Logging a multi caches

[+jbgrug]

I notice that some cachers log each part of a multi as a find to build up their numbers. I thought a multi was to be logged in as only one find. What is the right way to do this?

[+MountainRacer]

Erm... what? I've never heard of this being done, and technically of course it isn't against "the rules" because there's no such thing as "the rules" regarding the logging of finds... however I would certainly consider it improper, as I expect most cache owners would. If you don't like it, there isn't much you can do about it as a third party; if it is happening on a cache you own, though, you can delete the extra 'found it' logs at any time. (As a CO, you have pretty much unlimited power to delete any log, for any reason.) That is what I would do if it happened on a cache owned by me.

[Mr.Yuck]

I notice that some cachers log each part of a multi as a find to build up their numbers. I thought a multi was to be logged in as only one find. What is the right way to do this?

 

Post this in the general forum, and you'll have 10 pages of "people can play the game anyway they want to" gibberish. But what you describe is extremely rare. I've only seen it once or twice, and this was no where near our mid-atlantic region. So in 99.9%+ of cases, no, this isn't the normal way of doing things.

[+avgraphics]

The only time - I think - multiple "found it" or "attended" logs are OK is if the cache description calls for it. I can think of two examples - close to home - that have multi-logging rules. One is the now-retired "Vertically Challenged!" (GCT2XC) traditional cache.. and the recurring, monthly "Third Tuesday Beer and Burgers - 2008 Edition" (GC181RD) event cache.. although, some people don't subscribe to the multiple logging of the monthly event gathering. They logged it once - and for them , that's enough.

 

Food for thought: What about the people who log their own caches as "found it". Now that - I think - is unusual.

[+briansnat]

I think most people in these parts use the one cache page, one found it rule.

[+ThirstyMick]

I felt really bad sending an email when someone logged a four stage multi of mine as a "found it" but noted in their log that they had found stage 1 and would be back.... it was their very first cache log!! Didn't want to discourage them! They were apologetic and changed it to a note, it was an honest mistake Looks like they've found a few since

 

I don't think i've noticed any other multiple logs for stages of a multi...it seems a bit silly, but then in letterboxing (well, atlasquest.com in particular) when you find their version of a multi, you write a single log and your find count goes up by the number of stages there were (well, i guess each stage does have a stamp of it's own) They're different games, but I guess I could see someone starting there and coming here thinking that's how it works...

[+edscott]

There's one two stage multi near my home that has been logged by a few people as two separate caches, but in that case it is the fault of the owner for producing a confusing cache page that invites a couple different interpretations. A log book is also included in stage one which invites more confusion.

[+edscott]

Reports of my fatal error have been greatly exaggerated.

Edited October 4, 2008 by edscott

[+Pegasi]

We have always only logged once for each cache listing, regardless of whether any stage but the final included a logbook. I will log multiple DNF's for stages though.

[+weathernowcast]

We have always only logged once for each cache listing, regardless of whether any stage but the final included a logbook. I will log multiple DNF's for stages though.

 

For multis that have stages >0.25 miles apart or so, I often write notes from the field when I find stages--mostly to let people know where I am in the woods and that the stages are OK (especially if no one has visited in a while)

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I notice that some cachers log each part of a multi as a find to build up their numbers. I thought a multi was to be logged in as only one find. What is the right way to do this?

I suspect that this is a very rare practice, at least in my region, and that the few times that it occurs, it may be due to the actions of newbies to the sport who did not know any better. I have encountered this phenomenon only once, and it was about a year ago -- a newbie cacher who lived not far from some of our caches in Gambrill State Park and in the nearby Frederick Watershed started logging finds on each of our caches located in that region. Now, one of those caches is Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, which is a premium member-only multi-stage mystery cache with a 5/5 D/T rating, and, due to the dangers involved, the cache listing page clearly states that there are pre-requsites (largely having already successfully found some of our other nasty 5/5 caches in the PUC series) which must be met before prospective finders will be given the information needed to allow them to progress from stage one to stage two and beyond; without this special information, a prospective seeker can find only the first stage and can progress no further. Well, this newcomer did manage to find the first stage of PUC #9, but, of course, since he did not meet the prerequisites, he could progress no further. And so, he went ahead and logged a find on the cache based on his find of the first stage, with an added snippy note complaining that the cache hider must have a warped mind, as witnessed by the prerequisites which must be met in order to proceed to stage 2 and beyond. Of course, in short order, we sent him a polite note via the PM system, asking him to please delete the "find" log, as he had not really found the later stages, nor the final stage, and he begrudgingly did so -- he either entirely deleted his log, or he converted it to a note; I forget which. Other than this sole case, I have never encountered this phenomenon!