Is this acceptable?

[+deacdiddy]

Sorry if this has already been covered...Is it generally acceptable to log a find on a cache you have already found if it has been moved to a new location? Say moved due to being muggled.. 200ft from original location.

Edited March 4, 2011 by deacdiddy

[+dfx]

Makes more sense to me than logging your own cache, or logging the same cache (without being moved) twice. At least in this case, you actually had to look for it again. Of course this is assuming that you actually went there a second time.

 

I still wouldn't do it though, I'm puritan like that.

 

(P word said in the second post, is that a new record or what? )

Edited March 4, 2011 by dfx

[+Max and 99]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

 

In 2011, I'd say no, it's the same cache. Back in the olden days, you'd be shocked what people could do, and still have a cache listed as the same GC number. I guess I'm saying this to justify that I have 2 or 3 duplicate finds. But they've really clamped down on this, and I'm surprised someone can even move one 200 feet and be allowed to re-use the same GC number these days.

[+dfx]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

 

I feel compelled to make a correction: It's not the same cache, it's only the same cache listing.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

 

I feel compelled to make a correction: It's not the same cache, it's only the same cache listing.

 

That goes for me too.

[+ChileHead]

One GC#, one find. For me anyway.

 

That said, there was a cache that I found once that was archived, and brought back to life many months later in the same exact location with a new GC#. I did return to sign the logbook (the same logbook I had signed years earlier which I didn't know would be the case) and claimed another find. But it was a different GC#, just happened to be the same box at the same location.

[+redsox_mark]

My view is that if the change of location significantly changes the caching experience, the CO should archive the original cache and create a new one (new GC number).

 

Otherwise, no, I would not log it twice. But as a CO (and I have moved one of my caches) I would not have an issue if you logged it again.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

 

I feel compelled to make a correction: It's not the same cache, it's only the same cache listing.

If it moves enough to warrant a new listing, then log a find when that new listing is published. If it didn't move that much, then don't log another find.

[+L0ne.R]

My view is that if the change of location significantly changes the caching experience, the CO should archive the original cache and create a new one (new GC number).

 

Otherwise, no, I would not log it twice. But as a CO (and I have moved one of my caches) I would not have an issue if you logged it again.

 

I agree about preferring that a CO archive and create a new one if it's significantly changed...in this case, moving it 200 feet. I too would not log it twice, but I wouldn't go out to look for it again since it wouldn't show up in my PQ or on my map. But if I did look for it again, I'd post a note.

[+Bhob]

one way to look at this is to see what Groundspeak allows

 

a trackable owner can log their own item, but they do not get credit for it

a geocache owner can log their own geocache, and they *do* get credit for it

 

anybody can log a trackable item more than once, but they only get one credit

anybody can log a geocache more than once, and they get a credit for each log

 

so, my take on this that if GC.com did not want you to do it, then they would not allow it

 

the conclusion being, that if it is allowed, then it is okay

 

that said, I would defer to the geocache owner

if they say something like "this is now a whole new geocache, so feel free to log it again, even if you have found it before", then I would think that is valid permission

[+dfx]

the conclusion being, that if it is allowed, then it is okay

 

Just because you can doesn't mean you should...

[+StarBrand]

Sorry if this has already been covered...Is it generally acceptable to log a find on a cache you have already found if it has been moved to a new location? Say moved due to being muggled.. 200ft from original location.

The system certainly allows it and some cache owners are ok with it. However, I think many, if not most cachers, find that to be a bit cheesy.

 

I wouldn't do it myself as I believe that 1 GC number equals one and only one "find" log.

[+lamoracke]

I would not do it, though I have a few friends who would do it. A few folks also log Groundspeak twice because it technically moved.

 

I wish GS would institute a log per GC# rule. Vast majority of duplicate finds are by mistake I bet and if they made that rule, it would make life a lot easier. When I say rule, I mean a hard coding.

 

Thus, if you do it, you would not be alone, but many folks would not do it either. Personally I would not allow it on my own caches, but really, those are the only ones I can control.

Edited March 4, 2011 by lamoracke

[Pup Patrol]

and I'm surprised someone can even move one 200 feet and be allowed to re-use the same GC number these days.

 

From the Knowledge Books:

 

6.8. Editing Your Cache Coordinates

Cache owners may find it necessary to move their cache and update their cache's coordinates. If the cache has moved less than 161m/528feet, the coordinates can be updated by the cache owner.

 

And then it goes on to explain how to do it.

 

6.10. Editing a Published Listing: Major Change.

 

If you need to change the coordinates beyond 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m), or change the type of cache, please contact your local reviewer. The reviewer will check the changes for adherence to the current guidelines and notify you when the changes have been made, or suggest that a new cache listing should be submitted. Please be sure to follow any instructions the reviewer may send you.

 

Moving a cache more than 100 feet and keeping the same GC#/listing seems like a major change to me, but apparently not to Groundspeak.

