Logging your own caches

[+St.Nicholas]

Why do people log their own caches as found? I understand that it may happen by mistake when trying to log owner maintenance or write a note and selecting the wrong option.

The reason I ask is because I noticed a cache owner who is local to us has just logged all of his own caches as found! The logs read "Owner logging cache to increase numbers !"

If it's the numbers that matter to you, why admit to bumping up your numbers by logging your own caches?

[+mollyjak]

We all play the game the way we chose.

Numbers must be important to him and that's the way he wants to play - to me it's cheating and he is only cheating himself - my opinion

[+Amberel]

Why do people log their own caches as found? I understand that it may happen by mistake when trying to log owner maintenance or write a note and selecting the wrong option.

The reason I ask is because I noticed a cache owner who is local to us has just logged all of his own caches as found! The logs read "Owner logging cache to increase numbers !"

If it's the numbers that matter to you, why admit to bumping up your numbers by logging your own caches?

I think we just have to accept that there are folks who think in ways that might seem odd to you and me. I can't see any sense in it either, but it's their business and it doesn't affect me.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Croesgadwr]

The reason I ask is because I noticed a cache owner who is local to us has just logged all of his own caches as found! The logs read "Owner logging cache to increase numbers !"

 

I wonder if he had the gall to award himself any favourite points.... :blink:

[Langy]

Amazing how people all have different ways.

If he really wanted to bump it up at least do it a bit more sneaky and create a new account.

 

Perhaps if I log 28,000 caches I won't visit then I might become the UK leader in finds?????

 

Obviously this is only cheating yourself, so just ignore it, just the same as someone looking up the answers to a puzzle in the back of a book.

You only cheat yourself.

[+Misty and Minou]

If you adopt a cache and have previously logged it as found you will retain the found log.

 

I own 2 caches where I am also the FTF all because I've adopted the cache.

 

Also I will occasionally log finds and then delete them on my caches purely for testing purposes.

[Langy]

If you adopt a cache and have previously logged it as found you will retain the found log.

 

I own 2 caches where I am also the FTF all because I've adopted the cache.

 

Also I will occasionally log finds and then delete them on my caches purely for testing purposes.

 

Can certainly see your point when you adopt a cache.

Not sure why you need to test the logging but you obviously have your reasons.

 

As the original poster mentioned though the CO had stated "Owner logging cache to increase numbers !"

So this is purely a numbers thing on his log.

 

At least you have pointed out another reason some of us may have not thought of.

[+Jonovich]

I wonder if they fail to find any of their own caches, they'll then log DNF's?

 

Jon

[Langy]

I wonder if they fail to find any of their own caches, they'll then log DNF's?

 

Jon

 

Yes we could have a whole new category for that one!

[+metal-bijou]

If you adopt a cache and have previously logged it as found you will retain the found log.

 

I own 2 caches where I am also the FTF all because I've adopted the cache.

 

Also I will occasionally log finds and then delete them on my caches purely for testing purposes.

 

It should almost be a prerequisite that you can find the cache before you adopt it... It does look strange in GSAK when I look at my finds and see found caches. For the same reason, I adopted them because I’d found them and they held a special meaning to me.

 

Now to open the can of worms. What about finding your caches once adopted by someone else? Oh that grey area just got a little wider in my mind. Forget I asked and the lid can go back on.

[Langy]

Now to open the can of worms. What about finding your caches once adopted by someone else? Oh that grey area just got a little wider in my mind. Forget I asked and the lid can go back on.

 

Well why not? If you do not own the cache then surely you can find it, who knows the new CO may have moved it slightly or something else.

It has to be down to how you see it yourself, if you were out with a friend to help them set a cache would you then log it as a find? Or even FTF?

I think most people wouldn't do that but some are just hungry for numbers.

 

There are many types of animals (use that term loosley) out there that do geocaching as a hobby and all have their own ways of working as well as their own requirements as to what they want to get out of the hobby.

