Jump to content

Logging your own caches as finds


Zor

Recommended Posts

I am relatively new to caching (6 months into it) and I have been doing a lot of hides recently, and I noticed that on the cache page, I as the owner have a lot more options than I would on a cache I don't own. However, when I look at the public listing, and I choose "Log It", I actually have the ability to log my own cache as a find.

 

Why is this allowed?

 

If someone has hidden 300 caches, they could feasibly log each of those 300 as a find, and increase their find count by 300. Does that not seem a little illogical? Should you be allowed to log your own cache as a find, since obviously you didn't have to "find" it?

 

I would think that the website would remove the found/did not find options when logging a cache that you are the owner of.

 

What's the scoop on this?

Link to comment

I am relatively new to caching (6 months into it) and I have been doing a lot of hides recently, and I noticed that on the cache page, I as the owner have a lot more options than I would on a cache I don't own. However, when I look at the public listing, and I choose "Log It", I actually have the ability to log my own cache as a find.

 

Why is this allowed?

 

Why not? It's your cache to do as you please within the guidelines.

 

If someone has hidden 300 caches, they could feasibly log each of those 300 as a find, and increase their find count by 300. Does that not seem a little illogical? Should you be allowed to log your own cache as a find, since obviously you didn't have to "find" it?

 

If someone did that and abused it to the point where they got the $1000 monthly prize for the most finds, this would be an issue however no one has received the award did anything suspect to this point.

 

This is why so few of us do log our own without reason. There are instances where you would and it would be acceptable, as in a cache you adopted before you found it. (i.e. a friends series, etc)

 

I would think that the website would remove the found/did not find options when logging a cache that you are the owner of.

 

Again, why? It's your cache and your count. Seems stupid and is more rare than you think, but we have enough problem with the guidelines we have.

Link to comment

I had the situation above - I found a cache, and later decided to adopt it when it went up for adoption. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, since I did find it, not necessarily knowing that I would own it at a later date.

 

Some people log finds on their own caches in order to get numbers for ones that the owner of the cache has deleted their log. I don't necessarily agree with this, but then again, if you found it, you should get credit.

 

I doubt they'll lock this feature...

Link to comment

I have logged a DNF on my own cache!!! B)

.

.

.

Besides...I have also seen someone adopt a cache before actually knowing where it was/is. Made sense to me that they logged a find on their cache. Afterall, when it was hidden, they were not present and didn't know where it was. They had to find it before being able to complete some basic care of the cache (replace the log in the cache).

.

.

.

Besides...you do have the power to resist logging your own caches if you so choose...and if you do log your own cache, you can always delete your log <_<

Link to comment

If someone has hidden 300 caches, they could feasibly log each of those 300 as a find, and increase their find count by 300.

Or they could log each of those 300 as a find 10 times, and increase their find count by 3000.

 

Other people's numbers are pretty much meaningless, unless you know their logging habits.

Link to comment

I had the situation above - I found a cache, and later decided to adopt it when it went up for adoption. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, since I did find it, not necessarily knowing that I would own it at a later date.

 

That exact thing happened to me as well. Was FTF on an awesome placement and a number of months later the owner moved out of State. Not wanting to see said "awesome placement" disappear, I adopted it!

 

But when I logged it, it wasn't mine! <_<

 

DCC

Edited by Driver Carries Cache
Link to comment
Besides...I have also seen someone adopt a cache before actually knowing where it was/is. Made sense to me that they logged a find on their cache. Afterall, when it was hidden, they were not present and didn't know where it was. They had to find it before being able to complete some basic care of the cache (replace the log in the cache).

 

I've done this. I adopted 3 caches that I had never found. Two of them I logged as finds, after I found them and did some cache maintanance, the third one was missing entirely so I had to make a cache and re-hide it. I didn't log the third one at all since I hid it, didn't seem right to log a find for it.

Link to comment

I think my point here is being missed. I understand the idea of logging a find on a cache you have adopted. That's not my issue. Here's the issue I have.

 

I go out and hide a new cache called "Zor's Cool Cache". It is a brand new cache hidden today (June 4th, 2008). I fill out the online form and submit it for review. The reviewer approves and then publishes the cache. I then go to my public cache listing page, click Log It, and log a find on the cache. I now have increased my finds by +1 but didn't actually FIND a cache. I hid one.

