the validity of the coordinates or a hastily replaced and relocated cache. That was back in the days before moving the cache to a new location was more severely restricted and the new practice of archiving it and creating a new one became the norm.

 

I've never seen this posted anywhere in these forums, but I once stumbled upon a post in a regional geocaching organization forum where someone said they have had over 500 of their legitimate find logs deleted by others who don't like him for whatever local geocaching drama reason. This person said they log these finds (complete with photos of their logbook signature) on their own archived caches. And I've seen similar drama related deletions in my own area, maybe 5-10 times. :)

Just because it isn't in the forums doesn't invalidate my statement.

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

How?

 

The cache owner has the power...

 

Why?

 

Ask the cache owner. The reasons vary.

 

I'll add here one reason why it used to be valid for logging a cache twice. Sometimes a cache would get moved due to muggling reasons. A player could conceivably refind the cache in its new location... usually upon the request of the owner for purposes of checking on the validity of the coordinates or a hastily replaced and relocated cache. That was back in the days before moving the cache to a new location was more severely restricted and the new practice of archiving it and creating a new one became the norm.

 

I've never seen this posted anywhere in these forums, but I once stumbled upon a post in a regional geocaching organization forum where someone said they have had over 500 of their legitimate find logs deleted by others who don't like him for whatever local geocaching drama reason. This person said they log these finds (complete with photos of their logbook signature) on their own archived caches. And I've seen similar drama related deletions in my own area, maybe 5-10 times. :)

Just because it isn't in the forums doesn't invalidate my statement.

 

Hmm. I think we might have a misunderstanding here. I was just stating that there really is a person who has had hundreds of finds deleted by people who don't like him, but it's never been discussed in these forums. I actually remember the user name, I just checked, and yup, it has happened. :D I'm also aware of a few other examples where people have logged their deleted finds on their own archived caches, but I shan't be listing any of them publicly. :D

Share this post


Link to post

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

 

How or why would someone's find get deleted from another cache?

How?

 

The cache owner has the power...

 

Why?

 

Ask the cache owner. The reasons vary.

 

I'll add here one reason why it used to be valid for logging a cache twice. Sometimes a cache would get moved due to muggling reasons. A player could conceivably refind the cache in its new location... usually upon the request of the owner for purposes of checking on the validity of the coordinates or a hastily replaced and relocated cache. That was back in the days before moving the cache to a new location was more severely restricted and the new practice of archiving it and creating a new one became the norm.

 

I've never seen this posted anywhere in these forums, but I once stumbled upon a post in a regional geocaching organization forum where someone said they have had over 500 of their legitimate find logs deleted by others who don't like him for whatever local geocaching drama reason. This person said they log these finds (complete with photos of their logbook signature) on their own archived caches. And I've seen similar drama related deletions in my own area, maybe 5-10 times. :)

Just because it isn't in the forums doesn't invalidate my statement.

 

Hmm. I think we might have a misunderstanding here. I was just stating that there really is a person who has had hundreds of finds deleted by people who don't like him, but it's never been discussed in these forums. I actually remember the user name, I just checked, and yup, it has happened. :D I'm also aware of a few other examples where people have logged their deleted finds on their own archived caches, but I shan't be listing any of them publicly. :D

Good. Public flogging is an ugly thing. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that you can post multiple finds on the same cache, and that your find count goes up when you do! I had seen that a cacher logged three finds (actaully smiley face finds, not just notes) on a local cache. He is doing it every time he dropped a new TB into the cache. So I did a quick experiment, posting a second find on a local cache (my find note said "experimental find - will delete soon") , and my find count went up!

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

You could always suggest to the cache owner that he delete the duplicate "find" logs.

 

I can see that the issue I raised has been well talked through, and I feel no desire to police other cachers and owners. I noticed what I thought was an irregularity, and now see that it's been deliberately left this way for a variety of reasons. I will, if I notice it on my caches (all 2, so far) warn the poster before I delete multiple finds. Thanks for all the input!

