Jump to content

[FEATURE] site will not permit logging Found/Attended more than once on the same cache


JL_HSTRE

Recommended Posts

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to log a Found or Attended multiple times.

 

You find the cache once. Subsequent visits should be a Note. More common than someone who doesn't know better is a glitch from a smartphone app where the app has logged the Find but doesn't realize it so the cacher submits the log multiple times unaware they've multi-logged a cache.

 

With Events, multiple Attended logs are sometimes in error. More often it an abusive issue. For instance, the event CO may place temporary unlisted caches that ignore proximity and other guidelines then allow attendees to log an Attended for each temporary cache they find! This should not be permitted. Great examples: http://coord.info/GC3Q2YF & http://coord.info/GC24CJR

 

Therefore, the site should prevent people from logging multiple Found/Attended logs on a single cache page. If they try they can get a nice error message explaining they have already logged the cache.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

I'd like to point out that there are some caches(That reviewers, forum mods, and other Groundspeak staff know about) that allow multiple found it logs. For example(all grandfathered now) a traveling cache that you could find and sign the logbook multiple times, and each time you find the cache at a different location/event. Or a virtual that is relocated at different locations (VERY specific locations, not just random places) In this case the CO allows, not only "finding" and logging the virtual at the current location, but also finding and logging for each location it has had in the past.

Now the idea is you go to a different place and have a different experience each time you find it, and can therefore log the cache each time. And both these caches would not be published today.

 

Those are just a few valid reasons to log multiple finds. Perhaps-as has been suggested before-a feature with something like "You have logged this cache as found/attended on XXX date. Would you like to continue?" Most of these caches have "good" reasons to log-such as I mentioned above, or temporary caches. I don't think any action should be taken unless someone is logging multiple times for no reason. It is the CO's responsibility to audit the online logs and if they think it is wrong the should delete it.

Link to comment

I see from their join dates that none of the prior posters were around at the time of the Great Pocket Cache Debate of 2006. All posts forming a part of the Great Pocket Cache Debate of 2006, including but not limited to the views of Groundspeak's CEO regarding the multiple logging of event caches, are hereby incorporated into this thread by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

Link to comment

I see from their join dates that none of the prior posters were around at the time of the Great Pocket Cache Debate of 2006. All posts forming a part of the Great Pocket Cache Debate of 2006, including but not limited to the views of Groundspeak's CEO regarding the multiple logging of event caches, are hereby incorporated into this thread by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

Seeing as though a feature such as this one was never implemented back then (and still isn't), I imagine Jeremy posted something like 'there are no leaderboards in geocaching so mind your own logging practices and who cares if others want to log events multiple times', right? You gotta link to the post of his views?

Link to comment

THE FIND COUNT IS NOT THE SCORE.

 

While many geocachers have adopted the practice of logging a cache/event as found or attended only once there is no substantive reason for the website to enforce this.

 

As mentioned above the existing grandfathered moving caches generally allow multiple finds. In addition there are some other caches, like the Brass Disks caches in Canada, for which there are multiple targets and the ability to log caches multiple times.

 

While some purist are bothered by it, in certain regions is is common to allow multiple attended logs on events and and some caches for recording additional finds of so-called bonus caches.

 

Often multiples finds are entered by accident (for example when dropping or picking up a travel bug) or by newbies unaware that you can change the cache type to Write Note for subsequent visits. As such, I would not oppose a warning if a user attempts to log a second find/atttended log. But I still think that people who want to use the log this way should be allowed to do so.

 

Some people seem to have a need to invent unnecessary rules for the this game. It's fine with me if you want to limit your own play. It's probably reasonable to allow cache owners some leeway in enforcing single logs on their own caches, if they feel they must. It's unacceptable, IMO, for someone to impose their personal vision of geocaching on the rest of us.

