Feature request

[+power69]

Remove 'found it' from dropdown of log your visit if you've already logged a found it on a cache.

[+StarBrand]

While I am also a strong believer in the "one Gc number equals one and only one find" philosophy - I know this just isn't going to happen.

 

In certain areas, repetitive events use the same cache page over and over again for different dates - just one example.

[+Aberwak]

Remove 'found it' from dropdown of log your visit if you've already logged a found it on a cache.

 

I can understand wanting to enforce "one find per cache," but I think it'd be a major pain to change the code simply for when a person finds a cache without much extra benefit. The only "pro" would be that everyone could only log a cache as found once. I just don't think it's worth the hassle of rewriting the code for that. It seems that when multiple finds are listed, it's not really a big deal- maybe a person accidentally logged it as a find, or doesn't know how to change it (I'm sure this happens a lot with those starting out). I don't think it harms anyone to have a cache as being found twice. Perhaps for some people, particularly at an event, they might purposely log a cache multiple times if there were temporary caches... or they might actually find it multiple times.

[GOF and Bacall]

While I am also a strong believer in the "one Gc number equals one and only one find" philosophy - I know this just isn't going to happen.

 

In certain areas, repetitive events use the same cache page over and over again for different dates - just one example.

 

Dropping the found it option from caches already found shouldn't effect the attended log type would it?

[+hukilaulau]

Remove 'found it' from dropdown of log your visit if you've already logged a found it on a cache.

 

I can understand wanting to enforce "one find per cache," but I think it'd be a major pain to change the code simply for when a person finds a cache without much extra benefit. The only "pro" would be that everyone could only log a cache as found once. I just don't think it's worth the hassle of rewriting the code for that. It seems that when multiple finds are listed, it's not really a big deal- maybe a person accidentally logged it as a find, or doesn't know how to change it (I'm sure this happens a lot with those starting out). I don't think it harms anyone to have a cache as being found twice. Perhaps for some people, particularly at an event, they might purposely log a cache multiple times if there were temporary caches... or they might actually find it multiple times.

I would find this feature useful for myself. I have accidentally found (and logged) caches more than once. It would save me a lot of trouble if the program simply would not let me do it.

[+BlueDeuce]

1:1

[+E = Mc2]

An interesting idea, as I have noticed some of our not so computer literate types unintentionally logging a cache as found when they meant to post a note. I, noted scholar and cornputer whiz that I am, have been known to do so on occasion.

[+Prime Suspect]

Remove 'found it' from dropdown of log your visit if you've already logged a found it on a cache.

There are still a few moving caches out there. It's perfectly valid to log them more than once, if they've moved between finds.

[+Delta68]

A local cacher logged a find on one of our caches and then went out and found it again after we had had to relocate it a short distance away.

 

The second find is valid because it was just as much of a search as the first time.

Some people just can't get enough of our caches!

 

 

 

Mark

[+5 Caching Campers]

A local cacher logged a find on one of our caches and then went out and found it again after we had had to relocate it a short distance away.

 

The second find is valid because it was just as much of a search as the first time.

Some people just can't get enough of our caches!

 

Then, IMHO, the original cache should have been archived and a new page created...

 

different hide == different cache page

[GOF and Bacall]

If it was that much of a change in the caching experience then perhaps a new listing would have been in order?