 

I do not think that users should be able to log a NEW find on a cache if they are its owner.

 

In the case of adopting, you would have logged the find long BEFORE you were the owner. That's fine. You should not be able to log a find on a cache you are NOW owner of.

Link to comment

I think my point here is being missed. I understand the idea of logging a find on a cache you have adopted. That's not my issue. Here's the issue I have.

 

I go out and hide a new cache called "Zor's Cool Cache". It is a brand new cache hidden today (June 4th, 2008). I fill out the online form and submit it for review. The reviewer approves and then publishes the cache. I then go to my public cache listing page, click Log It, and log a find on the cache. I now have increased my finds by +1 but didn't actually FIND a cache. I hid one.

 

I do not think that users should be able to log a NEW find on a cache if they are its owner.

 

In the case of adopting, you would have logged the find long BEFORE you were the owner. That's fine. You should not be able to log a find on a cache you are NOW owner of.

 

Yes, it's stupid... The times I've seen it, it was not the adoption scenario. It was either, a) The owner didn't know any better, or :grin: The owner was bumping his find count to look cool.. I've never come across c) The cache was adopted. Not that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't seem to be the main motivation for the behavior.

 

I'm starting to sway towards the "Who cares? They'll get there's eventually" attitude towards these folks. What's unfortunate is the majority of replies you've gotten in this thread almost sound like they are justifying the stupidity. Yes, its your cache and you are the owner and technically, you can log your own cache...

 

Bottom line: It's not TPTB's job to be the stupid police... And there are stupid people out there. Laugh at them and move on :grin:

Link to comment

I think my point here is being missed. I understand the idea of logging a find on a cache you have adopted. That's not my issue. Here's the issue I have.

 

I go out and hide a new cache called "Zor's Cool Cache". It is a brand new cache hidden today (June 4th, 2008). I fill out the online form and submit it for review. The reviewer approves and then publishes the cache. I then go to my public cache listing page, click Log It, and log a find on the cache. I now have increased my finds by +1 but didn't actually FIND a cache. I hid one.

 

I do not think that users should be able to log a NEW find on a cache if they are its owner.

 

In the case of adopting, you would have logged the find long BEFORE you were the owner. That's fine. You should not be able to log a find on a cache you are NOW owner of.

 

i could be mistaken..... but i believe this is a game, and it's sorta like cheating at solitaire.....

 

also, in a good hour, i can find more caches than i can create, hide, record, etc. in an hour.

 

if someone wants to claim caches that they placed as "found", it just means i can have more

caches to look for..... it's not like it gives them the privelege of riding by themselves in the

carpool lane, or going backstage at the rolling stones concert, etc.

 

it's sorta like the guy at an AA meeting talking about being two years sober, and you can

smell beer on his breath..... strictly speaking, it's none of my buisness what he does,

and "to thine own self be true" is the operative thought here.....

 

FulThrotl

Link to comment

I think my point here is being missed. I understand the idea of logging a find on a cache you have adopted. That's not my issue. Here's the issue I have.

 

I go out and hide a new cache called "Zor's Cool Cache". It is a brand new cache hidden today (June 4th, 2008). I fill out the online form and submit it for review. The reviewer approves and then publishes the cache. I then go to my public cache listing page, click Log It, and log a find on the cache. I now have increased my finds by +1 but didn't actually FIND a cache. I hid one.

 

I do not think that users should be able to log a NEW find on a cache if they are its owner.

 

In the case of adopting, you would have logged the find long BEFORE you were the owner. That's fine. You should not be able to log a find on a cache you are NOW owner of.

 

Yep, seen that. :grin:

I've seen cache owners log maintenance visits as 'finds' (multiple times{same owner and same cache, mind you}) and TB drops as 'finds' (also multiple times).

 

It's their cache(s), and their stats, so they can do what they want.

Does it affect me or my stats? No.

Does it affect my attitude towards the individual if we should meet face-to-face? Probably, if I cared enough to remember them or what they did.

 

DON'T EVEN get me started on multiple logging of events to cover the temporary caches found there! :grin:

Link to comment

Each person can decide what their "fund" numbers are comprised of.

 

I have two scenarios in my profile.