Link to comment

A Brief History of Multi-Logging Events

 

Once Upon a Time, the guidelines were really really short (all local laws apply)(okay, not really, though the phrase, "A nickname for the stash" was in an early version, along with "in order to keep the signal to noise ratio down" take cache ideas to the forums for discussion). There was no cache permanence guideline (there was no event guideline either, but I srsly gotta put a lid on the digressions).

 

It was common to post an event, and around it a bunch of temporary caches. All published on Geocaching.com.

They were found, logged, and archived in fairly short order, part of the event fun. FUN!!

 

One day, the folk who were doing the reading and approving (caches were approved in this distant era) of said caches, decided that temporary caches were something of a waste of site resources; and so the cache permanence guideline was born. Jeremy announced it in the forums.

 

Complaints, hairpulling, whinging commenced.

 

Jeremy suggested that the simple solution to this awful loss would be to place the temps, hand out coords at the event, and cachers could find 'em and log 'em against the event.

 

And so it has been ever after. Happily happily.

Link to comment

Wy does a cacher in Florida cares what some people in Ohio did at an event?

A better question is, why wouldn't a cacher in Florida care about what a group is doing in Ohio. The same could apply to a cacher in New Zealand, France or right next door. This is a global game, with global consequences. If we, (the collective 'We'), see behavior that we feel brings discredit to the game, even if said behavior is not technically a guideline violation, don't we have an obligation to at least question it?

 

Granted, not everyone is going to view a particular behavior as a negative. Obviously, there are some folks in Ohio who have no problem logging "Attended" dozens, if not hundreds of times, for the same event. But those of us who do believe such behavior is bad for the game should not shove our heads in the sand.

 

Speaking up is the only way to work toward change.

Even more curious is how they even learned of this event in the first place.

I'm not quite sure how that's relevant?

 

Back on topic:

 

Josh, as you'll soon discover through the silence of TPTB, Groundspeak has walked away from the quality aspect of this hobby. They recognized long ago that the more caches there are in the world, the more $$$ they make. It's pretty simple math. I suspect this is the reason they asked their Reviewers to ignore the saturation guideline.

Link to comment

Wy does a cacher in Florida cares what some people in Ohio did at an event?

A better question is, why wouldn't a cacher in Florida care about what a group is doing in Ohio. The same could apply to a cacher in New Zealand, France or right next door. This is a global game, with global consequences. If we, (the collective 'We'), see behavior that we feel brings discredit to the game, even if said behavior is not technically a guideline violation, don't we have an obligation to at least question it?

 

Discredit to the game? Are you serious?

 

How does someone in Ohio logging an event cache six times bring discredit to the game of geocaching? How does it make the tiniest bit of difference to me playing the game here in London? How does it make the tiniest bit of difference to a person who logged an event in Ohio whether the person they sat beside and chatted over a beer logged the event once or 100 times?

 

Granted, not everyone is going to view a particular behavior as a negative. Obviously, there are some folks in Ohio who have no problem logging "Attended" dozens, if not hundreds of times, for the same event. But those of us who do believe such behavior is bad for the game should not shove our heads in the sand.

 

It would be nice to say how you think it's bad for the game.

 

Logging a cache more than once is entirely possible when it moves and changes in a way it's arguably a different cache. I've done it a few times now, I find a cache, the cache is muggled and later replaced with a new container in a new location anything up to 100 yards from the old one, so I figure it's a new cache and go find it again. If I'm revisiting the same cache in the same location to drop off a TB I'll write a note but others consider that they found it again and log another find.

 

I've been to find caches that I noticed the same person had logged multiple finds against. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the cycling to get to the cache, it didn't affect my enjoyment of finding the cache, it didn't affect my decision to leave a TB behind for the next person, it didn't affect anything at all aside from noticing the same name more than once on the logs section of the cache page.

 

Josh, as you'll soon discover through the silence of TPTB, Groundspeak has walked away from the quality aspect of this hobby. They recognized long ago that the more caches there are in the world, the more $$$ they make. It's pretty simple math. I suspect this is the reason they asked their Reviewers to ignore the saturation guideline.

