Jump to content

Multiple Logging of a cache


sweetlife

Recommended Posts

It's been a while since this has been brought up, here is one for you all to look at even the cache owner has logged it multiple times, they are using it as a place to get their smileys for temp caches at events

 

GC1CH0W Pseu Pseu Pseudeo

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b1939&log=y

 

Surprise, surprise! It's in Wisconsin. Not the first of those in the Cheese State that I've seen. We have one within caching distance of me, and we all know who has artificially inflated their numbers with it. We also know who has found a lot of caches without artificially inflating their numbers. As if it mattered.

Link to comment

Well its kinda a feature request, wouldnt it be a simple line of code that would only allow one smiley per GC #?

 

Well, really... no. It would be one query against the database plus a line of code. The line of code part is no problem. As for the query against the database, see this post, among others

Link to comment

It's been a while since this has been brought up, here is one for you all to look at even the cache owner has logged it multiple times, they are using it as a place to get their smileys for temp caches at events

 

GC1CH0W Pseu Pseu Pseudeo

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b1939&log=y

 

Hmm. This particular cache seems to have been placed with a somewhat militant pro-temporary cache logging agenda. Not so sure that's gonna fly, and there has been an SBA posted, so we shall soon find out.

 

I once attended an event in Southern Ontario (where logging of temp caches is unheard of) where I walked about 3 miles for 3 or 4 temp caches. Nice to know I can get some smiley's for it. At least right now I could. :grin:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

TPTB have taken great pain to make sure that puritans can play the game the way they want to play. All physical caches must have a log book to sign. The ALR guideline was even added to say "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." So if you find a cache you can log it online. No one is forced to log any cache, let alone to log a cache multiple times. (Before the ALR change I was going to post an ALR that said your log would be deleted if you didn't log the cache multiple time, but TPTB have stepped in to protect the rights of puritans to log caches only one time. And IMO, if you are really a puritan people should be forced to log online if they do find a cache and sign the log. I routinely check the logs in my caches and cross out the names of people who did not log online.).

 

This does not seem to satisfy the puritans. They desire that everyone else apply their rules for using the 'Found It' log. They petition the TPTB for changes to prevent multiple logging of caches - even if that means that the few remaining moving caches would only be loggable once, recurring events could only be logged once, and perhaps some new idea for a type of multicache that could be found multiple times (but really a different final cache each time) would not be approved because it won't fit the puritan idea of a cache. They probably want to prevent cachers from logging caches their account owns as well, so that if you have adopted a cache before you logged it you are unable to log or if you are team that logs their caches together you couldn't have one member of the team hide a cache for another to find. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to attend your own event; after all you already got credit for hosting it. And I'm sure the puritans want the reviewers to archive caches where cache owners are already allowing these practices, and to archive caches where the cache owner is not deleting bogus log or is allowing cachers to change a DNF to a found because a cache was missing.

 

The puritans insists that they don't care about the find count; that is those cachers that place too much emphasis on the numbers that is the cause of aberrant behavior such as multiple logs on a cache. I don't know the motivation of those that log attended or bonus logs on a cache to get credit for temporary event caches. It may be they do like the increment to their find count, or it may just be that they like to keep a count of their finds. I noticed that my new Oregon keeps count of the number of cache I find. If I were to go to an event with temporary caches, I would guess that someone would be able to use the wireless transfer capability to load the temporary caches on to my Oregon. I'm pretty certain that as I found each of the these caches, the Oregon would increase my find count. Perhaps the puritans need to get Garmin to fix this infernal device so it won't count temporary caches :grin: . The real problem are the people who confuse the find count (the count of Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs on Geocaching.com) with any measure of what a cacher has truly found or experienced as a geocacher. The find count is not a score and there is no need for TPTB to put restrictions on when a 'Found It' log can be entered. For the most part, people ought to be able to use the 'Found It' log as they see fit. There are some exceptions. Truly bogus logs can cause owners to skip needed maintenance and maybe will cause brainsnat's friends to waste time and gasoline to look for a missing cache. The community can of course point out that it is silly to sit in front of your computer after attending an event to write 50 times

Found #1 of 50

Found #2 of 50

Found #3 of 50

...

That looks like some punishment that you got for talking in class in elementary school and not very much fun.

Link to comment

And IMO, if you are really a puritan people should be forced to log online if they do find a cache and sign the log. I routinely check the logs in my caches and cross out the names of people who did not log online.).

 

Allright, I still like that line. I'm going to try it sometime. Because I've seen many non-online logs in my physical logbooks. Especially I used to see it much more 5 years ago.

