Filtering Specific Cache Owners out of Pocket Queries?

[+TheCarterFamily]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit. That way my MyFinds Pocket Query contains the journey I took from cache to cache. (Just call me the human travel bug , I'm even keeping my DNFs and GPS tracklogs too)

 

I have a cache owner who is deleting my logs because he says they mess up his stats page (I'm assuming this is the page http://www.underwaterlabs.com/geocaching.php) I have the feeling the duplicate player log is messing up his spider program to get the cache information (GPX files only contain 20 logs, since I'm about 38 I'm assuming it's via a spider or something). The problem I have is it's leaving a big hole in my MyFinds stats.

 

So my question, is it possible to filter his caches out specificly from the pocket query? That way I don't have him deleting any more of my logs in the future.

 

I can always manually delete his caches from my GPX files... I was just wondering if there was a way to do it from the Pocket Query page.

[+Renegade Knight]

PQ page. No.

GPX Sonar Yes.

GSAK. Most likely.

If you put their caches on your ignore list that should keep them from your PQ but I"d do that then run a trial PQ to check.

 

It looks like you will need an intermediate step one way or another.

[+TheCarterFamily]

PQ page. No.

GPX Sonar Yes.

GSAK. Most likely.

If you put their caches on your ignore list that should keep them from your PQ but I"d do that then run a trial PQ to check.

 

It looks like you will need an intermediate step one way or another.

 

Well theres another feature request then... have a filter on the PQ page to filter out cache owners who want to dictate how we are allowed to cache.

[+Prime Suspect]

Well theres another feature request then... have a filter on the PQ page to filter out cache owners who want to dictate how we are allowed to cache.

News flash: He's perfectly within his rights to do so. And I would do it too. Unless it's been moved, you can only "find" a cache once. Return visits should be posted with a note.

 

Why don't you just invest a few bucks on a travel bug tag, and use that to keep track of your mileage? The system will even keep track of it for you, and plot it on a map.

[+Isonzo Karst]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit. That way my MyFinds Pocket Query contains the journey I took from cache to cache.

 

Your "MyFinds" PQ will also return all your "write note" logs to a cache. Did you realize that? If you have a cache owner who objects to multiple finds (which, by the way would be a majority view, objecting to finding the same cache more than once) you can simply note your return visits with note logs, not find logs.

[+SgtSue]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

[+TheCarterFamily]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

[+JohnnyVegas]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

I would delete your logs also, you should log a note rther than a found it log.

I would even take it further if someone kept loging multiple finds on my caches, I would send then an e-mail an tell them not to log any of my caches, even those they have not found.

[+TheCarterFamily]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

[+StarBrand]

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

OK

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

To me a bogus or counterfeit log is a 2nd "found" log. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time. Further visits are just that - a visit.

 

I too would delete such logs.

[+TheCarterFamily]

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

OK

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

To me a bogus or counterfeit log is a 2nd "found" log. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time. Further visits are just that - a visit.

 

I too would delete such logs.

 

So if it's bogus why does the system allow you do do it? Why do stats pages allow for finds and unique finds?

 

Few things:

1. How do you account for caches that have more than one physical destination? (GC159Q0)

2. Caches that move 100 m with a new container and new location

3. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time? So clear to you not to me or thousands of other people.

 

I though geocaching was about the journey. Clearly to you guys it's about the power and the politics.

 

Not to mention by your definition above, If I consider all logs by the user name "StarBrand" to be bogus then it must be true and it's with in my right to remove all logs I feel are bogus from the system.

 

What's it to you if I would rather log a "found it" record on every cache that my family and I actually go to, seek out, find and writing in the log.

[+the hermit crabs]

If you put their caches on your ignore list that should keep them from your PQ but I"d do that then run a trial PQ to check.

You have to remember to check the "THAT... are not on my ignore list" box in your PQ if you want it to leave out the ignored caches.

[+CM-14]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

I don't log multiple finds on the same caches, but I do not delete multiple finds on my caches either. It's your game and you should be able to play how you want. Too many "my way or the highway" types wandering around in these here forums.

