Staistics and such.

[+gajinoz]

Interesting anomaly. OK, not interesting to you but it is to me.

 

When I log in it tells me I have found 13 caches. I have in fact found 14 and if you look at the list of all caches found there are 14 there. The only reason I can see for this is that, while all my caches were listed as "found it", one of them was listed as "needs maintenance". Would this be the reason for the discrepancy?

 

This, BTW, is not a problem or complaint, I'm just curious.

 

EDIT: Yes, I left a 'T' out of the title. Apparently I can't edit that.

Edited February 18, 2012 by gajinoz

[Pup Patrol]

The "needs maintenance" log does not count as a "find". You need to log a separate "found it" log for that cache to count in your "finds" total.

 

Here's a list of the log types and icons:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=246

[+gajinoz]

I figured that might be the case. Thanks.

[+Lil Devil]

if you look at the list of all caches found there are 14 there.

I only see 13.

[+Coldgears]

if you look at the list of all caches found there are 14 there.

I only see 13.

Because he was looking at "All logs" not "All finds". He didn't know that a needs maintence did not play a double roll as a "found it".

 

He'll log it soon, i bet.

[+gajinoz]

I only see 13.

 

Yep, it's not listing the one I logged as "needs maintenance" as explained above.

 

Have a look at: Hardly Welcome

 

I may log it again as "Found".

Edited February 18, 2012 by gajinoz

[+gajinoz]

 

He'll log it soon, i bet.

 

You're right.

 

BTW, why doesn't a "needs maintenance" count as a found it? I would assume that you'd have to find it to know that it needs maintenance.

[+uxorious]

 

He'll log it soon, i bet.

 

You're right.

 

BTW, why doesn't a "needs maintenance" count as a found it? I would assume that you'd have to find it to know that it needs maintenance.

 

Someone could be returning to the cache to drop a travel bug, or just out with someone who hadn't got the cache yet. Could be they found the remains of what they are sure was the cache, and log a DNF, and a needs maintenance. (that could be iffy. I've seen that, and the CO goes out to check, and the cache is just fine.)

 

Not every visit to a cache is a found it. Therefore the usual practice would be to do as you did. Log a find, and a needs maintenance, both.

[+Coldgears]

 

He'll log it soon, i bet.

 

You're right.

 

BTW, why doesn't a "needs maintenance" count as a found it? I would assume that you'd have to find it to know that it needs maintenance.

 

Someone could be returning to the cache to drop a travel bug, or just out with someone who hadn't got the cache yet. Could be they found the remains of what they are sure was the cache, and log a DNF, and a needs maintenance. (that could be iffy. I've seen that, and the CO goes out to check, and the cache is just fine.)

 

Not every visit to a cache is a found it. Therefore the usual practice would be to do as you did. Log a find, and a needs maintenance, both.

Without trying to open up a bag of worms, finding the remains of a cache could count as a find, if you found a log-book. I've found a destroyed cache which was promptly archived. (You could even log a find on the remains of a cache without log book, but many people here twist the guidelines around to fit there needs so let's say you can't...)

 

A better example might be if you found the cache previously, and checked up on it with a friend and it was gone. Maybe there is an exact spoiler picture and it isn't there. If it's an indoor cache, maybe the place is closed for renavations for a month. There is a slew of reasons.

 

A better name for the log would be, "Needs Cache Owner Attention", since sometimes it's not just maintenance it needs (which implies replacing log book, making the container waterproof ect.)

[+tozainamboku]

Without trying to open up a bag of worms, finding the remains of a cache could count as a find, if you found a log-book. I've found a destroyed cache which was promptly archived. (You could even log a find on the remains of a cache without log book, but many people here twist the guidelines around to fit there needs so let's say you can't...)

I think that's the point. While some people may log a find because they found the remains of the cache (and the cache owner is likely to allow such a find log), some individuals prefer not to log a find unless they have signed the physical log book. These people can confidently log a needs maintenance without worrying about it counting as find.

 

The only logs that count toward the find count are Found It, Attended (events), and Picture Taken (webcams). Cachers are free to log any other log that is needed without worrying that it will effect their find count.

 

On at least three instances, I have found the log book but no cache (or at least not much other evidence of a cache). On two of these I logged a Needs Maintenance (and DNF on one of those as well - don't ask me why I log a DNF on one but not the others.). The other the cache was already archived before I found the log book so I just posted a Note.

 

From my personal perspective, finding just a log book is not finding the cache, so even though I could have signed the log book, put in a baggy, and left it there to claim a find; I didn't. On the other hand there have been numerous times when I have found badly damaged caches perhaps even with no signable logbook and I have logged them as found (and posted a Needs Maintenance).

[+Glenn]

Without trying to open up a bag of worms, finding the remains of a cache could count as a find, if you found a log-book. I've found a destroyed cache which was promptly archived. (You could even log a find on the remains of a cache without log book, but many people here twist the guidelines around to fit there needs so let's say you can't...)

 

From my personal perspective, finding just a log book is not finding the cache, so even though I could have signed the log book, put in a baggy, and left it there to claim a find; I didn't. On the other hand there have been numerous times when I have found badly damaged caches perhaps even with no signable logbook and I have logged them as found (and posted a Needs Maintenance).

 

I don't see how I could make a statement that would cover every situation here. I am in the "if you find the log book you can log the cache as found" camp. However, I can see situations where I wouldn't log the cache even after finding the log book. For example. If I was looking for a terrain level 4+ cache hidden in the top of a tree. But the last finder didn't secure the lid of the container properly and the log fell out and I find the log book laying on the ground at the base of the tree. If I couldn't get the log book back in the cache container, and complete the terrain level part of the find, then I don't feel I can rightfully log the cache as found.