[+Bad_Wolfe]

There's a cache near us that was moved a decent distance form the original location. The CO actually put a note in the cache listing encouraging old finders to relook and log another find. I'd have no problem on this kind of a situation, but would feel like I'm cheating otherwise....

[+briansnat]

I wouldn't do it because I'm of the one listing - one found it school of thought, but it is between you and the cache owner. If you want to do it and the cache owner says its OK it's nobody else's business.

Edited March 4, 2011 by briansnat

[+Chokecherry]

The only time I've done it is if the listing was archived and hten a new one put up. I can think of two caches I did like that.

[vagabond]

It's still the same cache, so I wouldn't log it twice.

 

In 2011, I'd say no, it's the same cache. Back in the olden days, you'd be shocked what people could do, and still have a cache listed as the same GC number. I guess I'm saying this to justify that I have 2 or 3 duplicate finds. But they've really clamped down on this, and I'm surprised someone can even move one 200 feet and be allowed to re-use the same GC number these days.

 

I have 6 or 7 caches that I have logged twice, the shortest move was about a 1/4 mile the furthest was over 10 miles. All back in the early days

[+BlueDeuce]

the conclusion being, that if it is allowed, then it is okay

 

Just because you can doesn't mean you should...

 

In some cases, just because you can do it could also mean get you banned and sometimes have options removed.

 

Honestly, sometimes I wish people would abuse certain options just so they are removed.

Edited March 5, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[knowschad]

one way to look at this is to see what Groundspeak allows

 

a trackable owner can log their own item, but they do not get credit for it

a geocache owner can log their own geocache, and they *do* get credit for it

 

anybody can log a trackable item more than once, but they only get one credit

anybody can log a geocache more than once, and they get a credit for each log

 

so, my take on this that if GC.com did not want you to do it, then they would not allow it

 

the conclusion being, that if it is allowed, then it is okay

 

that said, I would defer to the geocache owner

if they say something like "this is now a whole new geocache, so feel free to log it again, even if you have found it before", then I would think that is valid permission

Since when is this about getting credit? And since when did people start letting the guidelines dictate their personal scruples?

[+jpamusher]

If a cache has been moved,then you have to search to find it again,so it qualifies as a new find as far as I am concerned! To each their own,but I have no problem in logging a new find in this situation!

[Wallydraigle]

If a cache has been moved such that I could legitimately find it again without already knowing where it was, then I'd have no problem logging another find on it, since I don't care about what number it is. At all. I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this. For someone who wouldn't log another find, if the cache owner moved the cache 200 feet, used the same container, same log book, but archived the original listing and started a new one, would that make you feel okay to log a second find? Even though the only thing that changed between the two scenarios is the number? Why would you feel that way?

[+BlueDeuce]

If a cache has been moved such that I could legitimately find it again without already knowing where it was, then I'd have no problem logging another find on it, since I don't care about what number it is. At all. I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this. For someone who wouldn't log another find, if the cache owner moved the cache 200 feet, used the same container, same log book, but archived the original listing and started a new one, would that make you feel okay to log a second find? Even though the only thing that changed between the two scenarios is the number? Why would you feel that way?

 

Because why would I need a second Found it for the same cache, just because it was just as hard the second time around? Still not enough for me justify adding to my stats. Ask yourself why you would need more than one.

[+DanOCan]

If a cache has been moved such that I could legitimately find it again without already knowing where it was, then I'd have no problem logging another find on it, since I don't care about what number it is. At all. I honestly don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this. For someone who wouldn't log another find, if the cache owner moved the cache 200 feet, used the same container, same log book, but archived the original listing and started a new one, would that make you feel okay to log a second find? Even though the only thing that changed between the two scenarios is the number?

 

This is what I don't understand about the people who feel 1 GC number = 1 Find and treat it like it is a golden rule which must never be broken. The exact same cache becomes OK to log twice if it doesn't change in any way other than the GC number but a cache that moves 200 feet to a new hiding spot is off limits because the GC number didn't change? I find that odd.

 

For me, like almost everything in caching, it depends. Three examples:

 

1) I found a nano in a parking lot. Eventually the cache was adopted out and the new owner replaced the nano with an ammo can in the bushes at essentially the same spot. I didn't know this until I was meeting some other cachers at that location and one of them hadn't found the cache yet and he pulled out an ammo can. I logged the experience on the cache page as a Note. The CO invited me to count it as a Find since it was a totally different container, but I declined. Just didn't seem right.

 

2) A local cache owner was notorious for archiving his old hides and then republishing them several months later with new numbers. In one case he listed a 5-Star Difficulty puzzle in a nearby park. Sure enough, it was the same container in the exact same location as a Traditional he had archived some months before. Knowing that I was able to find the cache without even working the puzzle. I had no qualms about claiming that as a Find a second time.