[+TheCarterFamily]

If you put their caches on your ignore list that should keep them from your PQ but I"d do that then run a trial PQ to check.

You have to remember to check the "THAT... are not on my ignore list" box in your PQ if you want it to leave out the ignored caches.

 

So there is a way. Problem with that is I have to be diligent at removing all this users caches (and any other God complex people who want to control how other people enjoy their geocaching experience)

 

Still a big step in the right direction.

 

Second is to tighter define "Bogus". Because it's messing up my spider program that's crawling GC.com to me doesn't seem to be a "Bogus" entry. Especially when I'm a programmer and could probably fix his spider program.

[+StarBrand]

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

OK

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

To me a bogus or counterfeit log is a 2nd "found" log. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time. Further visits are just that - a visit.

 

I too would delete such logs.

 

So if it's bogus why does the system allow you do do it? Why do stats pages allow for finds and unique finds?

 

Few things:

1. How do you account for caches that have more than one physical destination? (GC159Q0)

2. Caches that move 100 m with a new container and new location

3. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time? So clear to you not to me or thousands of other people.

 

I though geocaching was about the journey. Clearly to you guys it's about the power and the politics.

 

Not to mention by your definition above, If I consider all logs by the user name "StarBrand" to be bogus then it must be true and it's with in my right to remove all logs I feel are bogus from the system.

 

What's it to you if I would rather log a "found it" record on every cache that my family and I actually go to, seek out, find and writing in the log.

 

To keep a long story short. My caching ethics pretty much state: 1 GC number equal 1 and only 1 find.

 

I will concede that others see suffcient reason to break that on a few select caches (certain events, grandfathered traveling caches and select others). However, the vast majority of cachers that I have ever met frown upon multiple "found" logs for ordinary caches - and delete them. I never do it and do not allow it on my caches.

 

Feel free to do as you will on your own cache listings.

[+sbell111]

... What's it to you if I would rather log a "found it" record on every cache that my family and I actually go to, seek out, find and writing in the log.

Truthfully, it's nothing to us. However, you have found that it may be something to the owners of the caches to which these double logs are made.

 

The cache owner is the arbiter of what can be claimed as a 'find' on his/her caches. If you wish to double log a cache, you should ask first or not be surprised if your log is deleted.

[+TheCarterFamily]

 

I don't log multiple finds on the same caches, but I do not delete multiple finds on my caches either. It's your game and you should be able to play how you want. Too many "my way or the highway" types wandering around in these here forums.

 

Thank you someone else who believes in freedom of religion... (since cache style falls more under the beileve category)

[+sbell111]

Second is to tighter define "Bogus". Because it's messing up my spider program that's crawling GC.com to me doesn't seem to be a "Bogus" entry. Especially when I'm a programmer and could probably fix his spider program.

You might want to take a closer read of the ToS.

[+TheCarterFamily]

... What's it to you if I would rather log a "found it" record on every cache that my family and I actually go to, seek out, find and writing in the log.

Truthfully, it's nothing to us. However, you have found that it may be something to the owners of the caches to which these double logs are made.

 

The cache owner is the arbiter of what can be claimed as a 'find' on his/her caches. If you wish to double log a cache, you should ask first or not be surprised if your log is deleted.

 

I think what got me is he's deleting the logs because it messes up his spider program. (in my mind if a program is not recognizing the primary key of a system, the spider is broken not the user who entered the data.)

[+TheCarterFamily]

Second is to tighter define "Bogus". Because it's messing up my spider program that's crawling GC.com to me doesn't seem to be a "Bogus" entry. Especially when I'm a programmer and could probably fix his spider program.

You might want to take a closer read of the ToS.

 

Me I know full well that spidering is not allowed. (I was wondering when someone else would notice that fact) That's this guys reason for deleting my log. Because it breaks his stats page (which since my log is 38th on the list it's not in the GPX file) only other way to poll this data is to spider the page. (if he was doing it manually he could just not include the stat.