 

I don't know if the saturation guideline had been relaxed but aside from that have to sadly agree here.

Link to comment

At the very least some kind of warning before logging a Find for the second time. It would solve the accidental and ignorant newbie logs, plus serve as a mild 'nag screen' deterrent against abusive multi logging. It's better than nothing.

 

One cache page, one Found/Attended. Sure, there are a few grandfathered old caches like the Brass Cap Virtuals that are still allowed. But those are exceptions remaining from the days of no permanence guideline, Virtuals & Webcams & Locationless & Moving Caches & Pocket Caches, and the ability to change you cache type after publication.

 

Let's try some thought experiments...

 

So I go to an event and find 10 temporary caches for the event. So I log Attended 11 times on the cache: once for the event and once for each cache. Of course, the caches weren't reviewed or published and probably ignored saturation rules, but I'm going to count them as caches. Also, the event lasted all day and included a BBQ lunch, a GPS accuracy test, a trivia contest, a photo scavenger hunt, and a Q&A session with the local reviewer. I was able to participate in all of those so I should log 5 more Attended logs for each sub-event.

 

Heck, while I'm at it, the next day I found a 10 stage multicache that has a physical container at each stage. So I guess I get to log Found it 10 times on the same cache?

 

Maybe I should hide a cache in the woods next to my house. Every day when I get home from work, I'll change the container and move the cache 5 feet to the next tree. Everyone is welcome to come there every day and log another find because, while the cache page is the same, the container and exact hiding spot have changed each day.

 

Heck, I think I'll start a new account called GreatestCacherInTheWorld. GCITW will publish a cache then then log a Find on it...500,000 times. (I'm sure my computer programmer friend can whip up a script to make it quick and easy.) Nothing wrong with that as long as the CO (me) allows it. GCITW now has 500,000 Finds and I can now thumb my nose at Alamogul's measly 83,000 Finds.

Link to comment

For various reasons debated too many times to count - I know this will not be implemented as an absolute 'rule' - however, a friendly reminder notice that "you previously logged a find on this cache on xxx date" would be welcomed.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly...

If I am, that already exists now.

Right above the map on the top right of the cache page (and close enough to "Log Your Visit" to notice) and reads "You logged this as Found on xx/xx/xxxx".

Link to comment

For various reasons debated too many times to count - I know this will not be implemented as an absolute 'rule' - however, a friendly reminder notice that "you previously logged a find on this cache on xxx date" would be welcomed.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly...

If I am, that already exists now.

Right above the map on the top right of the cache page (and close enough to "Log Your Visit" to notice) and reads "You logged this as Found on xx/xx/xxxx".

I meant at the point you are submitting a new find log.

Link to comment

...a friendly reminder notice that "you previously logged a find on this cache on xxx date" would be welcomed.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly...

If I am, that already exists now.

Right above the map on the top right of the cache page (and close enough to "Log Your Visit" to notice) and reads "You logged this as Found on xx/xx/xxxx".

While there is that, what some of us are envisioning is a warning on the "Log your visit" page. If you use field notes (which I do almost exclusively) or use the API via a smartphone app or GSAK, you won't be using the "Log your visit" link on the cache page and won't be going past that existing notice. What I'd like to see is if you select "Found it" (or equivalent) from the dropdown on the "Log your visit" page, attempt to convert a "Found it" field note into a log, or submit a "Found it" log through the API (ie. smartphone app, GSAK, etc.), a warning would appear stating that you've already found this cache and asking if you're sure that you want to log it as a find again. A previous discussion on this subject brought up the idea that this warning could only appear if the cache had been logged once and only once. Therefore, if you live in that part of the US Midwest and want to log an event many times, you'd only be presented with the warning once per cache listing.