Share this post


Link to post
Innovative use of the found it might make the game more enjoyable to some people. Others who don't need to have an innovated use of the found it log are never forced to log a find more often than once per cache.
So if multi-logging caches cause discontent in an area then that's OK? I think there are infinite ways to be innovative without resorting to multi-logging a cache. To me that isn't innovative at all. I still think it is bribery to get people to find your cache or come to your event. Why else would someone add extra smileys to there cache/event? If they didn't do it what would be the effect? Is the cache or event less enjoyable?

Being someone who has logged temp-finds on events, I can answer this question (but only for myself :P...it is my opinion so the answer is only valid for me...)

.

.

.

I should also note...not picking on TrailGators...I think we have a mutual respect from other discussions related to this topic...just picking out a statement that has been asked many times and I always choose to answer...I have never hidden the fact that I have logged temp-caches on events (I should be clear, those temp-caches I have logged where at that event...:))

.

.

.

If temp caches were not at events....would I still go??? Yep!!! The majority of events I have attended have not had temp-caches. Is the cache/event any less enjoyable??? Nope!!! Would I still find temp-caches if I couldn't log them??? Yep!!! It's just part of the fun of going to some events...I should note I have been at events and have found temp-caches in which I did not log...above all, I respect the wishes of the cache/event owner.

 

I have found one permanent cache twice (two finds on the same GC#)...why you ask...the second find on that GC# was over a quarter mile away from the original...completely different container and completely different hide style. It should have been a new listing, but the owner didn't know that would have been ok...so, he emailed everyone that found it before the move/new placement took place and invited all of us to find the new cache.

 

As far as the logs of temp-caches on event pages...I do it to share my experience...I figure if the owner had enough time to place those temps, I should have enough time to share my experience...Does it make me a bad person...no, just a bad geocacher :D

 

Call me a numbers person if you like...my first year i would have readily aggreed with you (1400+ first year)...second year (July 5th - Current Date...right around 70...)...my style and interest has changed a lot over the year...

.

.

.

Will my "views" towards temp-caches change??? Only time will tell...other things have changed...

.

.

.

I no longer "Discover" Travel Bugs and Coins at events or caches (I do, on occasion, make exceptions for some TB's/Coins of friends)...I usually only log those I move...I don't think there is anything wrong with that...I just decided it was too much work for me to go through :P...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

 

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

Not picking on TheWhiteUrkel either...

.

.

.

Being someone that has logged temp-caches...I do agree it is a silly/stupid activity...but I have done it...

.

.

.

Though I feel that way...will I still do it??? Not sure...I haven't been to an event with temp-caches for a while now...and will not have to decide until the next time I am at an event with temp-caches...

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB fixed that annoying multiple finds bug in Waymarking. Hopefully the little problem will be fixed in version 2.0...

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB fixed that annoying multiple finds bug in Waymarking. Hopefully the little problem will be fixed in version 2.0...

I've brought this up before, and Jeremy even said he might change it back so a person can log more that one visit to a Waymark.

 

Waymarking is about "Visits." A "Visit" to a location will be different each time, and each "Visit" could offer a different story. I have a couple of categories on Waymarking, and several Waymarks, and wouldn't mind if people re-Visited the locations and told the new story. (Heck, I'd be happy if people simply visited my Waymarks, but that is a different complaint. :) )

 

I've never understood why Waymarking doesn't allow repeat "Visits" to a Waymark . . . :P

 

Now, "re-Finding" a cache is a different story . . . :D

Share this post


Link to post

When I see multiple finds by one person on a cache, there are usually three reasons:<snip>

3) An archived or unpublished cache to which someone posts find logs in order to keep their find count "accurate" when one of their finds gets deleted from another cache.

 

Does this happen very often? I am in a situation right now, where I have 795 finds (as of today) but it is showing only 765. It isn't a matter of the count not being refreshed, it is a matter of 30 cache finds not registering. The logs are still there, were never deleted, but are simply not being counted. They were counted, but then one day they suddenly weren't (.....I posted about this in another thread.) A friend had the same thing happen, only he is down 87 finds.