[+sbell111]

... I have the feeling the duplicate player log is messing up his spider program to get the cache information (GPX files only contain 20 logs, since I'm about 38 I'm assuming it's via a spider or something). ...

While a PQ only retrieves the last five logs to a cache, you can easily 'build' a complete record of all logs in GSAK. No spider is required for this.

 

Either way, cache owners are under no obligation to allow you to log as many 'find' logs to their cache page as you want to. If you were to double log one of my caches, I'd delete your second log (and most people consider my play to be on the liberal side of the spectrum).

Edited April 17, 2008 by sbell111

[+TheCarterFamily]

... I have the feeling the duplicate player log is messing up his spider program to get the cache information (GPX files only contain 20 logs, since I'm about 38 I'm assuming it's via a spider or something). ...

While a PQ only retrieves the last five logs to a cache, you can easily 'build' a complete record of all logs in GSAK. No spider is required for this.

 

Either way, cache owners are under no obligation to allow you to log as many 'find' logs to their cache page as you want to. If you were to double log one of my caches, I'd delete your second log (and most people consider my play to be on the liberal side of the spectrum).

 

Please re-read my comment. I'm log 38. He deleted it of of gc.com because it keeps showing up in the stat page. IF you can't even pull it from the GPX file it shouldn't be affecting GSAK. (Which means he is pulling the data some other way than GPX files.) Does GC.com have a mechanism to pull all logs other than the page it self?

[+StarBrand]

BTW - On topic--- I support the creation of an addtional filter to ignore certain cache owners caches.

[+Miragee]

Well theres another feature request then... have a filter on the PQ page to filter out cache owners who want to dictate how we are allowed to cache.

News flash: He's perfectly within his rights to do so. And I would do it too. Unless it's been moved, you can only "find" a cache once. Return visits should be posted with a note.

 

Why don't you just invest a few bucks on a travel bug tag, and use that to keep track of your mileage? The system will even keep track of it for you, and plot it on a map.

That sounds like a practical idea for keeping track of your "mileage."

 

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

I haven't deleted any logs, but I do send polite emails to people who either log a "Found it" when they didn't actually find the cache, or if they log a second "Found it." Those cachers have complied without complaint.

 

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

I would delete your logs also, you should log a note rather than a found it log.

I would even take it further if someone kept loging multiple finds on my caches, I would send then an e-mail an tell them not to log any of my caches, even those they have not found.

I see a pattern developing here . . .

 

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

OK

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

To me a bogus or counterfeit log is a 2nd "found" log. Clearly you can only search for and find a cache one time. Further visits are just that - a visit.

 

I too would delete such logs.

Yup . . . there is a pattern here.

 

Even if logging a "Note" instead of a "Found it" on a subsequent visit to a cache isn't "written in stone" in the Guidelines, why would you continue to something that is not an accepted practice in the Geocaching community?

 

Back on Topic, I also support the creation of an addtional filter to ignore caches placed by specific cache owners.

[+Team GeoBlast]

It seems that the inflexibility of others is an issue with you while you are doing something that others don't support for a number of reasons, the stat counter being just one of them. I'm not trying to start a beef but with you but this seems like a path that is going to lead to you getting discouraged with the game and the people that play it.

 

If your reasons for logging two finds on one cache is just for personal mileage and you consider yourself a human travel bug of a sorts. I have a suggestion that might bring peace to your world and still accomplish what you are trying to do . Really make yourself a travel bug. Here's an example of someone who did it. He has a different spin on how he uses it (you have to meet him) but you could easily make your family a travel bug and dip that into a cache anytime you visited.

 

There is another side benefit for doing this too. You could have your own page that records your activity. You could put memorable moments and photos that might be meaningful to your family but not appropriate for a regular cache page. It kinda becomes your personal homepage if you will.