Link to comment
So I go to an event and find 10 temporary caches for the event. So I log Attended 11 times on the cache: once for the event and once for each cache. Of course, the caches weren't reviewed or published and probably ignored saturation rules, but I'm going to count them as caches. Also, the event lasted all day and included a BBQ lunch, a GPS accuracy test, a trivia contest, a photo scavenger hunt, and a Q&A session with the local reviewer. I was able to participate in all of those so I should log 5 more Attended logs for each sub-event.

 

Heck, while I'm at it, the next day I found a 10 stage multicache that has a physical container at each stage. So I guess I get to log Found it 10 times on the same cache?

 

Maybe I should hide a cache in the woods next to my house. Every day when I get home from work, I'll change the container and move the cache 5 feet to the next tree. Everyone is welcome to come there every day and log another find because, while the cache page is the same, the container and exact hiding spot have changed each day.

 

Heck, I think I'll start a new account called GreatestCacherInTheWorld. GCITW will publish a cache then then log a Find on it...500,000 times. (I'm sure my computer programmer friend can whip up a script to make it quick and easy.) Nothing wrong with that as long as the CO (me) allows it. GCITW now has 500,000 Finds and I can now thumb my nose at Alamogul's measly 83,000 Finds.

 

If you log 500,000 finds against the same cache that you own it still doesn't change the game for me one bit. I regard my find count as the number of different caches I've found, using my own definition of "different".

 

Comparing my find count to yours is meaningless anyway, perhaps one of us likes power trails and finding 500 film pots on a guard rail in a day where the other likes long hikes that lead to a single ammo can in the woods. So if you log a Find log every day because you wandered past the same cache every day and checked it was there, what of it? It's not like there's a prize for chalking up big numbers and the fact you logged finds on the same cache 927 times doesn't make it any more or less enjoyable for me if I find the same cache.

 

Or, put another way, my enjoyment of the game isn't affected in any way at all by the number listed under your name if I ever come across it. I might marvel at the folks with tens of thousands of finds but if I wanted to cache to the exclusion of all else I could probably do much the same thing in time. All it means is they found more caches than I did, whether that means they found 10 times as many different caches as I did or just logged the same caches dozens of times makes no difference to me at all.

 

If you feel that having 500,000 finds to your name will make you a better person go ahead and ask your friend to write you a script.

Link to comment

Wy does a cacher in Florida cares what some people in Ohio did at an event?

A better question is, why wouldn't a cacher in Florida care about what a group is doing in Ohio. The same could apply to a cacher in New Zealand, France or right next door. This is a global game, with global consequences. If we, (the collective 'We'), see behavior that we feel brings discredit to the game, even if said behavior is not technically a guideline violation, don't we have an obligation to at least question it?

 

Granted, not everyone is going to view a particular behavior as a negative.

I'm at a lost to understand how the local practice of some in Ohio of logging temporary cache brings discredit to the game.

 

When I tell a muggle about geocaching they mostly ask "What to you get when you find the cache?" I generally respond nothing. I would guess that if I said I got a smiley point for logging it one line I would get a lot of strange looks.

 

Perhaps if I said that, their next question would be "What keeps people from logging smiley points online for caches they didn't find?"

 

I could respond "Nothing" or "It's on the honor system" and admit that the points really don't matter. I suppose I could also responde that "The rules say I can't log the cache unless I found it, and the website keeps me from logging my own caches ore one that I've already logged."

 

My guess is that a muggle would just shake their head and wonder how any one could take this game so seriously that they've made into getting the most imaginary points. I suspect most muggles assume that you find caches and if you want to log about online then you post a log. Who would even care that some people log temporary caches or perhaps even ones they didn't find.

 

One cache page, one Found/Attended.

Feel free to make up your own rules. When I play Monopoly and if you land on Free Parking you get the money.

 

I don't particular see the point. I actually think the game would be better if people logged a second find when the return to a cache they found before. At least the last found date would get updated so I would know that the cache is still there. I kinda see where some of these events get silly with people logging TFTTC 100 times for each temporary cache they found, but hey if people want to act silly, I say let them.

 

Let's try some thought experiments...

