Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
doingitoldschool

Multiple finds on same cache

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree with you. It happens to me when I'm caching and we go to an area with the group I'm with that is outside my loaded PQ. They will feed me coords so I can manually enter them. There are new caches mixed in with ones I may found in these areas. I can't remember caches that I found years ago, so I'll sign the logs and then when I get home I need to make sure that I haven't found any of them already. The easiest way to do it is to work off the nearest cache list to see if there is a checkmark next to any of them. Then I open a new page for the ones that don't have a checkmark and log those.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Not in the mood to do the search, but I believe Jeremy thought it was "silly" however also did not believe there should be a rule or program change.

 

As to it being a problem, while i don't want to see a rule or program change, I can see the logic behind the desire. Deleting dupes can be a pain. Guidelines state we are supose to delete bogus logs. If you already found something, how can you find it again? If it is not listed on the site, how can you post a log for it? Both these make a second or third log bogus.

 

Simply put, that is what all the fuss is about.

Edited by baloo&bd

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.

 

Not ot get too far off topic, however there is a greasemonky script that does show if you have logged the cache before. I think it is one of Prime Suspects.

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.

 

I commend you on your decision to do so. I've duped log the first 10 caches I found cause I was learning the site and found out around 300 caches later and I went back and deleted all of the duped logs.

 

I still would like to see a policy and program put in place that makes it 1GC number = 1 find and is retroactive.

 

What get's me is you have one or two persons in a local community that do it, and they spread the word on how to up your find count's easily with temps. Then all of a sudden 4 people are doing it and it just keeps going. So really if this cycle keeps going pretty soon it's going to lead to logging a find on any cache as many times as you want.

 

And why I would like to know, are you able to log a "find" on your own cache??

 

Also I want to ask a question and I promise I'm not "out to get" anyone, but if you try and log a second find on something and the owner refuses what do you do??

 

The only reason I ask is I've seen someone proudly admit that he forced one to let him log four temps or he would delete all the other persons finds on his caches. And I'm not talking 10 or 20, It was around a hundred. (A person I now know to avoid)

 

I would really like to see some thoughts on that.

Share this post


Link to post

Since when is this a competition? :)

 

I log caches, including events, once. I don't care what other people do. :)

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.

 

Not ot get too far off topic, however there is a greasemonky script that does show if you have logged the cache before. I think it is one of Prime Suspects.

That's not off-topic at all because it provides a good solution to stop yourself from accidentally logging a cache more than once! Thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I can just about remember logging my first few caches away from my home country, and it did occur to me that I have to be a little careful to avoid logging any of them twice. Sitting in a noisy place, logging using a PDA with a poor connection, it's not so simple to be careful.

 

Not knowing the system, I was reassured by the erroneous notion that I would be prevented, or at least warned, if I made that error. Is it a real problem (have ever I logged caches twice by mistake and not realised straight away)? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post

I have one cache where I allow multiple finds (This one). It's a challenge cache. You can log a find for each time you complete the challenge. To me, it seems reasonable, since the challenge involves visiting different caches to qualify. Other than a few of the exceptions mentioned in this thread, I can't think of many legitimate reasons for multiple finds. I agree that it should be up to the owner to make the exception.

Share this post


Link to post

I also have a cache on which I will allow multiple finds, should anyone ever complete it. Under the circumstances, I thought allowing Multiple Finds was a reasonable solution to a local, problematic, situation.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.

Edited by TrailGators

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.

I agree with you. It would be nice!

Share this post


Link to post

I have a virtual locationless cache that also had an actual cache that I had to drive to Wa state to log it. they both have the same name so it appears as a double entry.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.

Another option for you would be to only log them once. No one is twisting your arm to multi-log a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.

Another option for you would be to only log them once. No one is twisting your arm to multi-log a cache.
Nobody is twisting my arm to ignore them either. I won't find caches that I don't like or agree with. It's a personal choice.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.

Another option for you would be to only log them once. No one is twisting your arm to multi-log a cache.

That's true. We had a cacher from Texas visiting the Los Angeles area who hid a cache for which you could get bonus smileys if you posted pictures of yourself doing yoga poses at the cache site. While a few people may have put this cache on there ignore list, it seems that a lot of local cachers are simply logging a find on the cache and not posting pictures for the bonus smiley. I made a point of posting pictures of myself doing yoga poses, but just added them to my one find log. If some cachers want to have fun by allowing bonus logs it isn't affecting my count.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.

Another option for you would be to only log them once. No one is twisting your arm to multi-log a cache.