 

I am in the camp of playing the game the way you want to play it as long as it is not at the expense of others. But there are a few things that the game is centered around. A "find" is one of them. Understand that while double logging a cache is something that you feel like it should be your right, there is another perspective that I'd encourage you to consider. It does have an effect on others whether you choose to acknowledge that their reasoning is worthy or not.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+palser]

Certainly defining 'bogus' could be a help. But to take your request/theory a step further, I have a cache I drive by 4-5 times a day. I could certainly be within my rights to log this as a find every time I pass by. About once a week I could place preprinted form w/signature in the cache to verify my so-called find. At the end of the week I could have 25-30 more finds to increase my numbers with very little effort involved.

 

Which leads to ask, WHY? And since it hasn't been asked and you did try at an explanation as to why, but seemed a little weak! Just why is it so important to log it as a find and not just post it as a note as suggested.

 

Edited April 17, 2008 by palser

[+Renegade Knight]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

...First where does it say this in ground speak policies?..

 

It's a community standard. Grounspeak doesn't choose to regulate log content, type, style, or the proper, placment, of commas, beyond the minimal standard of not being abusive or obscene.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Certainly defining 'bogus' could be a help. But to take your request/theory a step further, I have a cache I drive by 4-5 times a day. I could certainly be within my rights to log this as a find every time I pass by. About once a week I could place preprinted form w/signature in the cache to verify my so-called find. At the end of the week I could have 25-30 more finds to increase my numbers with very little effort involved.

 

Which leads to ask, WHY? And since it hasn't been asked and you did try at an explanation as to why, but seemed a little weak! Just why is it so important to log it as a find and not just post it as a note as suggested.

 

 

Expanding on this one example a little. What about the cache owner? If you did this for a year, he'd have 260 finds from the same person on his cache. Is making the find counter on his cache worthless okay so you can get your mileage recorded? As I said earlier, there are ways to do accomplish what you want to do and not effect others.

[+TheCarterFamily]

I just love it when people quote statistics or patterns with a huge statistical error coefficient. This form is a members only forum so opinions expressed here are only going to be on a lowered percentage of the community. Let alone not everyone uses forums

 

So let's add some stats:

 

Error Statement: my stats are driven based on the gpx files I've archived over the last 2 years. The numbers of people who have logged multiple find records will be low on my stats. Some of the stats will also be off because I'm manually deleting logs that have been deleted, which is not 100%

 

74700 cachers are currently holding double finds on a cache.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Certainly defining 'bogus' could be a help. But to take your request/theory a step further, I have a cache I drive by 4-5 times a day. I could certainly be within my rights to log this as a find every time I pass by. About once a week I could place preprinted form w/signature in the cache to verify my so-called find. At the end of the week I could have 25-30 more finds to increase my numbers with very little effort involved.

 

Which leads to ask, WHY? And since it hasn't been asked and you did try at an explanation as to why, but seemed a little weak! Just why is it so important to log it as a find and not just post it as a note as suggested.

 

 

Why is it so important. Simple, log type.

 

If I write a note it can be to just say hello or any reason. If I'm tracking a journey of actually physically finding a cache the log type "Found it" is the only one that fits at the moment.

 

When I start trying to filter my own logs how do I filter... GC.com filters on log type, so do I. IF you want to log the same cache 25-30 times that's your business. I'm not as bold as to dictate and enforce how another person runs there life.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Another though we're all talking about the Cache Owner and the Cache Owner's rights. What about the individual. I would have thought that it's my right not to have my personal logs mutilated in any way.

[+Miragee]

Another though we're all talking about the Cache Owner and the Cache Owner's rights. What about the individual. I would have thought that it's my right not to have my personal logs mutilated in any way.

The cache is "owned" by the Cache Owner. The Cache Owner also created the cache page. If they want to keep their cache's statistics accurate, they will want to delete any logs that do not reflect the actual experience of the people who visited the cache site.

 

You can only "Find" something one time. After that, you know where it is. How do you "Find" it again?

[+TheCarterFamily]

For anyone who cares. What really pisses me off about this is I have two stats. Physical Finds and Unique Finds. For my 400th physical find I planned it out on a beautifly sunset. Have the pictures, my wife hand hand drawn up a great plaque for the occasion.