 

1. A challenge cache (A Baker's Dozen CHallenge - GC18HDD) That we created and placed. We also completed the cache requirments. However when we completed it - we simply listed a "NOTE" on the cache page. Didn't take the Smiley all though we had every right to.

 

2. An Event - We hosted a WWFM (World Wide Flash Mob) Event- GC1B409 on May 10th. We did log the "attended" as we were there. So it counts as a "find".

 

Another scenario is if there are multiple members of your team. One such scenario is when I placed a cache to commemorate getting into caching. The guy who got me into caching helped place the cache (GC17Q99). Their profile shows it as a find - but that is because his wife found it (no help was given).

 

So in the end - decide if you want to find your own caches. Who cares what other people do.

Edited by gvsu4msu
Link to comment

While it feels wrong I don't have too much problem allowing owners to log a cache, although I won't myself.

 

There have been times when a cache owner going to check on there cache has to do as much searching to find it as any other cacher since those other cachers have all moved the cache a few inches each so eventually its nowhere near where it originally started.

 

I would much rather TPTB prevent multiple find logs by the same cacher on the same cache.

Link to comment

To the original question:

 

1. No logging of owned caches.

2. Yes, logging when attending events.

3. No logging of "temporary" caches.

4. One cache (i.e. GC#) = one "find" per account.

5. Exceptions to #4 - when the cache has been relocated by the owner to an entirely different location and should have archived the old one and created a new cache. This is an anomoly (i.e. VERY RARE). In fact, to be pure, you should still only get one "find" and live with it.

 

 

Another scenario is if there are multiple members of your team. One such scenario is when I placed a cache to commemorate getting into caching. The guy who got me into caching helped place the cache (GC17Q99). Their profile shows it as a find - but that is because his wife found it (no help was given).

 

 

I don't believe that multiple members of a team allows for multiple finds, even if one placed and the other found. Do you also log multiple finds for all caches that each member finds? The count, to me, applies to the "account". For my account, I have "touched" every cache that is logged. My wife (who does not always go with me) does not cache separately from me. If she did, she should have her own account.

 

There is also questions as to whether a "Team" can split up for the day, find completely different caches and then log them all under one account. That's where some of these huge numbers come from. Maybe the answer is to have Groundspeak set up several categories of accounts; Individual (one person), Family and Team. Then you could compare more easily. Of course, the correct answer is that Groundspeak would prefer that everyone buy their own account at $30 each!

 

But I digress from the OP's original question...

Edited by Cache O'Plenty
Link to comment

1. It doesn't matter.

 

2. A real life example, that just happened to me. I adopted 3 caches from another owner that I had never found. We completed the adoption process via email from home.

 

So I went out and found them to make sure I woud know where they are to provide proper care for them.

 

On the way home, I was thinking and the "find" dilema occurred to me. Then I quickly came to the conclusion "Of, course I'm going to log them as finds." My search was exactly like any other search I've ever done. I had no prior knowledge and/or extra hints. I just took the cache page and found the caches. This fits MY definition of a find...it might not fits others but I could give a rats butt less, your entitled to work up your defination of "find".

 

But, of course #1 overrides everything else. As long as the word "find" remains undefined in the geocaching world the discussion is circular and without end.

 

Personally, I hope it remains just the way it is. People play the game for different reasons and play it different. This is one of my favorite things about geocaching. Also, I love the fact that the numbers are absolutely meaningless to anyone besides the person who creates them.

Edited by Morning Dew
Link to comment

1. It doesn't matter.

 

2. A real life example, that just happened to me. I adopted 3 caches from another owner that I had never found. We completed the adoption process via email from home.

 

 

Of course you have to find an adopted cache before you can maintain it! :)

 

I have one adopted cache that I have yet to find, and you can bet your sync cable I'll be logging it as I find on the first visit.

Link to comment

The answer, as I understand it, is that Geocaching is a listing service. It doesn't make the rules. (Well, outside of enforcing guidelines for cache hiding and maintenance.)

The owner owns the cache, and makes the rules as to what qualifies as a 'find' for her/his cache. Some people become quite ornery when I tell them that they have to sign the log to log the cache, or that they have to post a picture of them, taken by the webcam, to log a webcam cache. There are even people who will log multiple finds on their own archived cache, because they are denied the privilege of logging temporary event caches on an event page!

 

i could be mistaken..... but i believe this is a game, and it's sorta like cheating at solitaire.....