 

3) A night cache used to end right at that cache location. Due to muggle activity the owner changed it so when you got to the end of the fire tack trail you had to do a projection to find the cache. I went out with a group of people after the change and claimed it as a Find, despite having done the cache the old way too. The owner even told me in advance when he heard I was going out the second time to claim it if we found it.

 

I wish GS would institute a log per GC# rule. Vast majority of duplicate finds are by mistake I bet and if they made that rule, it would make life a lot easier. When I say rule, I mean a hard coding.

 

I have to disagree with this. There are plenty of grandfathered caches where there are legitimate reasons to log multiple finds againsts a single GC number. In fact, we have three of them in our area alone and eliminating the ability would essentially put three of the most beloved caches around here out of business.

 

Brass Cap Cache

Leap Frog

Stash n' Dash

Edited March 5, 2011 by DanOCan

[+GeoJunkie]

I've done that exactly one time. The first cache I found was later moved over a quarter of a mile away. I found out about it when I took my daughter to find it later. Since it really was a completely new cache hide, I logged it. Believe me, I was not interested at all in the numbers back then (it was my 1st and 12th find in 6 months of caching). I just wanted to document the experience, and I had actually had to find it again.

[+uxorious]

I do not understand why someone would move a cache 100 or 200 ft., make a new hide, and not archive the old.

However, if someone does, I will go find the cache in a new spot, but will log as a note not a find.

 

I do care about my own numbers, but I also love finding a cache. If the cache has been moved a significant amount, and is hidden in a new place, it is just as much fun to find as a new one.

 

There is one cache around here I will log a second time when I get around to finding it again. It was moved 1600 ft. down a different trail than it had been on. Don't understand why the CO didn't archive it and list a new one. However, I will log it as a new find, when I do get it.

[+roziecakes]

This is an interesting thread actually... my gut reaction was, "no! you can't." But honestly, this wouldn't bother me that much if someone did it. As another poster said, they would have to hunt it again.

 

However, I wouldn't do it because I'm really into statistics and the duplicate find log would mess my statistics up.

[+BlueDeuce]

This is an interesting thread actually... my gut reaction was, "no! you can't." But honestly, this wouldn't bother me that much if someone did it. As another poster said, they would have to hunt it again.

 

However, I wouldn't do it because I'm really into statistics and the duplicate find log would mess my statistics up.

 

If you logged my cache twice I could delete the second and you probably couldn't get gc.com to reinstate it. What does that mean? Only that it's not just subject to personal preference.

[+Tape worm]

You should talk with the cache owner. I delete any and all duplicate finds on my caches. Some cache owners may allow it and some my not.

[Clan Riffster]

This is one of those issues that bothers me not in the least when I see it on one of my caches, however, it's not something I would do. I tend to follow the "1 GC# = 1 Find" axiom mentioned so often on these forums. Even if I located a traveling cache more than once, hundreds of miles from its earlier location, I would still log my second locate as a note and not a find. When I look at my stats, seeing words to the effect of, "You have 1000 finds on 1000 unique listings" has value to me. I wouldn't call double logging bad, or wrong, or any other variant having to do with ethics, but it does smell a bit like Camembert to me.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I'm curious. If the cache owner moved the cache 200 ft. and kept the same listing, just exactly how do all you "previous finders" learn that it has moved, offering you the chance to log it again? (assuming you are of that mindset)

I don't make it a habit to rehunt caches I already have a smiley on.

[+BlueDeuce]

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

 

 

bd

Edited March 5, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+StarBrand]

I have yet to log a cache that would I have to explain to any cache owner why I am claiming a Found it. I find the cache - I sign the log book. If I use "the effort involved" to justify claiming a second find on the same cache I suppose I could justify anything.

 

 

bd

You mean like claiming 2 finds on terrain or difficulty 3 caches - maybe 3 finds on terrain or difficulty 4 caches?

 

And why not a full 5 finds on terrain/difficulty 5 caches?

 

I probably spent a lot of time and quite possibly multiple trips to get 5's after all. I view that idea much the same as my thoughts on logging a second find just because it moved around a bit.

[+hotshoe]

I'm curious. If the cache owner moved the cache 200 ft. and kept the same listing, just exactly how do all you "previous finders" learn that it has moved, offering you the chance to log it again? (assuming you are of that mindset)

I don't make it a habit to rehunt caches I already have a smiley on.

 

A lot of us have watchlists of local caches - for various reasons - so the owner's note about changing the coords would tell us it had moved. And when I have time, I read logs of caches I thought were interesting just to see whether they're still there, whether other people are posting that they enjoyed it, etc, so if the owner moved the cache, I might find out about it that way.

 

A lot of us have contact with other cache owners through forums, meet-up groups, or whatever, so we might hear "through the grapevine" about an owner moving the cache - especially a cache where the owner wants people to re-find it and encourages them to log a second find because it's a new hunt.

