Logging Caches

[+coupleocachers]

Just curious.

 

Do you think its right to log Archived virtuals that been disabled for more than 3 years? We just recently seeing people do that. Thats why asking. An Archive cache is just an Archive cache right?

 

Do you think its right to log a cache twice. I know some people do by accident and just forget about it and some caches allow a double log.

 

What do you think? If there were two caches in the same area for the same cache, like two log books, would you log the cache twice?

 

We did log an event twice, way back at the beginning when we first started, but since then deleted the log once we realized that our numbers are off.

Edited July 7, 2009 by coupleocachers

[+StarBrand]

My own personal rule is one gc number equals one and only one "find" but some disagree.

 

Logging an archived cache is sometimes necessary (timing issues and all) but a 3 year old archived virtual seems a bit fishy - what date was used - a current date or back date?

[+Unkle Fester]

My own personal rule is one gc number equals one and only one "find" but some disagree.

 

Logging an archived cache is sometimes necessary (timing issues and all) but a 3 year old archived virtual seems a bit fishy - what date was used - a current date or back date?

I agree, one GC# = one log. I've accidently double posted when the server is acting up, but that's a quick fix. I've logged a couple archived caches only because the cache was archived when I was out finding it. But a virtual, once archived I would think is unacceptable, after all, who's going to verify the information? is the CO still active?

 

I'm sure there are people out there who figure one visit = one smiley. If I go back to a cache like the original stash tribut, I only post a note. I do this to move coins or TB's, taking a picture when I'm there.

 

If you need the smiley that bad, create a sock puppet account and hide away! Then find all those hides.

 

Heck, log your own hides as well, while your at it...

[+briansnat]

I can see someone who visited a virtual a long time ago under another account logging it under a new account.

 

Other than that I really don't see too many reasons for logging long archived virts.

 

As far as double, triple or centuple logging of caches, if that is how people get their jollies why not? As long as the cache owner is OK with it and they actually found the cache then I see no problem. People are allowed to look ridiculous if they want.

Edited July 8, 2009 by briansnat

[+Knight2000]

My thoughts are to play the game however you like. Caching cannot be compared by smileys. To each his own. Play how you want.

[+paleolith]

I'm with Knight2000 on this: IJAG, play it your way as long as your way doesn't interfere with my way or place me in the company of jerks.

 

If a virt was archived simply because the owner wasn't taking care of it, then I'd see no problem with logging a find AS LONG AS it's a legit find. However, a lot of logs to unattended virts are armchair logs. If I had a legit find on a virt with lots of armchair logs, I'd probably decide I didn't want to attend that party.

 

I logged two finds on one cache because the owner changed the hide and invited previous finders back. That seems to have been accepted by local cachers for that cache. Some would say it should have been archived and republished as a new cache if the hide changed that much, but it wasn't.

 

I've seen a couple of cases where owners logged multiple finds on their own caches. Seems like they logged a find every time they checked on it. These are very-low-numbers cachers -- 2 digits or less -- so it certainly wasn't a game to pump up their numbers. These logs were also a long time ago. Obviously it's not accepted practice, but it's also not something I can get very excited about. Oh, excited enough to post in the forums ...

 

Edward

[jholly]

There is an archived mystery cache that folks log all the time. Sometimes 10-15 logs a week. I think it is somewhere in Seattle.

 

Jim

[Neos2]

Just curious.

 

Do you think its right to log Archived virtuals that been disabled for more than 3 years? We just recently seeing people do that. Thats why asking. An Archive cache is just an Archive cache right?

I've seen people do that when:

*they make their own personal account but originally logged the cache as part of a group/team.

*they just missed logging it originally and figure it out later

*they find it, right where it was supposed to be, three years after it is disabled

 

Do you think its right to log a cache twice. I know some people do by accident and just forget about it and some caches allow a double log.

Some cache owners move/change an older cache and consider it different enough to invite locals to log a new find, but don't make a new page (even though they could list it as new); I've logged some like that.

Some caches have a way to log the cache twice for some reason; if that is what the owner intends, I see nothing wrong with it. I haven't found one like that yet, so I can't say what I would do.

 

What do you think? If there were two caches in the same area for the same cache, like two log books, would you log the cache twice?