 

So I go to an event and find 10 temporary caches for the event. So I log Attended 11 times on the cache: once for the event and once for each cache. Of course, the caches weren't reviewed or published and probably ignored saturation rules, but I'm going to count them as caches. Also, the event lasted all day and included a BBQ lunch, a GPS accuracy test, a trivia contest, a photo scavenger hunt, and a Q&A session with the local reviewer. I was able to participate in all of those so I should log 5 more Attended logs for each sub-event.

 

Heck, while I'm at it, the next day I found a 10 stage multicache that has a physical container at each stage. So I guess I get to log Found it 10 times on the same cache?

 

Maybe I should hide a cache in the woods next to my house. Every day when I get home from work, I'll change the container and move the cache 5 feet to the next tree. Everyone is welcome to come there every day and log another find because, while the cache page is the same, the container and exact hiding spot have changed each day.

 

Heck, I think I'll start a new account called GreatestCacherInTheWorld. GCITW will publish a cache then then log a Find on it...500,000 times. (I'm sure my computer programmer friend can whip up a script to make it quick and easy.) Nothing wrong with that as long as the CO (me) allows it. GCITW now has 500,000 Finds and I can now thumb my nose at Alamogul's measly 83,000 Finds.

I don't see an endless slippery slope. People tend to log multiple finds or attended only to the degree that the local community accepts this. While some of your examples might be acceptable in some locations, I doubt very much that there is anyplace where anything goes.

 

In my thought experiment, feel free to create your GreatestCacherInTheWorldAccount. Do you seriously want me to believe you (or anyone else) is going to sit for however long it takes to enter 500,000 logs when they could be out actually finding caches? Ok, maybe someone is that sick. Do you seriously believe that Groundspeak wouldn't step in and ban the account long before it gets to 50,000?

 

The site will already tell you someone's distinct count, so whatever they logged multiple times can be ignored, if you must. You can't really compare two differnt players find counts anyhow. Some people like doing power-trails and others aren't happy unless they are nipple deep in an aligator infested swamp. Some attend lots of events, some never attend an event or don't log Attended if they do. So what if some people log an event 50 times or if they log the cache on the top of the mountain everytime they hike up it? The point of geocaching is to have fun. If someone else is logging finds that you personally wouldn't count, and it is bothering you enough to keep you from having fun, maybe you need to find a different hobby. Someone suggested the one where you scan QR codes on your cell phone and it checks that you are at the location of the QR code and only lets you scan it once.

Link to comment

 

Jeremy suggested that the simple solution to this awful loss would be to place the temps, hand out coords at the event, and cachers could find 'em and log 'em against the event.

 

And so it has been ever after. Happily happily.

 

I find the practise weird, but If Jeremy says it's OK, then there's nothing more to be said.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

 

Jeremy suggested that the simple solution to this awful loss would be to place the temps, hand out coords at the event, and cachers could find 'em and log 'em against the event.

 

And so it has been ever after. Happily happily.

 

I find the practise weird, but If Jeremy says it's OK, then there's nothing more to be said.

Just so you know Jeremy thinks the practice is weird too. (Silly is the word I think he used).

 

Jeremy is not the one ultimately decides things like this. Certainly it his web site and he will make decisions based on what grows the game and his business. If enough cachers made a serious case for why the site shouldn't allow this and he felt people were leaving Geocaching.com over this, he could change his mind.

 

The community for the most part decides what the norms are, and so far the puritans have done a pretty good job of convincing most people to log each cache found only one time. In some locations the practice of logging a find or attended more than once seems to be allowed, but still limited to specific cases. Even in some areas where this is popular, there are many cachers who don't do it and some event owners who don't allow it.

 

Groundspeak likely doesn't see need to prevent people from leaving multiple logs, since there are a few exceptions that are at least locally the norm, and those who don't want to log more than once can't be forced to. The current system allows both players who find OK to log a cache twice and those who are appalled by it.