 

Now because some Cache owner decideds almost two years later that he doesn't like my log he deletes them. So now all my 400th find stuff basicly goes in the garbage.

 

I can fully understand these people who visit caches without logging anything on gc.com. What's the point if logs from your very start can be deleted because the owner decides he doesn't like it for what ever reason.

[+StarBrand]

Another though we're all talking about the Cache Owner and the Cache Owner's rights. What about the individual. I would have thought that it's my right not to have my personal logs mutilated in any way.

No one wants to "mutilate" your logs. Simply change the type. Nothing you have typed up.

 

I would never delete a note or ask that non-abusive or non-spoiler words be edited. Just bogus claims of a "find".

[+StarBrand]

For anyone who cares. What really pisses me off about this is I have two stats. Physical Finds and Unique Finds. For my 400th physical find I planned it out on a beautifly sunset. Have the pictures, my wife hand hand drawn up a great plaque for the occasion.

 

Now because some Cache owner decideds almost two years later that he doesn't like my log he deletes them. So now all my 400th find stuff basicly goes in the garbage.

 

I can fully understand these people who visit caches without logging anything on gc.com. What's the point if logs from your very start can be deleted because the owner decides he doesn't like it for what ever reason.

Whether you have an online log or not - the 400th find is the 400th find.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Another though we're all talking about the Cache Owner and the Cache Owner's rights. What about the individual. I would have thought that it's my right not to have my personal logs mutilated in any way.

The cache is "owned" by the Cache Owner. The Cache Owner also created the cache page. If they want to keep their cache's statistics accurate, they will want to delete any logs that do not reflect the actual experience of the people who visited the cache site.

 

You can only "Find" something one time. After that, you know where it is. How do you "Find" it again?

 

Ah hello, the cache page statistics report includes archived logs... so deleting the log doesn't change the statistics.

 

As for your last comment. Do you really want to argue semantics? Most of the caches I own are never in the place I put them. A few of them I've been tempted to log it as a "Found it" just because I went 30 minutes searching to find it's new location. I don't for the simple fact I wasn't actually caching that day and can use the "Owner maintenance" logs to track that journey.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Another though we're all talking about the Cache Owner and the Cache Owner's rights. What about the individual. I would have thought that it's my right not to have my personal logs mutilated in any way.

No one wants to "mutilate" your logs. Simply change the type. Nothing you have typed up.

 

I would never delete a note or ask that non-abusive or non-spoiler words be edited. Just bogus claims of a "find".

 

The problem is how people justify "Bogus". By deleting/archiving logs they adversly affect the person who logged it. If the cache owner want's to control what's seen on his page then maybe Groundspeak should have a hide log botton. That way this wouldn't be a fight between cacher and cache owner.

[+TheCarterFamily]

For anyone who cares. What really pisses me off about this is I have two stats. Physical Finds and Unique Finds. For my 400th physical find I planned it out on a beautifly sunset. Have the pictures, my wife hand hand drawn up a great plaque for the occasion.

 

Now because some Cache owner decideds almost two years later that he doesn't like my log he deletes them. So now all my 400th find stuff basicly goes in the garbage.

 

I can fully understand these people who visit caches without logging anything on gc.com. What's the point if logs from your very start can be deleted because the owner decides he doesn't like it for what ever reason.

Whether you have an online log or not - the 400th find is the 400th find.

 

Again missing the point. MyFinds Pocket query has my 400th cache listed as 399. If online logs are so unimportant than why do the cache owners need to delete them in the first place.

[+Sioneva]

For anyone who cares. What really pisses me off about this is I have two stats. Physical Finds and Unique Finds. For my 400th physical find I planned it out on a beautifly sunset. Have the pictures, my wife hand hand drawn up a great plaque for the occasion.

 

Now because some Cache owner decideds almost two years later that he doesn't like my log he deletes them. So now all my 400th find stuff basicly goes in the garbage.

 

I can fully understand these people who visit caches without logging anything on gc.com. What's the point if logs from your very start can be deleted because the owner decides he doesn't like it for what ever reason.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. I never thought in terms of physical finds vs unique finds, they should be one and the same.