[+St.Nicholas]

I wonder if he had the gall to award himself any favourite points.... :blink:

 

I wonder if they fail to find any of their own caches, they'll then log DNF's?

 

Jon

 

 

I had thought about it showing up as logging your own cache if you adopt a cache, but as Langy pointed out, that wasn't the case with this particular cache owner.

 

Anyway, we do all play the game differently and I wouldn't log my own caches even if I had adopted them out to someone else, but I see that others might want to do so

[+topmonkey]

Someone I know has created a joint series of caches with a fellow cacher. He is responsible for half of the caches and his fellow cacher for the other half. As he lives near the series he has logged the remaining half as 'found to clear the search radius.' This is perhaps a more acceptable reason for logging them maybe? It must be rather annoying to see caches on his map that he simply cannot remove. Or could he have put them on an ignore list so they won't crop up on a search?

[team tisri]

I suppose a related question is how much a cache has to change before one can realistically justify posting another "found" log on it?

 

If a cache is muggled, disabled, and then reinstated with a different container and maybe 200 feet from where it started, does it count as a different cache now? What do people think?

[+Phil100]

We all play the game the way we chose.

Numbers must be important to him and that's the way he wants to play - to me it's cheating and he is only cheating himself - my opinion

 

I would agree with regard to "physical" caches but, in my opinion, it would be acceptable to log "Attended" for a meet that I'd organised. Or, do others disagree?

[+FuzzyBears]

I suppose a related question is how much a cache has to change before one can realistically justify posting another "found" log on it?

 

If a cache is muggled, disabled, and then reinstated with a different container and maybe 200 feet from where it started, does it count as a different cache now? What do people think?

I would say new GC number new cache new find.... We did a virtual a few years ago that allowed you to log two different waterfalls... Ever since our total has been confused with something like 1000 finds on 999 unique caches

 

I would agree with regard to "physical" caches but, in my opinion, it would be acceptable to log "Attended" for a meet that I'd organised. Or, do others disagree?

We use our attended log to thank cachers for coming... and you attended the event you shouldn't have to 'find' your own cache so why log a find

[+metal-bijou]

but, in my opinion, it would be acceptable to log "Attended" for a meet that I'd organised. Or, do others disagree?

 

I agree and it seems the CO of events I go to do the same.

[+metal-bijou]

 

I would say new GC number new cache new find.... We did a virtual a few years ago that allowed you to log two different waterfalls... Ever since our total has been confused with something like 1000 finds on 999 unique caches

 

 

There's a UK virtual based on trigpoints which you can find in multiple locations - Ye Old Survey Monument.

[team tisri]

I suppose a related question is how much a cache has to change before one can realistically justify posting another "found" log on it?

 

If a cache is muggled, disabled, and then reinstated with a different container and maybe 200 feet from where it started, does it count as a different cache now? What do people think?

I would say new GC number new cache new find.... We did a virtual a few years ago that allowed you to log two different waterfalls... Ever since our total has been confused with something like 1000 finds on 999 unique caches

 

On the face of it that sounds reasonable but does mean that if a cache is muggled and disabled, then pops up as a new container in a new hiding spot 100 yards away it doesn't count as a different cache but if a cache is abandoned and archived only for an identical cache in an identical location to be created by a new user it does.

 

I would agree with regard to "physical" caches but, in my opinion, it would be acceptable to log "Attended" for a meet that I'd organised. Or, do others disagree?

We use our attended log to thank cachers for coming... and you attended the event you shouldn't have to 'find' your own cache so why log a find

 

I can see the reasoning here, although for myself I would (and did) log Attended against an event I ran but wouldn't log a Found log against a physical cache I placed. I'd say it's down to the purpose of the cache - the purpose of the event is to meet other cachers so if you were there then you get an Attended log, whereas the purpose of a physical cache is to look for it (and hopefully find it), which isn't much of a challenge if you placed it yourself.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Logically, I suppose the game is about finding caches that someone else placed; with a fair level of uncertainty that you'll actually find it. That's how I understand it, anyway. So if I find a cache that fits within those criteria it counts as a find, whoever owns it.