That's true. We had a cacher from Texas visiting the Los Angeles area who hid a cache for which you could get bonus smileys if you posted pictures of yourself doing yoga poses at the cache site. While a few people may have put this cache on there ignore list, it seems that a lot of local cachers are simply logging a find on the cache and not posting pictures for the bonus smiley. I made a point of posting pictures of myself doing yoga poses, but just added them to my one find log. If some cachers want to have fun by allowing bonus logs it isn't affecting my count.

Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :)

Granted the example I gave was a common type of urban hide and not all that exciting. One could skip it easily for any of a variety of reasons. But had this been a unique location or unusual hide style, I not sure what point you are making by denying yourself the opportunity to enjoy the cache. If you don't enjoy getting smileys for posting silly pictures of yourself then don't log the extra smileys. Why can't you still enjoy the cache hunt part of it. By actually finding the cache and claiming only one smiley on it your are making more of a statement than by ignoring the cache. If you're like me, you'd even do whatever is required to log the bonus and then not log the bonus. :)

Share this post


Link to post
I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.
Another option for you would be to only log them once. No one is twisting your arm to multi-log a cache.
That's true. We had a cacher from Texas visiting the Los Angeles area who hid a cache for which you could get bonus smileys if you posted pictures of yourself doing yoga poses at the cache site. While a few people may have put this cache on there ignore list, it seems that a lot of local cachers are simply logging a find on the cache and not posting pictures for the bonus smiley. I made a point of posting pictures of myself doing yoga poses, but just added them to my one find log. If some cachers want to have fun by allowing bonus logs it isn't affecting my count.
Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :)
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.

 

I really think that it would serve all of us well to remember that a find (or a 'smiley') is an agreement between a cache owner and a cache seeker. The fact that one cache owner allows 'extra' finds does not impinge on teh ability of another cache owner to forbid the practice on his caches. Similarly, the fact that a cache seeker accepts the offer to log 'extra' finds on a specific cache does not require all cache seekers to do the same.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
But had this been a unique location or unusual hide style, I not sure what point you are making by denying yourself the opportunity to enjoy the cache.
I wouldn't be denying myself anything because there are lots of other fish in the sea! :)

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

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!

 

The above example is usually overlooked whenever this topic is brought up.

 

I have sixteen finds that show up as multiple finds.

All were on Locationless Caches where the goal changed from time to time. At the time they were valid finds and I still think they are today even though that phase of geocaching has passed into history.

 

Examples of Locationless Caches that had changing goals:

 

The Scavenger Hunt Cache

 

Dash for Cache

 

There were others that allowed multiple finds as well. Other than this I have no other finds that are multiple, although I used to. There was one that occurred that was a computer glitch. A timeout and refresh seemed to post a find two times. It wasn't until much later that I found it and corrected it.

 

Early on, before I knew better, I had couch potato finds that I later deleted or turned into a note. That lessoned my count by 20 or more. I did this before I started reading the forum and found out it wasn't considered appropriate logging behavior by all. I changed it not because I felt badly about it but because I wanted my count to reflect those things I found accurately.

 

Can I go ahead and play without guilt now? :) Or will you still think poorly of me when you look at my profile and see 944 total finds and 928 unique caches. :) Will you avoid me at the next event?

 

I promise to only log the event once. :D

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

You have clearly completely missed my point. That being said, is your hypothetical 12-stage multilog multi truly different than 12 traditional caches?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

You have clearly completely missed my point. That being said, is your hypothetical 12-stage multilog multi truly different than 12 traditional caches?
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

You have clearly completely missed my point. That being said, is your hypothetical 12-stage multilog multi truly different than 12 traditional caches?
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.

What if each stage is it's own adventure?

 

Face it, your logic doesn't really work.

 

If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

It doesn't bother me that you ignore it but I can't see how that means you don't care about the cache. Obviously you do care - by deciding to ignore the cache just because the cache owner is allowing multiple logs. If you really didn't care, you would ignore the cache owner's offer to log multiple time and would treat the cache as you would every other cache. Either ignore it because it doesn't seem to be the kind of cache you want to find or find it and log it (once). You may make an assumption that if a cache owner is allowing mulitple logs it probably isn't the kind of cache you want to find and put on your ignore list for that reason. Just remember this the next time sbell111 say you can avoid most LPCs by ignoring all 1/1 micros :).