 

I'd a thousand times rather hunt for an old cache in a new location than hunt for a new GC# in exactly the same old location where the owner archived the old one and made a new listing out of it. That's happened, and it's boring and stupid as far as I'm concerned - and it's numbers inflation on the part of both the CO and the finders.

 

Though I admit that I would still log the new GC# if I got there and found it before I noticed it was just the same 'ol same 'ol.

 

Whether the owner SHOULD archive and get a new GC# every time when moving the cache/changing it significantly is a whole 'nuther question. But if they change the hide enough that I have to search for it again as much as I had to the first time, then I SHOULD log a new (second) find. That's the way of keeping score of how many times I started a search for something/how many times I succeeded in my search.

 

The only time I should NOT log a second find is if nothing at all had changed about the cache and I just had to walk up and pull it out of the hiding place I remembered from before.

Edited March 5, 2011 by hotshoe

[+StarBrand]

....But if they change the hide enough that I have to search for it again as much as I had to the first time, then I SHOULD log a new (second) find. That's the way of keeping score of how many times I started a search for something/how many times I succeeded in my search.....

 

So you would log mulitiple finds on a cache just because it was a difficulty 4 and you "searched" "more"?? Seems the same to me after all.

 

or

 

Multiple finds on a multi cache with 3 stages because you "searched" more??

 

If it isn't the same to you - please explain the difference. As far as I can tell - there really isn't one. A single GC number - just different amounts of "search".

[+NeecesandNephews]

<snip>

 

Intersting mindset. This further reinforces my belief that the numbers mean absolutely nothing. People logging caches on power trails they did not find, caches they have found previously,ect... it all adds up to ... what... exactly?? Nothing. I guess I don't get people who place such a high importance on the numbers when they might not represent anything at all.

 

Back on topic, I won't log a listing twice for any reason. At least not as a find. But that's just me. My meaningless numbers are equal to the number of caches I have found.

In fact, there is a mildy aggravating cache near my home that is bugging me of late. My own fault. It was in a large number of caches published during my short term absence from the game. It was determined by email exchange that it had been muggled, and as the Owner lived a good distance away, I offered to replace it for him. He said he would greatly appreciate that, and I should go ahead and log a find on it. I can't bring myself to do that as I did not "find" it I " hid" it. It keeps my radius clearing manner of playing spoiled by showing up on my map. Yeah I know I can just ignore it, but it bugs me none the less.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Thanks for the clarification!

Edited March 5, 2011 by NeecesandNephews

[+hotshoe]

....But if they change the hide enough that I have to search for it again as much as I had to the first time, then I SHOULD log a new (second) find. That's the way of keeping score of how many times I started a search for something/how many times I succeeded in my search.....

 

So you would log mulitiple finds on a cache just because it was a difficulty 4 and you "searched" "more"?? Seems the same to me after all.

 

or

 

Multiple finds on a multi cache with 3 stages because you "searched" more??

 

If it isn't the same to you - please explain the difference. As far as I can tell - there really isn't one. A single GC number - just different amounts of "search".

 

Sorry, but you're misinterpreting what I said. I thought I made myself clear, maybe it's worth trying one more time to make myself more clear.

 

Let's look at what we're talking about in this thread. I found one specific cache, one specific container in one specific location. It's not important how it was rated or whether it was the final stage of a multi or whatever. What's important is that I did not know in advance exactly where it was - and I searched for it - and I found it. I think we can all agree that is the essence of geocaching: search for an unknown, and hopefully find.

 

For convenience, that specific cache has a GC# and I can get online and log that I found it. So far so good.

 

Now, weeks months or years later, the owner of that specific GC# has changed the cache. It's been moved to a completely different location. Maybe the hide style is different, easier or harder compared to the old location. Maybe the container is bigger or smaller. Maybe the cache owner even had the reviewers change the cache type from multi to trad because the final stages are gone and he's only keeping the first stage, but he had to move it to a better hiding place away from the original plaque, etc. NONE of that is important to the essence of geocaching. In its new location, as I approach I don't know exactly where it is, I search for it, and if I find it, I should log it online as a find - because that's exactly what I did - I FOUND it - I didn't just revisit a cache that I already knew where it was. In the case of a moved cache, I can't just remember where it was and just walk right up to it. I still have to search for it, just like any other cache that's new to me, even though - for whatever reason - it happens to have an old GC#. The GC number is NOT the geocaching experience; the searching-and-finding is the geocaching experience, and that's what find counts are supposed to be for, to keep track of how often I've successfully found the final container when I didn't know in advance where it was.

 

If you do understand now what I mean about "having to search for it again as much as I had to the first time" - then great, I guess it was worth me trying to clarify.

If you don't understand now - then please do me the courtesy of not replying with any more pointlessly rude questions about my logging multiple finds on a 4star cache which I NEVER even remotely suggested.

[+StarBrand]

...

If you do understand now what I mean about "having to search for it again as much as I had to the first time" - then great, I guess it was worth me trying to clarify.