So if I placed it and it appears to have remained in the same spot, then I wouldn't ever log it as "found" even if it had been adopted. If it had been muggled, and the new container placed differently, then I didn't actually place it and there's a chance that I won't be able to find it. So I think a "found" log is then allowable.

[+The HERB5]

I've Found my own caches after they've been adopted.

And I've been lambasted for it.

We all play the Game differently...

 

Some people don't bother searching for a cache but PAF, but that's okay isn't it...

 

One eminent cacher I wont name actually didn't find one of my caches because it was missing. He asked if he could log it anyway because he would of found it if it was there.

 

I let him log it, his Rules...

[+MartyBartfast]

I almost logged my first cache as found. Back then the missus didn't have her own account so when I placed it and she & the kids went to find it I thought about logging it but decided not to, I reckon there are plenty of people sharing accounts and some may have logged their own caches for the same reason.

[+Pharisee]

There are plenty of people who put an 'Attended' log on event caches that they've organised. Is that any different?

[+castagnari]

There are plenty of people who put an 'Attended' log on event caches that they've organised. Is that any different?

 

In my opinion yes,

 

The log type fits,

 

If you attended, log an "attended"

 

If you hid it, you don't need to find it, so don't log "found it"

 

(tho i must admit to having trouble locating one of my hides a few days ago when checking on it after a few DNFs)

[+Phil100]

(tho i must admit to having trouble locating one of my hides a few days ago when checking on it after a few DNFs)

I'm pleased/relieved to hear that it's not just me!

Edited May 21, 2012 by Phil100

[+WizzardPrang]

I know a cache with 11 DNFs, so the CO disabled it. 3 days later another cacher logged it as found, the log says "I had a spare 35mm in my pack today so left it where you would expect it. If that's too presumptuous, then I have no problem with a log deletion."

 

Then another cacher logged it as found. Even though it is still disabled. On this basis there'd never be any DNFs ever again!

[+rickardclan]

I have had this conversation with other COs a few times now - for the record I would never log my own hides....but then the problem would be if, say, the Mrs hid one that I knew nothing about.....would be tough.

 

My view is however that the system could quite easily be modified to prevent CO's from having the ability to log their own caches, but it hasn't, so there must be a reason why that's still possible?

[+HouseOfDragons]

(tho i must admit to having trouble locating one of my hides a few days ago when checking on it after a few DNFs)

I'm pleased/relieved to hear that it's not just me!

 

There are a couple of my own caches that I have deserved to log as found whilst doing cache maintenance and, on a couple of occasions, DNF despite them being there but we won't talk about that.

 

I never have mind you.

 

There are some caches where a friend is the cache owner and I was there when they were hidden. I only log those as found when I send the smaller team members out to find them with no input from me whatsoever.

[team tisri]

One eminent cacher I wont name actually didn't find one of my caches because it was missing. He asked if he could log it anyway because he would of found it if it was there.

 

I let him log it, his Rules...

 

I DNF-ed a cache some time back, emailed the owner to see if I was doing something stupid and described where I'd looked. He said the cache was supposed to be where I had looked so invited me to log it as found, and he'd go and replace it. I was happy to log it as a find simply because it was going to be a while before I was in that area again.

 

When I was on holiday in North Carolina I visited a place that was well outside my pocket query range, figured it would probably have an earthcache there so took a picture of my GPS at the location. I subsequently found there was an earthcache, emailed the owner asking permission to log based on my photo even though I couldn't answer the questions (having not had internet access on the move I couldn't check to see if there was a cache nearby) and they were happy with that.

 

I always think that the point of geocaching is to get out and about. If someone goes to the location of the cache, enjoys the location, doesn't find the cache but logs it as Found anyway, does it really matter? I'd suspect for most caches the answer is no. For more extreme caches I can see the owner wanting to be a little more particular that you have to actually get to the cache and prove you found it (ideally by signing the log), but for the average 1.5/1.5 rated cache is it really such a big deal?