 

If you really want to look at caches that promote smileys it's those challenge caches. They have you go out and find a bunch of caches that you get a smiley for anyhow and then give you an opportunity to find a bonus cache for another smiley. If all the other the caches were adventures in there own right, why do I need the extra smiley to go find them? And if they weren't really worth doing in the first place, why is someone forcing me to find them just so I can hunt their cache? I personally put all challenge caches on my ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
If you really want to look at caches that promote smileys it's those challenge caches. They have you go out and find a bunch of caches that you get a smiley for anyhow and then give you an opportunity to find a bonus cache for another smiley. If all the other the caches were adventures in there own right, why do I need the extra smiley to go find them? And if they weren't really worth doing in the first place, why is someone forcing me to find them just so I can hunt their cache? I personally put all challenge caches on my ignore list.
I don't have any of those near me yet so I don't need to ignore those yet. I might be wrong but I think that there are some challenge caches that just let you log one smiley whenever you complete the mission. Completing the mission is all the reward I need! To be honest the extra smileys would cheapen the experience for me.

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

You have clearly completely missed my point. That being said, is your hypothetical 12-stage multilog multi truly different than 12 traditional caches?
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.

What if each stage is it's own adventure?

 

Face it, your logic doesn't really work.

 

If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?

Does each stage of this hypothetical multi have a logbook to sign?

Share this post


Link to post
You could also argue that each and every cache, by it's very nature, promotes smileys. I assume that you are not going to put every single cache on your ignore list.
I disagree. A twelve stage multi that let's you log a smiley for each waypoint is quite a bit different than a twelve stage multi that let's you log one smiley for the entire adventure.

You have clearly completely missed my point. That being said, is your hypothetical 12-stage multilog multi truly different than 12 traditional caches?
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.

What if each stage is it's own adventure?

 

Face it, your logic doesn't really work.

 

If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?

Does each stage of this hypothetical multi have a logbook to sign?

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

The level of angst that you are dredging up over this topic suggests that you care quite a bit, probably way too much.

 

The way I see it, this entire issue is much ado about nothing. I prefer not to multi-log a cache, so I don't. Beyond that, I could care less what other people do. As long as the 'find' is agreed on by both the cache owner and cache seeker, it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't wish to log the extra finds, don't do it. Who cares if someone else does it a different way?
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

The level of angst that you are dredging up over this topic suggests that you care quite a bit, probably way too much.

The only angst in this thread is being generated by people like you that are upset about me ignoring those caches. I'm very relaxed about using my ignore button. Click! :) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The level of angst that you are dredging up over this topic suggests that you care quite a bit, probably way too much.
The only angst in this thread is being generated by people like you that are upset about me ignoring those caches. I'm very relaxed about using my ignore button. Click! :)
Whatever you say, boss.

 

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.
Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :D
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

Share this post


Link to post
The level of angst that you are dredging up over this topic suggests that you care quite a bit, probably way too much.
The only angst in this thread is being generated by people like you that are upset about me ignoring those caches. I'm very relaxed about using my ignore button. Click! :D
Whatever you say, boss.

 

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.
Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :D
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

 

Some great calmly stated "opinions!" That guy sure knows what he's talking about! :)

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The level of angst that you are dredging up over this topic suggests that you care quite a bit, probably way too much.
The only angst in this thread is being generated by people like you that are upset about me ignoring those caches. I'm very relaxed about using my ignore button. Click! :D
Whatever you say, boss.

 

I'm dead against multi-logging caches because I think it's bribing people with extra smileys to find someone's caches. We seem to be losing the joy of just finding one cache. The focus is way too much on smileys to the point of gluttony with this new twist. So I will put all multi-logging caches that show up in the San Diego area on my ignore list because I want no part of it.
Toz, my count has nothing to do with my decision. I think caches like this are promoting smileys. So I want no part of caches like that. I don't do it for smileys. IMHO if you want more people to visit your cache then make a better cache instead of bribing people with extra smileys. Anyhow, ignoring these types of caches completely removes them from my online geocaching views/maps and PQs. So they basically cease to exist for me. The ignore button is a very handy feature and I'm glad that they added it! :D
People are not promoting smileys that hide a cache that let's you log your one adventure. If anything they are promoting an adventure. If there was no fun or adventure then many of us would quit. Each cache lets you log your adventure when you complete it. There is no "need" to log your one adventure 12 times. IMO this is promoting smileys and padding numbers.
I was the one that ignored that cache in the first place. That shows that I don't care about that cache to the point that I don't care that I'll never find it. How can you care less than that? For some reason, it really bothers you that I'm ignoring them. Why do you care? If more multis start to give out extra bribery smileys then I'll ignore those bribery caches too. There are plenty of other caches out there for me to find. :)

 

Some great calmly stated "opinions!" That guy sure knows what he's talking about! :)

Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate that you noticed.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that we have established that we are both calm, I was wondering if you have any multis that let you log every waypoint (bribery caches) in your area? I don't care if you would do them or not, I'm just curious if they are catching on in other parts of the country....