 

Nice post Mr. T., but I don't see where you address the cache that lead to this thread being created. This is a stand alone cache with a log book that was created with the intent of allowing people to log temporary caches at events where the event host has specifically designated there will be no multiple attended logging on the event page. The stance of TPTB is that this logging is all up to the event host. This cache has over 600 found logs, and I have to say I disagree with it's purpose, which seems to be in direct conflict with the "stance" of TPTB.

Link to comment

In reference to the OP, this is hilarious. It's absolutely ridiculous, but is hilarious. The cache should be named "Integrity Check."

 

I'm not a fan of temp caches to begin with. If the temp cache is good enough to be a regular cache then publish it. If it's not, then it's not worthy of counting as a cache. We don't practice this up in Michigan so I have not seen it first hand. When I do hear of it I think of a small park with a bunch of picnic tables and an ammo box on each table.

 

For those logging the caches, it's about the numbers, earned or not. For those of us making judgments, it's about keeping integrity of the sport/hobby/pastime. Outsiders/newbies may think this is a normal aspect of geocaching. Many of us here frown on it because we know it is not.

 

Accurate numbers/stats are important. It's not just about comparing who has more. I like to find non-traditional caches (EarthCaches, LBH, and such) and I often look at the stats of other cachers with high numbers in these areas to see where they have been caching.

 

Yes, to each their own. I won't tattle on them to the PTB, but I will frown upon the practice and choose to promote one cache, one log by being an example.

Edited by South Lyon Trekkers
Link to comment

In reference to the OP, this is hilarious. It's absolutely ridiculous, but is hilarious. The cache should be named "Integrity Check."

 

I'm not a fan of temp caches to begin with. If the temp cache is good enough to be a regular cache then publish it. If it's not, then it's not worthy of counting as a cache. We don't practice this up in Michigan so I have not seen it first hand. When I do hear of it I think of a small park with a bunch of picnic tables and an ammo box on each table.

 

 

I only logged temp caches once when, as a noob, I was told that it was "OK". But your impression of a temp cache is based strictly on the temp caches that you've seen. But don't put them all into that basket, by any means! We have had some events with awesome temp caches. Why weren't they published as permanent caches? Proximity issues, generally. And the park where one recent event that I attended was held had its own very strict limitations on permanent caches.

Link to comment

In reference to the OP, this is hilarious. It's absolutely ridiculous, but is hilarious. The cache should be named "Integrity Check."

 

I'm not a fan of temp caches to begin with. If the temp cache is good enough to be a regular cache then publish it. If it's not, then it's not worthy of counting as a cache. We don't practice this up in Michigan so I have not seen it first hand. When I do hear of it I think of a small park with a bunch of picnic tables and an ammo box on each table.

 

 

I only logged temp caches once when, as a noob, I was told that it was "OK". But your impression of a temp cache is based strictly on the temp caches that you've seen. But don't put them all into that basket, by any means! We have had some events with awesome temp caches. Why weren't they published as permanent caches? Proximity issues, generally. And the park where one recent event that I attended was held had its own very strict limitations on permanent caches.

 

Exactly correct. You can't put them all in one basket.

Link to comment

I had also done this a few times when I started thinking it was normal, but shortly afterward seeing how bizarre it really is I deleted all the duplicate finds.

 

I'd like to see "true" numbers posted when you log a find and see if people still log caches multiple times.

 

Something like:

:grin:June 10 by ChileHead (1757 found, 1701 unique)

 

I'd love to see what happens if somebody brings a bag of film canisters to an event, each with a log, drops them all at the event table, and says go log a find for each one.

 

Can people post to this for each of the caches they find on other sites too?

Edited by ChileHead
Link to comment

:PJune 10 by ChileHead (1757 found, 1701 unique)

 

Yup. That's my problem, too. Actually, I think I may have logged event temps twice. I'm not going to delete them though, 'cause that would screw up some milestone caches that are very meaningful to me.

 

knowschad has 3596 Finds on 3556 unique Geocaches

 

Besides, I think that there's no shame in 3556 unique caches instead of 3596 caches. :grin:

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I understand there can be great temp caches. I don't doubt that. But is it safe to assume that is the exception and not the rule?

 

No doubt I've seen some wacky stuff that would never be permanently approved. Golden ammo boxes passed around the breakfast table; micros inside restauraunts; and a whole event based on 30 virtuals two years after this website stopped accepting virtuals. But Knowschad brings up an excellent point with proximity and no permanent caches allowed issues. Me, I've found several excellent temps in an Ontario Conservation Area where perms are not allowed. So I'd really say it's not safe to assume the exception rather than the rule.

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