If you don't understand now - then please do me the courtesy of not replying with any more pointlessly rude questions about my logging multiple finds on a 4star cache which I NEVER even remotely suggested.

Ok how about a multicache - multiple containers, multiple locations, multiple efforts to get them logged.

 

I assume you would log multiples finds?? (different hide styles, containers and separate efforts) - just one GC number??

 

I don't mean to pick on you as an individual, I am truly just trying to understand what the difference in your mind (and those like you) as to what the difference would be in doing multiple logs on a multicache vs multiple logs on a trad after it moves. I can't see the difference.

 

...and, just to clear, I still don't see the difference with multi logging a traditional cache due to multiple trips and time due to a high difficulty. I bring this up because several in this thread have promoted "effort" and "time to find" as justification for a 2nd log on a traditional cache. I can only conclude that you wish to be compensated in the form of find smilies for your time and efforts - so help me understand why it is that you would not do multiple find logs on a high difficulty traditional?? I am serious - I do not see the difference. Yet you have made a clear difference - so help me understand.

Edited March 5, 2011 by StarBrand

[+roziecakes]

This is an interesting thread actually... my gut reaction was, "no! you can't." But honestly, this wouldn't bother me that much if someone did it. As another poster said, they would have to hunt it again.

 

However, I wouldn't do it because I'm really into statistics and the duplicate find log would mess my statistics up.

 

If you logged my cache twice I could delete the second and you probably couldn't get gc.com to reinstate it. What does that mean? Only that it's not just subject to personal preference.

 

That is a good point...

[+hotshoe]

<snip>

 

Intersting mindset. This further reinforces my belief that the numbers mean absolutely nothing. People logging caches on power trails they did not find, caches they have found previously,ect... it all adds up to ... what... exactly?? Nothing. I guess I don't get people who place such a high importance on the numbers when they might not represent anything at all.

 

Well, all except for the little confusion where you say people logging "caches they have found previously". In the case we're discussing, no, it's NOT a CACHE that they have found previously, it's a GC# - which for whatever reason - the CO has kept while changing the cache to one they have NOT found previously. The GC# is not synonymous with the cache itself. You know, the map is not the territory. The #label is not the same as the actual cache searching-and-finding experience, and that experience is what is supposed to count in this game.

 

And I would NOT log a new find on a second GC# where all that changed was the GC# itself, where the original cache was archived and the CO put a replacement cache in the same place and published it as a new cache, even recycling the wording of the original listing with a little note about the replacement. Why would I ? Just because it's a new number, it's still the same old cache, and I already found that exact cache once before under its old number. I can remember exactly where it was and I can just walk right up and pull it out of the spot I remember. That's not a FIND, That's a numbers game - which apparently people think is legitimate because, after all, it does have a new GC#. But it's not a new FIND as far as the searching-and-finding experience goes, and I won't log it as one.

 

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

[+StarBrand]

...

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

....Like each separate stage and container in a multicache??

 

....Like your own caches that have been moved by animals or other cachers??

Edited March 5, 2011 by StarBrand

[+simpjkee]

Sorry if this has already been covered...Is it generally acceptable to log a find on a cache you have already found if it has been moved to a new location? Say moved due to being muggled.. 200ft from original location.

 

In the simpjkee Geocaching Code of Conduct, that is unacceptable behavior.

[+hotshoe]

...

If you do understand now what I mean about "having to search for it again as much as I had to the first time" - then great, I guess it was worth me trying to clarify.

If you don't understand now - then please do me the courtesy of not replying with any more pointlessly rude questions about my logging multiple finds on a 4star cache which I NEVER even remotely suggested.

Ok how about a multicache - multiple containers, multiple locations, multiple efforts to get them logged.

 

I assume you would log multiples finds?? (different hide styles, containers and separate efforts) - just one GC number??

 

I don't mean to pick on you as an individual, I am truly just trying to understand what the difference in your mind (and those like you) as to what the difference would be in doing multiple logs on a multicache vs multiple logs on a trad after it moves. I can't see the difference.

 

...and, just to clear, I still don't see the difference with multi logging a traditional cache due to multiple trips and time due to a high difficulty. I bring this up because several in this thread have promoted "effort" and "time to find" as justification for a 2nd log on a traditional cache. I can only conclude that you wish to be compensated in the form of find smilies for your time and efforts - so help me understand why it is that you would not do multiple find logs on a high difficulty traditional?? I am serious - I do not see the difference. Yet you have made a clear difference - so help me understand.

 

OK, you say you want to understand, and I'm a sucker, so I'll try one more time.