 

Groundspeak has decided that other practices are abusive and not in their interest to allow. Couch potato logs of virtual caches have been declared as something cache owners must delete or risk their virtual cache getting archived. Pocket caches brought to events have been locked and archived. I would never assume that just because Jeremy said something in the past that everything has been said.

Link to comment

I still think this is something that should be controlled by CO's on a per cache basis by way of an option on the cache listng. Simply add another field on the cache listing form that let's the CO specify how many logs per user to allow with the default being 1 for new caches, no limit (but changeable) for existing caches. This way, if a cache or event is being listed and the CO wants to allow extras (as I allow with my calendar challenge for also filling the leap day space) then the CO can control that.

Link to comment

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to log a Found or Attended multiple times.

 

You find the cache once. Subsequent visits should be a Note. More common than someone who doesn't know better is a glitch from a smartphone app where the app has logged the Find but doesn't realize it so the cacher submits the log multiple times unaware they've multi-logged a cache.

 

With Events, multiple Attended logs are sometimes in error. More often it an abusive issue. For instance, the event CO may place temporary unlisted caches that ignore proximity and other guidelines then allow attendees to log an Attended for each temporary cache they find! This should not be permitted. Great examples: http://coord.info/GC3Q2YF & http://coord.info/GC24CJR

 

Therefore, the site should prevent people from logging multiple Found/Attended logs on a single cache page. If they try they can get a nice error message explaining they have already logged the cache.

Link to comment

I just recenty found out about this and am frankly saddened to hear that some cachers with large numbers of finds in their stats practice this. I skews the rankings in their favor! I've put this out there on FB and the consensus is that they are against the practice.

Link to comment

I just recenty found out about this and am frankly saddened to hear that some cachers with large numbers of finds in their stats practice this. I skews the rankings in their favor! I've put this out there on FB and the consensus is that they are against the practice.

That's were the problem lies.

If there was no such thing as "rankings", with people believing that finds are "points", the issue you're saddened by possibly wouldn't be happening.

Link to comment

I dunno...just seems to me if they're going to put that number right by your name and all over your profile, they ought to at least set up some way of making it an accurate indicator of just how many distinct caches you've found. I don't care about "points" or "rankings", but it's kind of a big joke for someone (let's say user 'bo bo' for instance, since she is one of the examples given) to have 6000+ caches by their name when they really may have only found 5000+. What is the real point of the number at all if it's so easy to artificially inflate it?

 

Honestly, I'd think some of the "old timers" might be slightly put off by the "n00bs" playing the numbers game when they didn't really earn all those finds. That being said, cache owners perhaps need to take more responsibility for policing their online logs and deleting duplicates.

Link to comment

Saw this thread linked elsewhere by mmacgown. A very interesting read throughout all the replies thus far. While I mostly don't agree with multi-logging, I also feel there are exceptions. Temporary caches are not one of them, IMO, and should be left at that: temporary; not an official find. The "distinct finds" calculation, in turn, becomes a true representation of single finds, if policing other user's stats is your cup of tea. I'll admit I do enjoy the comparison of my stats to others, proudly turning the pages of my own history book to reflect on prior accomplishments; but critiquing the way other people play the game is not on my agenda either... I'd rather be out getting lost in the woods :D

 

+1 for cache owners being the ultimate regulators of what happens on their listings

+1 for implementing a friendly reminder if a multiple log attempt is detected

+1 for my favorite saying: it's a hobby, not a sport

Link to comment

When I first heard about this practice I thought it to be rather silly. Or perhaps a word that goes beyond silly. I still do. But as others point out it does not affect me in the slightest other to make me think I would probably not be interested in going to an event where numbers seem to be the primary focus. That, and giving me reason to consider that if I ever placed a challenge cache based on events I would have to take that into account.