 

I ran a pocket query of all my finds to see which ones were showing up, and found some of the uncounted ones. but since I have been doing this for a few years, and don't remember EVERY SINGLE cache, I can't really tell which other ones I am missing.

 

....or did you mean they were deleted by the cache owner and not the "system"?

 

<sigh>

 

Can you tell this is really bugging me?

Share this post


Link to post

If they were Deleted by the cache owner, and I doubt that happened to 30 caches, you would have gotten an email notification of the Deletion.

 

I think something is goofy with the All Finds PQ lately because it seems several people have been getting results that are not the same as the number shown in people's own data, or on their Stats banner. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I have logged a cache several times, it is unique as far as I can see in the UK but the owner does have other similar caches in the US. It (they) is a historic virtual that is logged by locating a trig point (similar to a benchmark (I believe)) it has visited around 276 locations so far so in theory I could log it 276 times.You have to confirm you have visited one of the virtual locations by emailing the owner details you can only get from the cache site.

 

 

So yes I think it is acceptable to log a cache more than once, plus as others have said if a cache has moved some owners do invite repeat visits, I have never done this but do not see an issue with it, as it is only :P a game. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Just recently I was at an event in Indiana. After words I went on a cache run with several other cachers. When I ran my PQ I did not filter out what I had all ready found. So when I dumped it into my GPS it showed everything as not being found. Of course that was my fault for not loading the GPS with the proper tags through GSAK.

But anyhow, when I logged what I had found with the group. I inadvertently logged some caches that I had found about 1.5 years ago. It would have been nice to have some kind of CHECK system saying that I had already found the cache. That would have saved me some time from going back and deleting the double post. I found out about the double post by using "Its not about the numbers" web site.

I know there is AD ONS I can use for my FireFox web browser, but they slow things down due to having to load the cache page twice to work properly. Of course this may have been fixed by now. I haven't used that "script" for about a year now.

Can someone point me back to where the FireFox (grease monkey) scripts are located at.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen multiple find logs in caches but usually only by newbies that haven't found the "note" option yet. Agree that one find = one log and on my own caches I'll delete multiples if I detect them.

 

However, I can think of just one situation where it would be permissible - when a cache owner moves a cache from one location to another and changes the container. This case just occurred here where the original location turned out to be beyond No Trespassing signs and thus illegal per the rules. He moved it 50 or so feet so it would be outside the signs and changed the container as well. Anyone finding the original cache (regardless of the fact that they trespassed) should be able to log two finds on this one. Technically, the owner should have archived the original and made a new cache with a new number (lazy???). It should be up to the owner to maintain the credibility of any log.

 

It's really up to the owner. I wouldn't allow multiple logs unless I moved the cache like 200 ft. or more and/or the hiding spot is a significantally different challenge. But I have relogged two caches that were moved without archiving first and I found the "rehide" (in both cases a move of like 500-1000 ft. though)

Share this post


Link to post

28eb1f53-f0be-4a59-8ea1-9dd9818f5feb.jpg

 

The Beatings will begin,

 

but I do agree one smiley to a GC #

 

Barry of sweetlife

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

 

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

 

Quoting myself. :huh: Eh, this is the best I can come up with: Jeremy speaks on logging a cache twice It must have been "take one leave one" rules on travel bug hotels that he called "stupid". Which I'm sure he regrets doing, seeing as geeks like me look up the stuff years later. :D

 

Here's what you're looking for:

 

Jeremy on mulitlple logging

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Starbrand, for the reply. Can you point me to the thread/page where this is defended by TPTB? I am interested in understanding why - it seems like a bug to me. When I go back to a cache, I just post a note.

 

Actually, TPTB (The CEO) called it a "silly" practice, or I believe even "stupid". But the company line is that it doesn't affect anyone else, and geocaching is not a competitive game, and there are cases where it is permissible, so no need for a progamming change. I'll see if I can dig up the ol' quote later tonight, search doesn't seem to be working good for me right now.