 

Let's go back to the basics one more time. The geocaching experience is that you don't know exactly where the cache-container-with-the-log is, you search for it, and with a little luck and persistence, you find it. This entitles you to claim a smiley online on the GC# which happens to be associated with that cache-container-with-the-log. Sometimes the persistence required is to overcome difficult terrain, sometimes the persistence required is to solve a particular puzzle, sometimes the persistence required is to find intermediate stages, sometimes the persistence required is merely to open your car door next to the lamppost skirt. No matter. It's all part of the experience. Maybe you were turned back on your first attempt by not being prepared for the terrain so you have to come back when you're more prepared. Maybe you get stalled when you can't find a stage of a multi and you have to come back when you get a hint for that stage. No matter. It's all part of the geocaching experience of searching for the cache-container-with-the-log when you don't already know exactly where it is, and hopefully finding it.

 

Why would anyone expect to get EXTRA credit for more difficult caches by logging them more times as FINDS ? You're already getting more credit for those - at least if they're rated fairly - because your D/T averages go up, and you get to brag (if you're the bragging kind). I have never seen anyone - besides you personally - even suggest such a thing as posting extra finds for high difficulty.. Seriously, I'm shocked how you made up such an idea. If you don't want to do a difficult cache because it's too difficult to be worth the effort, how could getting more smileys possibly compensate you for the effort and somehow make it worth it ? It sounds stupid when I put it that way because, frankly, it is stupid. Smileys are worthless in themselves. Smileys are only useful as markers for a successful cache-searching-and-finding experience.

 

You get one smiley for a multicache because there's exactly one cache-container-with-the-log hidden at the end. As far as I know there's no RULE that says you can't log a find on the cache for each stage of a multi you find, but why would you want to ? We all know what the goal of the geocaching experience is: to find the cache-container-with-the-log which the cache owner hid which we didn't know exactly where it was when we started our search, so that we can have the satisfaction of finding it. It's NOT all about the numbers. If it were all about the numbers, then geocaching.com would have already set up multi-cache pages so that you logged as many "finds" as there were stages that you found. It's not all about the numbers because the numbers are worthless in themselves. Numbers are only useful as markers for a successful, completed, geocaching experience.

 

What matters is that you did not know exactly where the cache-container-with-the-log was when you started, and then you find it (and open it and sign the log then close it and replace it as found - sorry to be pedantic about it - apparently I need to be pedantic to keep things absolutely clear around here). And that whole experience starting from the given coords on the cache listing to walking away from the signed log in the (final) container equals one smiley, no matter how easy or how hard. I literally cannot imagine how you think extra smileys could possibly compensate for extra effort, extra time or extra trips to find that one log in that one (final) container. If you don't want to put in the effort for "just one smiley" then don't do that cache. Simple !

 

It's irrelevant what GC# happens to be associated with it. The GC# is just a convenience, just a way to make it easier for us to identify caches and log finds. The GC# is not the cache-container-with-the-log that we're searching for. So when a cache owner retains an old GC# but places a new cache-searching experience (that is, completely changes the hide location, changes the coordinates on the page, physically moves a container to the new hide location hundreds of feet from the prior cache, puts in a new log, and puts out the word to come find it) then it is a complete geocaching experience starting from the new given coords on the cache page, not knowing exactly where the cache is, searching for it, and hopefully finding it. Any resemblance to the prior cache which was associated with the same old GC# is just a coincidence. It's a new HIDE (even though - for some reason - it happens to have an old GC#). No one who found the old cache has any advantage of remembering where to look and being able to walk right up and grab it. All searchers are starting as fresh with this new hide as they are starting with any new GC# they haven't yet found. So if/when I successfully find this new cache location, I should log a new FIND (even though - for some reason - it happens to have an old GC#) To NOT log a new find is to be a slave to the GC#s. I'm not a slave to the numbers. The numbers are worthless. The numbers are useful only to the extent that they are markers of successful, completed, geocaching experiences.

 

Which is exactly what I've got. Successful, completed, geocaching experiences. Well, that, and a trainload of DNFs along the way

 

Edit: And I see I was indeed a sucker - as I worried I might be at the beginning - to waste time posting this careful response to StarBrand in light of the ridiculous post s/he interjected while I was typing this out. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'll know better next time.

Edited March 5, 2011 by hotshoe

[+hotshoe]

...

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

....Like each separate stage and container in a multicache??

 

....Like your own caches that have been moved by animals or other cachers??

 

Stop it.

 

Your posting of your deliberate misunderstanding of my words with these mis-examples of yours has nothing to do with the topic of finding a cache which the CO has chosen to move and invited cachers to find again. And I know you're smart enough to know the difference.

 

So stop it.

[+StarBrand]

...

If you do understand now what I mean about "having to search for it again as much as I had to the first time" - then great, I guess it was worth me trying to clarify.

If you don't understand now - then please do me the courtesy of not replying with any more pointlessly rude questions about my logging multiple finds on a 4star cache which I NEVER even remotely suggested.

Ok how about a multicache - multiple containers, multiple locations, multiple efforts to get them logged.

 

I assume you would log multiples finds?? (different hide styles, containers and separate efforts) - just one GC number??