Most of us feel that way.

 

But, Geocaching dies not make rules. It lists geocaches that fits its requirements for lsting.

Link to comment

Looks like nobody thought about when finders of a cache decide the cache is in the wrong location and move it according to THEIR GPS forcing the owner to go out and find the cache they own. That kind of thing has happened many times. Whether or not the owner logs the find as a result of that action is subjective to the owner.

Link to comment

I think it's okay to log your own event. It's not really a cache that you're finding. You're logging that you attended.

 

As far as multiple logging of events, I've never heard of that. Not something people do around here.

 

I guess I'm not following your logic on this one:

 

You can log an event you own and 'attended'. (1 smiley bonus point) but... You can't log a cache you own and 'find'. (0 smiley bonus points)

 

As long as you're padding your numbers, who cares how you do it? :)

 

Just so you understand where I'm coming from (because I'm sure I haven't said it enough), my personal MO is that I don't support logging your own events (or any events as finds/attended) or logging your own caches.

 

As far as why GC.com 'allows' you to log your owned anything - do you really need THAT much 'policing'? Is a little self-restraint that hard to come by these days?

 

michelle

Link to comment

Looks like nobody thought about when finders of a cache decide the cache is in the wrong location and move it according to THEIR GPS forcing the owner to go out and find the cache they own. That kind of thing has happened many times. Whether or not the owner logs the find as a result of that action is subjective to the owner.

 

This type of thread always makes me think fondly of TravisL. If any cacher should have the right to log his own caches... he's the man..

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

As long as you're padding your numbers, who cares how you do it? :)

As long as you consider it padding your numbers you will have a issue with it.

 

If you view the online log as recording your caching experience instead of padding your numbers you will see that there is a lot of variation in what people might do.

 

Attend their own event? Sure, if they attended it. I've been to events where the event page owner was unable to attended because of a last minute change in their plans (family or work can take precedence over geocaching :mad: )

 

Find your grandfathered moving cache? Perhaps, as long as it got moved and rehidden by someone else before you find it.

 

Find a cache you've adopted?

 

Find a cache hidden by a team partner?

 

Find your own cache because some finder decided to hide it "better"?

 

Each cache owner will decide it this is a "find" and record there experience. If someone really wanted to pad their number wouldn't they log their own hide multiple times?

Link to comment

I actually have the ability to log my own cache as a find.

 

Why is this allowed?

 

If someone has hidden 300 caches, they could feasibly log each of those 300 as a find, and increase their find count by 300. Does that not seem a little illogical? Should you be allowed to log your own cache as a find, since obviously you didn't have to "find" it?

 

I would think that the website would remove the found/did not find options when logging a cache that you are the owner of.

 

What's the scoop on this?

 

99% (or more) geocachers do not log thier own caches. To disallow it by force is unneccessary.

 

I've seen cache owners log maintenance visits as 'finds' (multiple times{same owner and same cache, mind you}) and TB drops as 'finds' (also multiple times).

 

 

The ones that do are there for entertainment purposes. :)

Link to comment

As long as you're padding your numbers, who cares how you do it? :)

As long as you consider it padding your numbers you will have a issue with it.

 

If you view the online log as recording your caching experience instead of padding your numbers you will see that there is a lot of variation in what people might do.

 

Attend their own event? Sure, if they attended it. I've been to events where the event page owner was unable to attended because of a last minute change in their plans (family or work can take precedence over geocaching :mad: )

 

Find your grandfathered moving cache? Perhaps, as long as it got moved and rehidden by someone else before you find it.

 

Find a cache you've adopted?

 

Find a cache hidden by a team partner?

 

Find your own cache because some finder decided to hide it "better"?

 

Each cache owner will decide it this is a "find" and record there experience. If someone really wanted to pad their number wouldn't they log their own hide multiple times?

If the "you" is in general terms, I'll agree with the statement.

 

As for CGal... I can vouch for a fact she has no issues with the numbers what-so-ever.

Link to comment

Ok, this thread has gone WAY farther than I wanted but it has brought up a few interesting things.

 

For starters, Geocaching.Com may claim to be "just a listing" service, but personally, I think that's a pile of crap since they have many rules, and guidelines about how caches can be "listed" that in turn create rules about the game itself. But that's a whole other topic.