[+dprovan]

I have had this conversation with other COs a few times now - for the record I would never log my own hides....but then the problem would be if, say, the Mrs hid one that I knew nothing about.....would be tough.

That one's easy: the Mrs should have an account to own such hides separate from the ID you use to log caches as a team.

[+abanazar]

One eminent cacher I wont name actually didn't find one of my caches because it was missing. He asked if he could log it anyway because he would of found it if it was there.

 

I let him log it, his Rules...

 

I DNF-ed a cache some time back, emailed the owner to see if I was doing something stupid and described where I'd looked. He said the cache was supposed to be where I had looked so invited me to log it as found, and he'd go and replace it. I was happy to log it as a find simply because it was going to be a while before I was in that area again.

 

When I was on holiday in North Carolina I visited a place that was well outside my pocket query range, figured it would probably have an earthcache there so took a picture of my GPS at the location. I subsequently found there was an earthcache, emailed the owner asking permission to log based on my photo even though I couldn't answer the questions (having not had internet access on the move I couldn't check to see if there was a cache nearby) and they were happy with that.

 

I always think that the point of geocaching is to get out and about. If someone goes to the location of the cache, enjoys the location, doesn't find the cache but logs it as Found anyway, does it really matter? I'd suspect for most caches the answer is no. For more extreme caches I can see the owner wanting to be a little more particular that you have to actually get to the cache and prove you found it (ideally by signing the log), but for the average 1.5/1.5 rated cache is it really such a big deal?

I mostly agree with your logic, but ultimately take the opposite view!

 

A while back we looked for a cache that had recently been replaced by the CO. We found exactly where it should be, but it wasn't there and so logged a descriptive DNF after a very thorough search. The CO contacted us, apologising that they had replaced it in the wrong place (strange, but true, as there were two similar wooded paths in close proximity, and a less familiar member of the CO family had made the replacement without a GPSr!). The CO moved the cache to the right spot (the one we had searched) and generously offered that we should log the find, as we clearly would have found it (it was a non-cunning Regular) and weren't locals.

 

I applied almost the same logic as you, except the Log as Found bit.

 

If someone goes to the location of the cache, enjoys the location, doesn't find the cache (but logs it as Found anyway), does it really matter? I'd suspect for most caches the answer is no.

We didn't find the cache, sign, or trade, so we didn't log a Find. It didn't really matter We may return one day, or we may not.

[+Amberel]

I always think that the point of geocaching is to get out and about. If someone goes to the location of the cache, enjoys the location, doesn't find the cache but logs it as Found anyway, does it really matter? I'd suspect for most caches the answer is no. For more extreme caches I can see the owner wanting to be a little more particular that you have to actually get to the cache and prove you found it (ideally by signing the log), but for the average 1.5/1.5 rated cache is it really such a big deal?

It depends entirely on the cacher. We each have our own set of "rules" about what we log. It falls outside what my "rules" guide me to log as found, but it doesn't matter to me if your "rules" allow it - that's your business.

 

It's like golf - if you add, e.g. an air shot, to you total or not only matters if you are competing with someone else - then you should try to keep to the same set of rules. If you are competing only against your own record then it doesn't matter what rules you use, provided they are consistent.

 

With the possible exceptions of Church Micros and favourite points on hides, I'm not competing against other geocachers. I may sometimes find other people's "rules" incomprehensible, but it doesn't affect me.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+AKiteFlier]

Related *(I think) question - Groundspeak does not allow two cachers to both be the "owner" of a cache even though we often place "team" caches out here in IL. SO - if you are part of the TEAM but not the official Geocaching OWNER - are you allowed to log the cache as a find? I personally wish we could have two legitimate hiders on caches. We both do the work and the maintenance... Just curious about people's thoughts on this...

Thanks

[+Bear and Ragged]

SO - if you are part of the TEAM but not the official Geocaching OWNER - are you allowed to log the cache as a find?