 

I don't mean to pick on you as an individual, I am truly just trying to understand what the difference in your mind (and those like you) as to what the difference would be in doing multiple logs on a multicache vs multiple logs on a trad after it moves. I can't see the difference.

 

...and, just to clear, I still don't see the difference with multi logging a traditional cache due to multiple trips and time due to a high difficulty. I bring this up because several in this thread have promoted "effort" and "time to find" as justification for a 2nd log on a traditional cache. I can only conclude that you wish to be compensated in the form of find smilies for your time and efforts - so help me understand why it is that you would not do multiple find logs on a high difficulty traditional?? I am serious - I do not see the difference. Yet you have made a clear difference - so help me understand.

 

OK, you say you want to understand, and I'm a sucker, so I'll try one more time.

 

Let's go back to the basics one more time. The geocaching experience is that you don't know exactly where the cache-container-with-the-log is, you search for it, and with a little luck and persistence, you find it. This entitles you to claim a smiley online on the GC# which happens to be associated with that cache-container-with-the-log. Sometimes the persistence required is to overcome difficult terrain, sometimes the persistence required is to solve a particular puzzle, sometimes the persistence required is to find intermediate stages, sometimes the persistence required is merely to open your car door next to the lamppost skirt. No matter. It's all part of the experience. Maybe you were turned back on your first attempt by not being prepared for the terrain so you have to come back when you're more prepared. Maybe you get stalled when you can't find a stage of a multi and you have to come back when you get a hint for that stage. No matter. It's all part of the geocaching experience of searching for the cache-container-with-the-log when you don't already know exactly where it is, and hopefully finding it.

 

Why would anyone expect to get EXTRA credit for more difficult caches by logging them more times as FINDS ? You're already getting more credit for those - at least if they're rated fairly - because your D/T averages go up, and you get to brag (if you're the bragging kind). I have never seen anyone - besides you personally - even suggest such a thing as posting extra finds for high difficulty.. Seriously, I'm shocked how you made up such an idea. If you don't want to do a difficult cache because it's too difficult to be worth the effort, how could getting more smileys possibly compensate you for the effort and somehow make it worth it ? It sounds stupid when I put it that way because, frankly, it is stupid. Smileys are worthless in themselves. Smileys are only useful as markers for a successful cache-searching-and-finding experience.

 

You get one smiley for a multicache because there's exactly one cache-container-with-the-log hidden at the end. As far as I know there's no RULE that says you can't log a find on the cache for each stage of a multi you find, but why would you want to ? We all know what the goal of the geocaching experience is: to find the cache-container-with-the-log which the cache owner hid which we didn't know exactly where it was when we started our search, so that we can have the satisfaction of finding it. It's NOT all about the numbers. If it were all about the numbers, then geocaching.com would have already set up multi-cache pages so that you logged as many "finds" as there were stages that you found. It's not all about the numbers because the numbers are worthless in themselves. Numbers are only useful as markers for a successful, completed, geocaching experience.

 

What matters is that you did not know exactly where the cache-container-with-the-log was when you started, and then you find it (and open it and sign the log then close it and replace it as found - sorry to be pedantic about it - apparently I need to be pedantic to keep things absolutely clear around here). And that whole experience starting from the given coords on the cache listing to walking away from the signed log in the (final) container equals one smiley, no matter how easy or how hard. I literally cannot imagine how you think extra smileys could possibly compensate for extra effort, extra time or extra trips to find that one log in that one (final) container. If you don't want to put in the effort for "just one smiley" then don't do that cache. Simple !

 

It's irrelevant what GC# happens to be associated with it. The GC# is just a convenience, just a way to make it easier for us to identify caches and log finds. The GC# is not the cache-container-with-the-log that we're searching for. So when a cache owner retains an old GC# but places a new cache-searching experience (that is, completely changes the hide location, changes the coordinates on the page, physically moves a container to the new hide location hundreds of feet from the prior cache, puts in a new log, and puts out the word to come find it) then it is a complete geocaching experience starting from the new given coords on the cache page, not knowing exactly where the cache is, searching for it, and hopefully finding it. Any resemblance to the prior cache which was associated with the same old GC# is just a coincidence. It's a new HIDE (even though - for some reason - it happens to have an old GC#). No one who found the old cache has any advantage of remembering where to look and being able to walk right up and grab it. All searchers are starting as fresh with this new hide as they are starting with any new GC# they haven't yet found. So if/when I successfully find this new cache location, I should log a new FIND (even though - for some reason - it happens to have an old GC#) To NOT log a new find is to be a slave to the GC#s. I'm not a slave to the numbers. The numbers are worthless. The numbers are useful only to the extent that they are markers of successful, completed, geocaching experiences.

 

Which is exactly what I've got. Successful, completed, geocaching experiences. Well, that, and a trainload of DNFs along the way

 

oooooookk. The numbers don't matter - the experience does. Yet you feel a need to add to your find count - instead of log a note.