 

Anyway, it seems that you are in the minority, judging from the posts on this forum board, which only a fraction of cachers go to. Even if that wasn't the case, the cache owner has the final say in what logs stay on his cache page and what ones don't. Nothing done or said here by anyone will change that simple, impossible-to-get-around fact. Arguing the merits of multiple logging of single caches - we could do that all year, and not change a thing.

 

Maybe just dropping it and saving fingers wear and tear would be a good idea?

[+tozainamboku]

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

First let me say that I agree that you should be able to use the Found It log as suits your purpose for how you geocache. Unfortunately, we are in the minority. Most people believe that in most case you can only find a cache one time and subsequent visits shouldn't be counted as finds. Perhaps if the system provided a unique finds count instead of just counting the number of found it logs there would not be such a strong reaction to those who wish to call each visit to a cache a find. It may be that the system allows multiple finds because there are some cases, e.g, moving caches, caches with multiple ways to find them, where multiple finds would make sense. Groundspeak made a change on the Waymarking site where you can only log a visit to a waymark the first time you visit. I don't know what you call it if you visit the waymark again, all I know is that Groundspeak won't let me log another visit. So they certainly could do the same for finding geocaches.

 

The official policy is that Groundspeak is not in the business of deciding when the Found It log is appropriate. Instead they delegate this the cache owner. Each owner is asked to "delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." So essentially, if you run up against a cache owner who doesn't want to allow more than one 'Found It' log per cacher on his cache he can delete your log. Some cachers like to keep statistics on the number of cachers who have found their caches. If they find people claiming finds which the owner doesn't count as finds they are likely going to delete the offending log.

 

Unfortunately we have a case here where a cache owner wishes to keep the logs on his cache a certain way to meet his purpose which conflicts with the way a cacher finder wished to use the logs. Something has to give. The decision seems to fall in favor of the cache owner in every case I can think of. Since you are a programmer I suggest you write your own application to keep your statistics the way you like and use the Found It log the way the cache owner tells you to use it.

[+SgtSue]

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit.

 

As others said, subsequent visits should be recorded as a note - not as another found. If you logged one of my caches a second time you would receive a polite email asking you to change it to a note for that reason. If it wasn't changed in a reasonable time period I would also delete it. I've only had to do this once, but would again.

 

First where does it say this in ground speak policies? You talking like it's ground speak "Law".

 

For me it is quite straight forward, 1 GC number = 1 find. Except for my car keys, you can only FIND something once. I have no illusion as to "control" or "power". Anyone who thinks they have power or control over anything is deluding themselves. I can not, nor do I care to, enforce what I deem as fair play to the rest of the caching world. But in my little corner of two hidden caches there will be no duplicates or didn’t sign the log finds. If you wish to allow that on your caches, so be it. The more I cache, the more I realize how little those number of finds mean as there are so many different methods to counting. Whatever my current count is, that is how many caches I have found and sign their logs (or answered their virtual question). I have friends who count like I do and I have friends who do not. That my friend is just the way the world is.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Well all I can say to all this is what goes around, comes around.

 

I have a cache which actually requires you to log 12 Found it records. It has 12 physical location, and 12 log books to find.

 

Can wait till this cacher logs onto that cache. Then I'll wait 1-2 years when he is approaching a milestone. Then delete all is logs but one.

 

I only wish I was that vengeful.

[+palser]

Vengeful??

Edited April 17, 2008 by palser

[+Sioneva]

Well all I can say to all this is what goes around, comes around.

 

I have a cache which actually requires you to log 12 Found it records. It has 12 physical location, and 12 log books to find.

 

Can wait till this cacher logs onto that cache. Then I'll wait 1-2 years when he is approaching a milestone. Then delete all is logs but one.

 

I only wish I was that vengeful.

 

I think you'll be waiting a long time. That wouldn't be a cache I would go after, personally.

[+tozainamboku]

Well all I can say to all this is what goes around, comes around.