 

Allowed to?

Yes.

 

Should you?

That's another question.

 

Yes. If you have to. But DON'T claim First To Find.

 

As a PM you have an Ignore list, so that the cache wont show on your unfound list.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Bear and Ragged

[+AKiteFlier]

SO - if you are part of the TEAM but not the official Geocaching OWNER - are you allowed to log the cache as a find?

 

Allowed to?

Yes.

 

Should you?

That's another question.

 

Yes. If you have to. But DON'T claim First To Find.

 

As a PM you have an Ignore list, so that the cache wont show on your unfound list.

 

It is the "should you" part that I question most - typically if I am involved in the actual PLACEMENT of a cache I do not log it BUT if I was merely a contributor of swag for a tribute or puzzle cache then I might - but I wanted to see people's opinions :-)

[+Amberel]

It is the "should you" part that I question most - typically if I am involved in the actual PLACEMENT of a cache I do not log it BUT if I was merely a contributor of swag for a tribute or puzzle cache then I might - but I wanted to see people's opinions :-)

The situation hasn't arisen for me, but if it did, I wouldn't log it. But, as above, it really doesn't matter - just do what feels right to you.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+MacDD]

If there is the possibility to do that (and it can be easily disabled by gc.com) it migt be that it is intended by gc.com that you do log your own caches.

 

Me myself, I won't do that.

[+redsox_mark]

If there is the possibility to do that (and it can be easily disabled by gc.com) it migt be that it is intended by gc.com that you do log your own caches.

 

Me myself, I won't do that.

 

According to the Help Center it is considered "bad form".

[+MacDD]

If there is the possibility to do that (and it can be easily disabled by gc.com) it migt be that it is intended by gc.com that you do log your own caches.

 

Me myself, I won't do that.

 

According to the Help Center it is considered "bad form".

 

Correct. Nothing more then that.

Same bad form as attenging the grammies diner in a pair of swimmingtrousers.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Just like the Policing of logs, except for cases where the log is offensive or attacks, is the sole remit of the Cache Owner. So is the Policing of Finds to a Cache, the sole remit of the Cache Owner.

 

The fact that Owners can log their own caches as a find, has been moaned about, from the early days of the hobby. And one of the Site Owners Jeremy Irish, actually commented many years ago, he was not going to change that ability, and that those Cache Owners who logged a find on a cache they owned. Were only fooling themselves. And personally that's what I believe as well.

 

There is one specific reason, where a Cache Owner has a Find on their cache, that's when they have found the cache and logged the find, and then at a later date adopt it.

 

And as comparing Found Numbers is totally meaningless, I'd be happy to see numbers take away, only visible to each individual member, or alternatively let those who wish to display them do so, but let those who wish to hide them do so as well.

 

Examples to support this

 

Cache Owners Find caches they own, and placed from the start.

Cache Owners Logging Maintenance Visits as Finds (and yes this does happen)

Angel Caches, can't find the container. So I'll throw down a Micro to claim the find, which can lead to 2 or 3 containers in the same location

Groups doing Series, splitting up and logging each other into the cache. Despite finding half or less of the series each (that is not even being present when the container was found)

Cachers can't go out with the group they normally cache with, so their mates put their name in the log, so they can claim it as a find.

I found the hole the container was in, so I'm claiming a find

I found the remains of the container, so I'm logging a find

I saw the container so I'm claiming a find (in one case I personally know of, the person was 20-30 metres away, the container being in a high muggle area, just 5ft off the ground in plain view)

 

These are not isolated examples, but ones that regularly take place, some who do the above, have finds in the Thousands, and have been caching for a number of years. So are experianced and Knowledgeable members. And this is a World Wide thing, not related to one community.

 

Those who have been members for a number of years, will lremember the Arm Chair logging, that was prevailant in Germany. A program of education, by both Groundspeak and the Local Reviewers, and this practice has been virtually eradicated, because it was a belief within the community, that the practice was acceptable.