 

I appreciate the thoughts. I am not convinced it should be done.

[+NeecesandNephews]

<snip>

 

Intersting mindset. This further reinforces my belief that the numbers mean absolutely nothing. People logging caches on power trails they did not find, caches they have found previously,ect... it all adds up to ... what... exactly?? Nothing. I guess I don't get people who place such a high importance on the numbers when they might not represent anything at all.

 

Well, all except for the little confusion where you say people logging "caches they have found previously". In the case we're discussing, no, it's NOT a CACHE that they have found previously, it's a GC# - which for whatever reason - the CO has kept while changing the cache to one they have NOT found previously. The GC# is not synonymous with the cache itself. You know, the map is not the territory. The #label is not the same as the actual cache searching-and-finding experience, and that experience is what is supposed to count in this game.

 

And I would NOT log a new find on a second GC# where all that changed was the GC# itself, where the original cache was archived and the CO put a replacement cache in the same place and published it as a new cache, even recycling the wording of the original listing with a little note about the replacement. Why would I ? Just because it's a new number, it's still the same old cache, and I already found that exact cache once before under its old number. I can remember exactly where it was and I can just walk right up and pull it out of the spot I remember. That's not a FIND, That's a numbers game - which apparently people think is legitimate because, after all, it does have a new GC#. But it's not a new FIND as far as the searching-and-finding experience goes, and I won't log it as one.

 

It's pretty simple.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and find it, you should log it as a find.

When you don't know exactly where something is and you look for it and you don't find it, you should log it as a DNF.

When you do know exactly where something is because you found it once before in that exact same spot, you should not log it at all (even if the cache owner - for whatever reason) has turned it into a new listing with a new GC#).

 

I am not going to turn this into a debate so let me just say, I read and understand your beliefs as you have posted them to both me and Starbrand.

I just don't agree with them.

Meaning, I don't agree with your logic, not whether or not you actually think the way you have stated.

Your position could justify thousands of "finds" in your stats, as containers break, get replaced, get muggled, ect. I mean, applying your logic, i would be finding a "new" cache.

In my opinion logging a second find on a cache which has recently had a broken or leaking container replaced (which fits into your logic) is pretty much pointless to anyone but myself. And I can't imagine finding any kind of meaning in that smiley.

But hey... its your game and your numbers, if you find meaning in doing that... power to you.

For the record though, as previously mentioned, were I a cache owner and you logged such a second find on my cache I would delete it posthaste, as would I expect any CO to do to mine if I logged in that fashion.

edit to add- "The GC# is not synonymous with the cache itself" is a concept I am going to have to believe is one shared by no one else. I know I can't wrap my mind around that.

Edited March 5, 2011 by NeecesandNephews

[+hotshoe]

oooooookk. The numbers don't matter - the experience does. Yet you feel a need to add to your find count - instead of log a note.

 

I appreciate the thoughts. I am not convinced it should be done.

 

It SHOULD be done, because anything other than logging a find in this case would be dishonest. It's a new FIND. The only way to keep my profile honest is to log online finds for all the physical finds, and log online DNFs for all the physical DNFs. And in the odd case that I re-visit a cache that I have already found, which is not a new find, then and only then I'll post a note to the cache page.

 

You don't know what I "feel a need for". You can't speak about what I "feel" or what I "need". I don't care about the numbers. What I care about is the completely honest record of my caching experience. Which if you're a person who is obsessed by the numbers, might happen to look as if it's about the find count - but in that case, it says something about you and nothing about me.

[+BlueDeuce]

Whether the owner SHOULD archive and get a new GC# every time when moving the cache/changing it significantly is a whole 'nuther question. But if they change the hide enough that I have to search for it again as much as I had to the first time, then I SHOULD log a new (second) find. That's the way of keeping score of how many times I started a search for something/how many times I succeeded in my search.

 

You CAN find (aka revisit) a cache as many times as you like. It might even be a better adventure than the last time. So what do you gain by claiming another Found it other than increasing your stat? Does that extra oomph in your find count do something for you? Just say no to multiple logging. Enjoy caching for the act of caching and log a find so that it's off your 'need to find' list.

 

A lot of times on a multi, if I really like visiting the area, I'll do one leg and then leave. Then I get to come back and enjoy the trip to the next leg. and so on. I wouldn't assume that I get multiple finds for making more than one trip.

 

The only time I should NOT log a second find is if nothing at all had changed about the cache and I just had to walk up and pull it out of the hiding place I remembered from before.

 

Nor would I claim a second find for having a bad memory.

 

Or because it moved 200 feet. Do you really need another stat that badly or are you really having a hard time finding other caches worth searching for?

Edited March 6, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

As far as I know there's no RULE that says you can't log a find on the cache for each stage of a multi you find,....

 

There is, it's that Groundspeak will allow the cache owner to delete all multiple Finds except for the one legitimate log. Just because it isn't enforced in all situations doesn't give you the permission to do it.