 

I have a cache which actually requires you to log 12 Found it records. It has 12 physical location, and 12 log books to find.

 

Can wait till this cacher logs onto that cache. Then I'll wait 1-2 years when he is approaching a milestone. Then delete all is logs but one.

 

I only wish I was that vengeful.

 

I think you'll be waiting a long time. That wouldn't be a cache I would go after, personally.

I would. But you would certainly have puritans who would say this is a multi-cache and would only log it one time (either after they found all 12 locations or after they find the first one depending on how they interpret the requirements for logging a find). One effect of the way the system currently works it that puritans (those who believe only 1 find per GC number) are able to play their way no matter what rules a cache owner makes. It's difficult to come up with some way to force someone to log a find they don't think they deserve to log.

[+DanOCan]

My thoughts:

 

1) I have logged a Find on the same GC# many times. As others have noted, there are still grandfathered caches out there which move to different locations and thus represent a unique hide each time. So, the system is correct in allowing you to log the same cache as a Find multiple times.

 

2) As a seeker I only log a Find on a cache the first time I find it, unless it is one of the special cases listed in #1. Any subsequent visits to that cache will be logged as a Note.

 

3) As a cache owner I will request anyone who logs a Find on one of my caches more than once to change their log to a Note. If they do not do so I will regretfully delete their log.

 

4) Yes, it would be nice if you could exclude caches hidden by a specific cacher right at the PQ level.

[+Sioneva]

Well all I can say to all this is what goes around, comes around.

 

I have a cache which actually requires you to log 12 Found it records. It has 12 physical location, and 12 log books to find.

 

Can wait till this cacher logs onto that cache. Then I'll wait 1-2 years when he is approaching a milestone. Then delete all is logs but one.

 

I only wish I was that vengeful.

 

I think you'll be waiting a long time. That wouldn't be a cache I would go after, personally.

I would. But you would certainly have puritans who would say this is a multi-cache and would only log it one time (either after they found all 12 locations or after they find the first one depending on how they interpret the requirements for logging a find). One effect of the way the system currently works it that puritans (those who believe only 1 find per GC number) are able to play their way no matter what rules a cache owner makes. It's difficult to come up with some way to force someone to log a find they don't think they deserve to log.

 

Why does everyone make 'Puritan' sound like a bad word? Anyway, back on topic, you're right. I don't claim to be a Puritan, but it does sound either like 1 multi-cache, or 12 separate caches that should have 12 separate GC listings.

 

I see where the OP is coming from, I just don't agree.

[+mmgestes]

I am on the same page with DanOCan........

 

As a member of Wyoming Association of Geocachers (WAG) it is a consensus of our group that finding your own caches (not a topic here) and logging a cache more than once is not an acceptable practice. We have had much discussion on this at our own Forum site.

 

I, myself, will only log a cache as Found once. On repeat visits will Write a Note. As the owner of several caches we have one cache in particular that has had a few repeat visits where there have been multiple Found logs. After a polite email to the cacher the logs have always been changed from Found logs to Notes Written. I would and will delete these multiple Found logs if they are not changed. Recently we are having problems with another cache and the logs not being signed but being logged as Found. We changed the cache page and asked that anyone finding the cache sign the log for credit. If this doesn't help then we will put a note on the cache page saying that signing the log is mandatory or logs will be deleted.

 

My two cents worth.......

[+TheCarterFamily]

Yep let's destroy the fun of others because we want to be control freaks.

 

Me personally I let anything go because I don't feel it's my right as a human being to interfere with how other people enjoy the sport. If they were actually effecting me sure, I might say something.

 

But I have to keep reminding myself of the society we live in. This topic is so funny...

[+Sioneva]

Yep let's destroy the fun of others because we want to be control freaks.

 

Me personally I let anything go because I don't feel it's my right as a human being to interfere with how other people enjoy the sport. If they were actually effecting me sure, I might say something.

 

But I have to keep reminding myself of the society we live in. This topic is so funny...

 

Well, can't you let this go, then? Looks like you did say something, after all.