 

Still, since Groundspeak has chosen to put numbers by each account name I would probably give that as much meaning as finding a film canister every 528 feet deserves. So if it was technically feasible I would limit events to a single "attended." It might make the game easier to explain to those who look at it from the outside. Or at least seem a little less silly.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

So if it was technically feasible I would limit events to a single "attended." It might make the game easier to explain to those who look at it from the outside. Or at least seem a little less silly.

If people looking at the "game" from the outside, see that the there is some need to keep "score", then they might find the practice of multiple finds/attended odd. My guess is that most people would find it silly to keep score of the Tupperware containers you find in the woods, even if only log each one time.

Link to comment

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to log a Found or Attended multiple times.

 

...

 

Therefore, the site should prevent people from logging multiple Found/Attended logs on a single cache page. If they try they can get a nice error message explaining they have already logged the cache.

 

Thank you, but plaase do not take away my nine duplicate finds! Or I will smack your hand! Two, I think, were on moving caches. One had moved seventy-five miles between my finds. This is generally considered acceptable. Some were on locationless caches where the goal changed. One week it was find a statue of a dog that no one else logged. Then it changed to find and photograph a live turkey. Again, considered acceptable to log the same cache but a different goal. Then there was the great unkown series with goals that changed. Take a photo with this object. The Mandan turtle statue. Next time: take a photo of that object. The large cat statue on the roof of a building in Jersey City. As te objective changed, a new opportunity arose to log a new find.

I am proud of these finds. I found the same cache number, but not the same cache. Most of those are long gone, but the moving caches still exist. Sorry if you do not like this. But it was acceptable.

I would never log the same cache container twice. And I would certainly not claim that I attended the same event for each non-published temporary cache. I thought that that was why GS change the log from 'found' to 'attended'? You attended the same event how many times?!?

Link to comment

Seems OK for present and future caches, but in the past there were legitimate duplicate logs. I have 16 which were from a recurring monthly event that was listed under the same GC# for a couple years. It still goes on today but under a different code each month. I do see lots of duplicate logs that appear to be "honest" mistakes. Some get deleted within a couple days, but some never do. The idea of a warning page to catch these accidental extra logs deserves some thought.

Edited by edscott
Link to comment

In my opinion, there's no reason to allow logging the same cache multiple times, with an exception of these grandfathered caches. It should be blocked by default and if there's a real reason to allow multiple logs, reviewers could have the right to do so. The cache count doesn't mean much and can't be used to compare cachers' experience, but allowing to log the same cache that is still the same is a bit weird.

Most people log twice by accident or because of multiple visits. If the cache has to be changed significantly, then it's not the same cache anymore and should be reviewed again (e.g. changing a T2 cache into T5). If one visits an already found cache again, the solution could be to have a "repeated visit" log type.

For events, I think one log per event is sufficient. Events are meant to be fun and not a cache-count hunt. It would be much nicer to simply write "I found 20 caches on this event" than writing 20 separate logs just to get the points.

I¨m not much into collecting points; longer caches that take me to interesting places are what makes Geocaching so great. Collecting points is OK but multiple logging just for getting points is an extreme. While GC is mostly about honour, it's not a reason to have flaws in the system.

Link to comment

In my opinion, there's no reason to allow logging the same cache multiple times, with an exception of these grandfathered caches.

 

I daresay you need a bit more experience.

 

Hiders use extra find logs for incentives for CITO and other things, rewards for going beyond the bare minimum requirements for challenges, and other uses. The ability for multiple logging has its uses. If seekers choose not to take the extra smilies, that's perfectly fine, but individual preferences does not mean they should be banned across the board.

 

Yet again I will beat my drum that this is something that should be set by cache owners in the cache listing. At the time of listing a CO should be able to say if they want to allow more than 1 log (which would be the default) and, if so, how many.

Link to comment
The cache count doesn't mean much and can't be used to compare cachers' experience...

 

You should just stop right there. That's the whole gist of this discussion.

 

My number of finds is meaningless to anyone but me. Adding/changing functionality to try and bring more meaning to a meaningless number isn't really worth the effort.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...