Is this different than the one above? I've never seen this done intentionally. If it was just a mistake--say the cache owner thought the cache was lost and put out another container--I wouldn't log it twice.

 

All that said, I wouldn't disagree with someone else choosing to follow the one GC number = one found log. As far as I am concerned, my logs are there for me to keep track of what I do. I do my record keeping the way that works best for me.

[+coupleocachers]

What do you think? If there were two caches in the same area for the same cache, like two log books, would you log the cache twice?

Is this different than the one above? I've never seen this done intentionally. If it was just a mistake--say the cache owner thought the cache was lost and put out another container--I wouldn't log it twice.

 

Well it was for the town to place. There two locations for the cache. One at the orginal spot and then the town moved it somewhere better. People have been finding both containers but only logging it once. But its the same cache. The town thought that first placement was missing. But it wasn't so they rehid another one so it wouldn't go missing. Now there are two caches for the same town, one at the orginal spot and another one at the new spot.

 

But the town doesn't know about the old one being there apparently.

[+coupleocachers]

My own personal rule is one gc number equals one and only one "find" but some disagree.

 

Logging an archived cache is sometimes necessary (timing issues and all) but a 3 year old archived virtual seems a bit fishy - what date was used - a current date or back date?

 

Logged currently. Like XX Virtual was archived January 30, 2003. But yet when you look at some of the virtuals. People have been finding it since then. And say recent date is July 4, 2009.

 

Can see if you set a PQ up for the virtual like a month before you go to the place and log it and didn't realize it was or has been archived until you get home. That is okay.

 

There was a cache at GW that owners brought so people could log, but by the time we got around to logging it the log button was locked.

[knowschad]

There is an archived mystery cache that folks log all the time. Sometimes 10-15 logs a week. I think it is somewhere in Seattle.

 

Jim

 

GASP!!! Is Groundspeak aware of this situation?!?

[Dinoprophet]

On the virtual question, I don't see why it would be a problem if (1) the reason for the virtual is still there, (2) it's legal to access, and (3) the owner doesn't object. I don't think many people would object to logging an archived traditional where the container still existed. Even if the owner is inactive, that's no different than an active owner who doesn't respond. I hope to get to this one some day, and the only reason I wouldn't log it here is that it's still active elsewhere (incidentally, I strongly believe I could armchair it if I wanted to, which I don't).

 

I have two finds on one cache page. The original cache was removed and the page was recycled for a completely different location and container. For anything but an extreme case like that...well, whatever. It isn't how I play.

[+JacobBarlow]

Just curious.

 

Do you think its right to log Archived virtuals that been disabled for more than 3 years? We just recently seeing people do that. Thats why asking. An Archive cache is just an Archive cache right?

 

Do you think its right to log a cache twice. I know some people do by accident and just forget about it and some caches allow a double log.

 

What do you think? If there were two caches in the same area for the same cache, like two log books, would you log the cache twice?

 

We did log an event twice, way back at the beginning when we first started, but since then deleted the log once we realized that our numbers are off.

 

I don't log caches twice, but don't look down on those who do. I do actively seek out archived caches that I can honestly find and log, just because its archived doesn't mean someone can't look for it, and if they "find" it then log it.

[+ecanderson]

There is an archived mystery cache that folks log all the time. Sometimes 10-15 logs a week. I think it is somewhere in Seattle.

 

Jim

Wouldn't be the first time it has happened to me. Spend the winter solving puzzles (hardcopy) and the spring finding them. Unfortunately, found too many muggled that way, too. Serves me right for not looking back on gc.com before heading out, but of all the ones that bite me, it's puzzles previously solved where it takes me some time to get out to the final.

[+The Ravens]

There is an archived mystery cache that folks log all the time. Sometimes 10-15 logs a week. I think it is somewhere in Seattle.

 

Jim

Wouldn't be the first time it has happened to me. Spend the winter solving puzzles (hardcopy) and the spring finding them. Unfortunately, found too many muggled that way, too. Serves me right for not looking back on gc.com before heading out, but of all the ones that bite me, it's puzzles previously solved where it takes me some time to get out to the final.

 

 

I think jholly was referring to this one.

 

I'm about to take it off my "Watch List" because of all the emails I get through the week.