Share this post


Link to post

Now that we have established that we are both calm, I was wondering if you have any multis that let you log every waypoint (bribery caches) in your area? I don't care if you would do them or not, I'm just curious if they are catching on in other parts of the country....

Whether there are two of them ro two hundred of them makes no difference. The cache owner still determines what a find is.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that we have established that we are both calm, I was wondering if you have any multis that let you log every waypoint (bribery caches) in your area? I don't care if you would do them or not, I'm just curious if they are catching on in other parts of the country....

Whether there are two of them ro two hundred of them makes no difference. The cache owner still determines what a find is.

I just asked if there were any in your area....

Share this post


Link to post

Now that we have established that we are both calm, I was wondering if you have any multis that let you log every waypoint (bribery caches) in your area? I don't care if you would do them or not, I'm just curious if they are catching on in other parts of the country....

The concept that allowing extra smileys for finding a bonus amounts to bribery is curious. I can understand the statement "I hunt caches to enjoy them, not for the smileys; so extra smileys have no effect on whether I will hunt a cache." I can understand the statement "I will only log one found it per GC# because I use the find count to keep track of the unique Geocaching.com caches I've found and choose not to count temporary event caches, bonus hides, or individual stages of a multicache." However, if somebody else gets enjoyment from logging these as finds, and the cache owner agrees I just can't see getting excited about it. Perhaps if I believed that Geocaching is a competition where getting a higher find count was important, I would complain that some people are claiming something that isn't a find. Or maybe, in that case I would log every bonus smiley I was entitled to. :)

 

I don't know of any multis here that allow you to log a find for each stage. I do see a lot of "bonus" style puzzle caches. These are are series of traditional caches where you get a smiley for each cache and then if you find them all you can log the bonus cache. Most common are the caches with partial coordinate for another cache. When you have found all the parts you have the coordinates of a mystery cache. Also are the challenge caches which I mentioned before. :) There are clearly many purist that do not see these as "bribery" caches - since each cache has its own GC#. Other people don't see there being much difference between these caches and a single multicache that allows multiple logging.

 

Geocachers don't always have choice whether to list a cache a series of separate caches or as one multicache. Sometimes the guidelines will force a cacher to create a multicache instead of separate GC#s. Even if the caches are more than 528 feet apart, a reviewer can invoke the "power trail" clause and require them to be listed as one multicache. So if someone were to put out a multi that allowed a found it log for each stage, how would I know that he didn't intend it to be separate caches in the first place? Someone who wants to be a purist would be free to log one 'found it' at the completion of the series, but others would be able to log this as the cache owner intended had it not been for some silly guideline. :D

Share this post


Link to post

It's not outside the realm of possibilities that people could start allowing finders to log extra smileys for all kinds of things because there is nothing in the guidelines against doing this. So someday we could have lots of caches out there that award huge amounts of smileys for finding their cache. One cache says "I'll give to 20!" Next week a new cache comes out that says, "That's nothing! I'll give you 50!" It's not outside of the realm of possibilities under the current guidelines....

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

It's not outside the realm of possibilities that people could start allowing finders to log extra smileys for all kinds of things because there is nothing in the guidelines against doing this. So someday we could have lots of caches out there that award huge amounts of smileys for finding their cache. One cache says "I'll give to 20!" Next week a new cache comes out that says, "That's nothing! I'll give you 50!" It's not outside of the realm of possibilities under the current guidelines....

 

I would think such a blatant abuse would not be allowed through the review process. I get the impression that TPTB do not like the practice of multiple find on caches, but are unwilling to force it through technology. Although, if you look at Waymarking, 1 "visit" per waymark was enforced by the website. It will be interesting to see what happens with version 2.0. I think how TPTB feel about this issue is pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not outside the realm of possibilities that people could start allowing finders to log extra smileys for all kinds of things because there is nothing in the guidelines against doing this. So someday we could have lots of caches out there that award huge amounts of smileys for finding their cache. One cache says "I'll give to 20!" Next week a new cache comes out that says, "That's nothing! I'll give you 50!" It's not outside of the realm of possibilities under the current guidelines....