 

Those of you that said "if it's your cache, do whatever the hell you want with it" are just plain ignorant of the spirit of this sport/game and it really shines through in the regional differences between players. The very nature of this sport is to FIND things, and to HIDE things. Hiding and finding are both the biggest parts of this game, but are also completely opposite to each other. Hiding a cache does not mean you should be able to log finding the cache because you didn't have to go through any kind of work to find it, because you were the one who hid it.

 

How many caches have you gone to multiple times in trying to find it and finally got it, and felt good about it? I have had a few of them and I'm only at 230 finds. If I worked my a** off to find a cache, I would certainly feel like the owner had cheated if they simply log it as a find. They didn't have to try several times to find it. They may have worked hard to find a good spot to hide it, but that is not the same thing.

 

Whoever said that being able to log your own caches as finds is like cheating was right. It's poor sportsmanship and I think it's very sad.

 

The whole logging an adopted cache was not what I am referring to, and as far as event caches are concerned, the owner should be able to log it because they may or may not attend, depending on the situation, and if they actually ATTENDED the event, then they should be able to log it.

Link to comment
For starters, Geocaching.Com may claim to be "just a listing" service, but personally, I think that's a pile of crap since they have many rules, and guidelines about how caches can be "listed" that in turn create rules about the game itself. But that's a whole other topic.

I'm curious about this. Their guidelines for listing caches here apply only to those caches they list. If a cache doesn't meet their guidelines they won't list it, but that doesn't mean it can't be listed somewhere else. Am I missing something? Please elaborate.

 

Wow. You sure have a way about you. Did you learn that from a 'How to make friends and influence people' seminar?
Yup, another example of someone joining the web site and 6 months later deciding they can tell everyone else how they should and shouldn't play.

 

Perhaps some more time will go by and he'll figure out it's better to be nice when telling others how to play, instead of acting like that. :)

Link to comment

How many caches have you gone to multiple times in trying to find it and finally got it, and felt good about it? I have had a few of them and I'm only at 230 finds. If I worked my a** off to find a cache, I would certainly feel like the owner had cheated if they simply log it as a find. They didn't have to try several times to find it. They may have worked hard to find a good spot to hide it, but that is not the same thing.

 

...

 

The whole logging an adopted cache was not what I am referring to, and as far as event caches are concerned, the owner should be able to log it because they may or may not attend, depending on the situation, and if they actually ATTENDED the event, then they should be able to log it.

 

I see this more as a issue of you actually caring how someone else chooses to log their 'find' or 'attended' caches. Why does it matter to YOU, Zor, how someone logged a cache you worked your a** off to find? You know you worked your a** off, you logged your cache and you got your smiley. Move on.

 

Getting overly worked up about how other people cache... well, I'd suggest upping the dosage on the blood pressure medication right now.

 

I still don't see much difference in logging an event you own .vs. logging a cache you own. Same smiley.

 

Play your 'game' (hobby/sport/whatever you want to call it) the way that makes you the happiest and let everyone else do the same.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

I have worked my butt off on many occasions...multiple DNF's only to have someone come by a day later and have absolutely no trouble finding the cache and/or solving a puzzle...I am glad to get the cache off my To-Do List...I couldn't care less about how others may have found the cache or solved the puzzle...

 

GC.com as a Listing Service...

If you do not like what they are doing, you have every right to start your own site (just a Navicache and Terracache have done)...

 

Oh yeah...by the way...I accept my ignorance of this game :)

.

.

.

Though, by your own admission, if the spirit of the game and Hide and Find...then why are you worried about what Others Are Doing???

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

WOW. It's no wonder flame wars get started on these boards. One wrong comment and [edited].

 

My intention was to comment on the fact that the players who answer posts with entries like "[edit] what everyone else thinks. it's my cache and I'll do what I want with it and I shouldn't give a crap what anyone else thinks of what I do" are the ones who tend to make the game a bit more annoying at times. I wasn't telling them how to play the game, I was simply voicing my opinion. I don't think people should let other cachers criticisms bring them down, but if someone says something about a cache, or things you are doing, that may have a valid point, then maybe you should consider it. I hid a cache recently where I had a couple of people say they weren't keen on where I placed it. Ya ok, I respect their opinion, but I'm not moving it. If I thought what they had said was valid, I may have moved it, but for me, I was fine with it.