 

Quoting myself. :huh: Eh, this is the best I can come up with: Jeremy speaks on logging a cache twice It must have been "take one leave one" rules on travel bug hotels that he called "stupid". Which I'm sure he regrets doing, seeing as geeks like me look up the stuff years later. :)

 

Here's what you're looking for:

 

Jeremy on mulitlple logging

 

DCC

Jeremy is right on! :D

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that beening able to log muti. finds on any cache is a bug that shoudl be fixed. A while back I came up with an idea to allow those that need to log there temp finds on the event pages but was shot down.

 

I find it very interesting though that someone needs to log an temp cache that's not listed on this site. That would be like me wanting to log a bunch of finds on a cache page to account for my terra finds or Waymarking visits. Is it right?? No. But I could do it and just rationalize with anyone who would question it.

 

Sorry but I'll never jump on that bandwagon. I do like the idea of a little note when you got to log a find on a cache, that says you have already found this cache please use a note to post on it.

Share this post


Link to post

I do like the idea of a little note when you got to log a find on a cache, that says you have already found this cache please use a note to post on it.

I can't see what all the fuss is about (Jeremy!). Why not simply add a "confirm" stage to the process of adding a "found" log to a cache that you've already found. That will help you avoid posting an inadvertent double-find.

 

If it's intentional, I agree with Jeremy that it should be allowed within reason. I don't see any good excuse for doing it: but in a non-competitive game there's no real problem caused.

Share this post


Link to post

Until any of you come to grips with the fact that in geocaching the numbers mean NOTHING and that their is NO official definition of a find outside of your own personal world, it will continue to take away from your enjoyment of this hobby. Now go discover that tupperware and write about it.

 

16,371 finds and counting.

Edited by Morning Dew

Share this post


Link to post

I do like the idea of a little note when you got to log a find on a cache, that says you have already found this cache please use a note to post on it.

I can't see what all the fuss is about (Jeremy!). Why not simply add a "confirm" stage to the process of adding a "found" log to a cache that you've already found. That will help you avoid posting an inadvertent double-find.

 

If it's intentional, I agree with Jeremy that it should be allowed within reason. I don't see any good excuse for doing it: but in a non-competitive game there's no real problem caused.

You can click nearest caches to get a list that shows a checkmark next to the caches you've already found. I do agree that it would be nice to have this checkmark on the cache page too.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick note for my one and only double find. We have a Geocaching class that is put on twice a year in support of the County Parks Service. The same GC number is used but it is renewed for the upcoming date. Since it's a completely new group of people that we're teaching geocaching to, it was suggested that the "tutors" could log it as a find each time they support the class.

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that you can post multiple finds on the same cache, and that your find count goes up when you do! I had seen that a cacher logged three finds (actaully smiley face finds, not just notes) on a local cache. He is doing it every time he dropped a new TB into the cache. So I did a quick experiment, posting a second find on a local cache (my find note said "experimental find - will delete soon") , and my find count went up!

Can the site be reprogrammed so that when you post multiple finds on the same cache, for whatever reason, your find count stays the same?

 

I've got another instance where this came in handy for me. I have a micro hide that I made three different and unique caches for and I rotate them from time to time. I did this initially to give PAF network a little extra something to think about. Since it as been in place for a while, I really don't mind folks going back and logging multiple finds if they find one of the other caches there. I think they deserve a smiley for it too.

Share this post


Link to post

You can click nearest caches to get a list that shows a checkmark next to the caches you've already found. I do agree that it would be nice to have this checkmark on the cache page too.

I know that you shouldn't make this mistake, but when you're logging quite a few caches in a session it can be easy to fail to notice that you're back to the same cache you logged earlier (depending on how organised and observant you are). Even if there's a checkmark on the page.

 

It just seems to me that, as this is an exceptional situation, there would be no bother confirming your double-log if it was intentional, and the rest of the time you wouldn't be troubled by the confirmation request unless you'd made a mistake. And that would be nice to know before you move on to the next cache.

 

So it does no harm, and Groundspeak wouldn't have to enter in to the philosophy of logging finds, as the principle stays the same.

Share this post


Link to post

I once logged a find twice (because I was logging a TB in), but I didn't like it when my "finds/unique finds" were different - so I changed the dupe log to a note.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...