 

Well those Cache Owners, who log their own caches as finds, are in the same sort of mind set. they belive it is acceptable. Just like those who take part in the practices above have the same sort of mind set.

 

If people would just be open and honest, and admit that they do such things, then everyone will know where they stand. Just like the Germany Community has been open and admitted that such practices went on, and have turned things around.

 

Part of the solution? Ask those you meet, if they do such practices and why. Lets get them out in the open, and turn things around. Educate those within the community who are joining, that these practices are not a acceptable part of the hobby. Education, when the community supports it, has been proven to work.

 

Dave

[dodgydaved]

"Organising Events already for 2006 & 2007!! Any one know a good shrink??"

 

Preferrably one that takes appointments in 2012!! :lol:

[+dprovan]

Related *(I think) question - Groundspeak does not allow two cachers to both be the "owner" of a cache even though we often place "team" caches out here in IL. SO - if you are part of the TEAM but not the official Geocaching OWNER - are you allowed to log the cache as a find? I personally wish we could have two legitimate hiders on caches. We both do the work and the maintenance... Just curious about people's thoughts on this...

Well, I think with a cache claimed by a team, the issue's clear cut: an owner's an owner, even when there are multiple owners, so it's unreasonable to claim a find.

 

On the other hand, I used to think that it was reasonable to log a "proof find", i.e., someone present when the cache was placed, but not a part owner, logging a find after the FTF is posted. But lately I've been doubting whether that's really any different than being in a team. Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I'm usually caching alone.

[+Original A1]

Cache Owners Find caches they own, and placed from the start. - I've never done this as I don't see the point.

 

Cache Owners Logging Maintenance Visits as Finds (and yes this does happen) - Not done this either, although I've been known to write a note rather than a "attended" log for events, and I've seen lots of others do the same.

 

Angel Caches, can't find the container. So I'll throw down a Micro to claim the find, which can lead to 2 or 3 containers in the same location - Guilty of this just last Friday. However, I'd read that the cache had been disabled because it had gone missing, e-mailed the owner beforehand and hadn't received a reply (away?), so with a group, put a new one in the most obvious place and checked with someone who had found it before that it was the correct place. This was because we were trying to clear a park too. Still haven't heard back from the owner...

 

Groups doing Series, splitting up and logging each other into the cache. Despite finding half or less of the series each (that is not even being present when the container was found) - Never done that, but know some who do. It's not how I choose to play the game, personally.

 

Cachers can't go out with the group they normally cache with, so their mates put their name in the log, so they can claim it as a find. - I've only done this once, at the request of the person involved, but as it turns out, that person hasn't logged the find anyway! It was a puzzle and they certainly contributed to the solving of it.

 

I found the hole the container was in, so I'm claiming a find - I would have loved to have done that recently on a tiny islet in a remote part of Alaska, but despite three of us finding the hole and being certain that's where it should have been (later verified), we think sea otters had removed it. Didn't find it, so didn't claim. Ditto the only one in Fair Isle, where I definitely found the location (mentioned in the hint), but no cache. Shame, but no find, no log!

 

I found the remains of the container, so I'm logging a find - I found quite significant remains of one, and the CO authorised the find.

 

I saw the container so I'm claiming a find - in one case I personally know of, the person was 20-30 metres away, the container being in a high muggle area, just 5ft off the ground in plain view - Just once when I couldn't get it dislodged, although my stick could reach it. The COs authorised that find; otherwise, never. If it's a 5T and you can't/won't reach it, tough.

 

 

I did adopt a cache "St Andrew's Square" which I'd found quite some time before, but of course when I found it, I didn't know I was going to be adopting it; it's moved to a new owner now, but I still see no point in deleting my legitimate find.

 

The only instance in which I could envisage logging one of my own caches as a find is in the event that someone deletes a log of mine where I don't agree that it is merited. Luckily, that's never happened, and even were the replacement find mentioned above deleted, I wouldn't use that tactic.

 

So them's my rools.