 

You're not getting it. The little smiley things (and the count that goes with them) aren't really worth anything. There is no competition. There's a leader board somewhere that shows who has the most smileys? Perhaps this is an indication who caches a lot and maybe who has found more caches. I guess that is interesting. I'm more interested in how much fun tozainamboku is having. I'm pretty sure that the high numbers cachers I've met and cached with are having fun. If anyone is having fun logging a cache 50 times because the cache owner says they can, I'll scratch my head an wonder why anyone would consider that fun, but it isn't going to effect the fun I have one bit. I'm sorry that someone else's number is affecting your ability to have fun. I guess if enough people stop having fun because the see someone else logging a cache multiple times, TPTB will have to do something. After geocaching is supposed to be about having fun :D

Share this post


Link to post

It's not outside the realm of possibilities that people could start allowing finders to log extra smileys for all kinds of things because there is nothing in the guidelines against doing this. So someday we could have lots of caches out there that award huge amounts of smileys for finding their cache. One cache says "I'll give to 20!" Next week a new cache comes out that says, "That's nothing! I'll give you 50!" It's not outside of the realm of possibilities under the current guidelines....

 

You're not getting it. The little smiley things (and the count that goes with them) aren't really worth anything. There is no competition. There's a leader board somewhere that shows who has the most smileys? Perhaps this is an indication who caches a lot and maybe who has found more caches. I guess that is interesting. I'm more interested in how much fun tozainamboku is having. I'm pretty sure that the high numbers cachers I've met and cached with are having fun. If anyone is having fun logging a cache 50 times because the cache owner says they can, I'll scratch my head an wonder why anyone would consider that fun, but it isn't going to effect the fun I have one bit. I'm sorry that someone else's number is affecting your ability to have fun. I guess if enough people stop having fun because the see someone else logging a cache multiple times, TPTB will have to do something. After geocaching is supposed to be about having fun :D

Toz, I never said that this stopped me from having fun. This is a discussion forum and so we are discussing the reasons people would want to create caches like that. At least you admitted that you are scratching your head about it. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

It's not outside the realm of possibilities that people could start allowing finders to log extra smileys for all kinds of things because there is nothing in the guidelines against doing this. So someday we could have lots of caches out there that award huge amounts of smileys for finding their cache. One cache says "I'll give to 20!" Next week a new cache comes out that says, "That's nothing! I'll give you 50!" It's not outside of the realm of possibilities under the current guidelines....

 

You're not getting it.

 

<snip>

 

After all geocaching is supposed to be about having fun :D

Toz, I never said that this stopped me from having fun. This is a discussion forum and so we are discussing the reasons people would want to create caches like that. At least you admitted that you are scratching your head about it.

I don't think one cache, placed to overcome a unique situation, is going to set some kind of precedent for an area, opening it up to Multi-logging abuse.

 

As for a reason someone would do that, on my cache, I state it clearly:

I think this is a fair accommodation, since the caches would still be there to be found, if the Park had not changed their Geocaching policy and removed the containers.

Geocaching is supposed to be about having fun. Each cacher can create and place the kind of caches they want to. If the cache has been Reviewed, is within the Guidelines, and has been Published, I don't understand why another cacher would want the cache to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand why another cacher would want the cache to be changed.
I never told you to change it. I just said that I'm never going to find it unless it did change. Big difference! :D

 

Anyhow, I'm still "curious" why you think logging 12 smileys on one cache is more fun than logging one?

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand why another cacher would want the cache to be changed.
I never told you to change it. I just said that I'm never going to find it unless it did change. Big difference! :blink:

 

Anyhow, I'm still "curious" why you think logging 12 smileys on one cache is more fun than logging one?

I'm still curious why this is such a big deal for you. After all, this practice doesn't affect you, in any real way. I simply don't understand why you care so much about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective. :D
Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter? The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective. :D
Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?
Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

Share this post


Link to post
This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective. :D
Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?
Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

If anyone is squirming, it is you.

 

You ask questions and I answer them. I ask questions, and you avoid them.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
This is a discussion forum where you....eh.....discuss things. I'm still interested in hearing why a cache that lets people log 12 smileys is more fun than a cache that only lets them log one smiley. Call it curiosity. Call it trying to see things from someone else's perspective. :D
Well, perhaps it is exactly the same amount of fun. Perhaps, it is incrementally better because each stage seems like more of an individual adventure. Either way, why does it matter. The cache owners who allow this and the cache seekers who take advantage of the offer all like it and it doesn't affect anyone else, why does it matter?
Why does it matter if someone that has placed one of these answers the question? I told you I was curious. All this dodging and squirming makes it seem like the question hit a nerve.

If anyone is squirming, it is you.

 

You ask questions and I answer them. I ask questions, and you avoid them.

I'm not squirming one bit. I'm just waiting for a credible answer. :D Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...