 

All I said was that people who insist on logging their own caches to jack up their find count don't get what the purpose of a find count is for. They don't have to care if I don't like it, I'm just saying that I don't think it's right, thats all folks.

 

Am I telling you how to play the game? No, I'm not. I'm stating an opinion that I think logging your own caches that you have hidden yourself is in poor taste. I didn't sit down and call you a frakking idiot because of it. I said that I think it's in poor spirit of what the game is about.

 

Do I really care how others play the game? Do you? Can you honestly sit there and tell me that the actions of other players, regardless of what it is, don't bother you in some fashion? I know there are people who just don't give a crap what anyone else thinks, and for them, that's fine. But for me, there are some things about this game that would bother me. Logging finds on caches that you yourself have hidden wouldn't bother me so much, as it would just irritate me. If I'm trying to get my count up because it's important to me, it would aggrevate the frig out of me to see someone else rack their own count up by logging a dozen finds on their own cache. Other people may then turn around and have some sort of respect for this person because they have a high count, when in fact they may have only found half of the caches that made up the high number.

 

Maybe it is a new player thing, but when I see a player with more than 2000 finds, I'm thinking to myself that they have probably done a LOT of caching, and have a LOT of experience. That's what the number means to me, and I suspect that there are plenty of other players who see it the same way. Sure, if you don't care about a find count, then that's your right and I respect that. But I am sure many others see it like I do as a sort of gauge of experience. Maybe that's wrong, and if it is, maybe we should just get rid of the count entirely.

 

That's really what the purpose of this thread was for. I wanted to try and understand WHY that option exists since to me, that find count is a measure of experience for cachers. Maybe that's a wrong perception but right now, that's what I'm using. Are you now going to try and tell me I should think differently? If so, you're doing exactly what apparently I was several posts ago. Think about how you reply.

 

I'm not flaming anyone, and really, all I was looking for was some reasoning behind why the option is there, which thanks to you folks, I have. I had not thought of the events, or the adoption thing, and I am glad that you guys brought it up because to me, those are valid reasons to log finds on your own caches.

 

It was not my intention to start having people insult me and claim that at 6 months, I'm trying to tell you how to play. If that's how you read my posts, please go back and re-read them as that was not what I was trying to accomplish. Regardless, I have my answers from here. I'll post this on my own local board where there's a bit less hostility. Thanks anyway.

 

[Edited by moderator to remove wording that was less than family friendly]

Edited by Moun10Bike
Link to comment

Though, by your own admission, if the spirit of the game and Hide and Find...then why are you worried about what Others Are Doing???

 

Because I disagree with the practice, that's all.

 

I don't see this as hide and find, I see it as hide or find. I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it but if you ask me, I'll say what I think. Thank you very much.

Link to comment
WOW. It's no wonder flame wars get started on these boards. One wrong comment and [edit].
Wait until you see what happens with two wrong comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[edited to remove previously edited comments from quote. No foul on this poster]

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

WOW. It's no wonder flame wars get started on these boards. One wrong comment and [edit].

 

Write what you want, read it three times out loud before posting. If each time you have to make changes, read it again out loud until you're satisfied you finally typed what you meant to say.

 

Sometimes, you'll find that saying nothing at all is the best course of action. :)

 

 

 

[edited to remove previously edited comments from quote. No foul on this poster]

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

All I said was that people who insist on logging their own caches to jack up their find count don't get what the purpose of a find count is for. They don't have to care if I don't like it, I'm just saying that I don't think it's right, thats all folks.

Maybe it's you who has no idea what the purpose of the online logs is. I won't tell you that you can't play this as a competitive game if that is what you want to do. Just be aware that some people may think that posting a find on their own cache is sometimes legitimate. Their count may be different than what you believe it should be.

 

Maybe it is a new player thing, but when I see a player with more than 2000 finds, I'm thinking to myself that they have probably done a LOT of caching, and have a LOT of experience. That's what the number means to me, and I suspect that there are plenty of other players who see it the same way.

That's probably what is does mean. If their find count says 2000 it means they have 2000 'Found It', 'Attended', or 'Webcam Picture Taken' logs. Some people may have chosen to us a 'Found It', 'Attended', or even a 'Webcam Picture Taken' log in a situation where you would not. Nobody is ever forced to log a find if they don't believe they deserve. However some people may choose to log a find if the cache owner says its OK to do so and that may include when they are the cache owner. You can easily tell if someone has logged their own cache, though you can't tell (without reading the log) if it was for something you might believe is legitimate - such as finding as cache after adopting it.

 

I wanted to try and understand WHY that option exists since to me, that find count is a measure of experience for cachers. Maybe that's a wrong perception but right now, that's what I'm using. Are you now going to try and tell me I should think differently? If so, you're doing exactly what apparently I was several posts ago. Think about how you reply.

Several reasons were given as to why the site has the option to log your own cache. Several posts explained that there is no need for the site to tighten up when it allow a cacher to log a find on their own cache because there are just not that many people who do it. If you understand what the find count is and stop trying to make it into what you want it to be then is a rough indication of experience. It is a poor indication of who is a better cacher.

Link to comment

I think my point here is being missed. I understand the idea of logging a find on a cache you have adopted. That's not my issue. Here's the issue I have.

 

I go out and hide a new cache called "Zor's Cool Cache". It is a brand new cache hidden today (June 4th, 2008). I fill out the online form and submit it for review. The reviewer approves and then publishes the cache. I then go to my public cache listing page, click Log It, and log a find on the cache. I now have increased my finds by +1 but didn't actually FIND a cache. I hid one.

 

I do not think that users should be able to log a NEW find on a cache if they are its owner.

 

In the case of adopting, you would have logged the find long BEFORE you were the owner. That's fine. You should not be able to log a find on a cache you are NOW owner of.

 

I get your question completely and feel that most posters have gone off topic with their "I found it and then adopted it." There are a couple more "off" topic questions that come from this as well, but ...

 

I personally agree with you 100%. Coding is relatively easy and why then isn't something done to prevent this from happening. Because its possible people do it and the real question becomes "Why would someone do this?"

 

Someone pointed out that we have enough trouble with the guidlines already. EXACTLY! If you couldn't log your own cache (owning the cache at the time of the find log), people wouldn't have to made an ethical decision. Problem solved! Hey, raise the monthly fee to $4 and I'd gladly opt in to this option. (Some people agree to pay the extra money and Groundspeak pays someone to do the coding.)

 

Unfortunately, Groundspeak doesn't follow logic. Its mostly pre-logic followed by knee jerk reactions. Someone, somewhere is considering chastising me right now for making that statement, I am certain. (I can even tell you his first name!)

 

Also, geocaching.com like the warm fuzzies associated with happy cachers. Keep the troublemakers like you and I quiet, John Q. Cacher is happy, almost everyone sleeps well at night. This is why the two magic words "guideline" and "may" are tossed around like shiney pennies.

 

Why is this possible is a very valid question. Almost as valid as: Why isn't someone changing this?

__________________________________________

 

Claiming your own cache as a find is commonly done in one area that I cache. Its been pointed out to these cachers and they smile and pretend that they only speak French. Oui! There used to be a family of cachers who would "check" on their caches about two weeks after they were placed and then posted find logs. Someone very near to me (he wears the same socks that I do, literally) got onto them and this practice was modified to "I'll hide the cache, mom and dad (or daughter) will "find" it. Then their puppies, who had their own account I might add, started logging finds. No big deal, but when they started logging finds and their dog's caches, that's where I draw the line. It never stops.

 

The real question is, in my humble opinion, is "Why would someone stoop so low as to claim their own cache as a find?

 

Edited to add: Zor, just for a fun exercise, review the people who have posted on your thread, note what side of the fence they are on, and then check to see if they have logged any of their caches. I think you'll find some interesting reading!

Edited by LifeOnEdge!
Link to comment
The real question is, in my humble opinion, is "Why would someone stoop so low as to claim their own cache as a find?"

 

No the real question is why do you care. There is no competition in Geocaching, at least not on this site. Groundspeak lets the cache owner decide if they want to allow it or not. If the cache owner allows it and you don't like it don't log that cache. You can not win or lose at Geocaching on this site because its not a competition. The only thing you can do is achieve the goals you set for your self. If the person next to you has different goals its not your concern. Its also not up to you to try to control how they reach those goals. Some people will have no goals. That is also not anyones concern. Geocaching is an individual player game, not a regulated sport. Groundspeak sets the minimum guidelines needed to prevent anarchy.

 

Bottom line logging your own cache is allowed because, due to the nature of the way the game is played on this site, there is no reason to not allow it.

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

The owner lost cache twice within days of listing and appealed for help in on the cache page from experianced cachers. I checked out the situation, found a small cache in the truck, set it up, found a good spot for it, and replaced the cache. Emailed the owner new coords 80 ft away from the first ones.

 

After all that I can't add to my hide stats, so I logged a find because there is no other way to clear it from my map. Disclosed EXACTLY what I did - and the owner was very happy with the help, thanking me publically and privately. I'm not into the glory, so I asked that he remove my name from the owner box, and tone the thanks down.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a4-488beeb55c3c

 

Of course I put the cache on my watch list. Today I read...

 

June 8 by MrGigabyte (4910 found)

Congratulations to legacypac for not finding the original cache, then hiding a replacement for the cache owner, then logging their own hide as a find.

 

Nothing else in the log! Not a "nice park", "quick find", "good spot" "I saw a cool dog". Seems that the guy with the most finds in BC has forgotten the point of the game. Oh and when he could not find the cache before he just insulted it.

Link to comment

Call it what you like but I see no sense in logging a find on a cache you have placed no matter who or what justification you try to do to make yourself sleep better at night. From what I have seen the ones that do it and justify it do so only to pump their numbers. I've often asked myself how someone could claim a find on something they already knew where it was placed exactly because they placed it. Then again, for someone who really isn't concerned about their own numbers like ourselves, we don't feel the need to artificially pump up our numbers so others around us should feel some sense of awe or "wow look what they've accomplished." Some folks need that though to feel better about themselves I suppose and you'll have that in everything in life. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if the code was altered to prevent owners from claiming a find on their own cache. Not goign to lose any if it stays either. If they claim their own you can see for yourself who's really 'honest.'

Edited by Sileny Jizda
Link to comment

My wife caches with me some of the time but does not wish to open her own account as we already have one. So there are some caches which I have hidden without her and she has enjoyed the chance to find those special places I have chosen hide some caches.

This therefore shows up as us finding our own caches.

Link to comment
Of course I put the cache on my watch list. Today I read...

 

June 8 by MrGigabyte (4910 found)

Congratulations to legacypac for not finding the original cache, then hiding a replacement for the cache owner, then logging their own hide as a find.

 

Nothing else in the log! Not a "nice park", "quick find", "good spot" "I saw a cool dog". Seems that the guy with the most finds in BC has forgotten the point of the game. Oh and when he could not find the cache before he just insulted it.

Don't take it personally. This isn't the first time that he's been out of step with the community.

 

To the topic at hand, When I started playing this game, I thought of it as if it was a structured, rules based game. Over the years, I've learned the error of my thinking and have softened many of my positions.

Link to comment

The owner lost cache twice within days of listing and appealed for help in on the cache page from experianced cachers. I checked out the situation, found a small cache in the truck, set it up, found a good spot for it, and replaced the cache. Emailed the owner new coords 80 ft away from the first ones.

 

After all that I can't add to my hide stats, so I logged a find because there is no other way to clear it from my map. Disclosed EXACTLY what I did - and the owner was very happy with the help, thanking me publically and privately. I'm not into the glory, so I asked that he remove my name from the owner box, and tone the thanks down.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a4-488beeb55c3c

 

Of course I put the cache on my watch list. Today I read...

 

June 8 by MrGigabyte (4910 found)

Congratulations to legacypac for not finding the original cache, then hiding a replacement for the cache owner, then logging their own hide as a find.

 

Nothing else in the log! Not a "nice park", "quick find", "good spot" "I saw a cool dog". Seems that the guy with the most finds in BC has forgotten the point of the game. Oh and when he could not find the cache before he just insulted it.

 

The cache page isn't the right forum for these types of comments (the other person in their log or your note). That's why we have forums.

 

Yes, the owner is aware of what you did and was evidently ok with it, but really, you didn't fix their cache, they said it was muggled and didn't plan to place any more in that area. You hid a NEW cache.

 

In my opinion, if they had no intention to replace the old one, the listing should have been archived and you could list a new cache in the alternative spot you picked out.

 

I'm not going to get worked up over how anyone logs any cache, however.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...