Etiquette question: logging your own caches after they've been adopted?

9.3k · July 2, 2013

- event attendances shouldn't be counted as finds!

I agree whole heartedly. For me, a cache is a container, at a set of coordinates, with a log to sign. I don't consider sitting in a pub eating hot wings to be a cache, nor a sinkhole in the middle of a forest, or a plaque along a roafway, or a digital video camera hooked to the Internet, or the act of cleaning up litter. But I am not the one running Groundspeak. In the examples listed above, I have selected what I felt was the appropriate log type, and Groundspeak counted that toward my total cache finds.

]
I've been out to check on my caches only to find that some were either out of place or i just couldn't remember where i had placed them originally. I also helped hide a couple of caches under my daughter's name, where on a maintenance visit or two, found that someone had moved the containers. A search had to be performed to locate our own hides. I would never consider logging any of these as found.

Nothing wrong with that.

Just don't assume that such a belief system is an absolute truism.

10.1k · July 2, 2013

Hey there! I looked around and searched but couldn't find anything on this.

I have created three caches in my time, but you wouldn't know it now, because they've all been adopted out. (I moved overseas for a while, and although I'm back, I'm not planning to take the caches back just now.)

What would the etiquette be on logging my own previous hides as finds? I wish there were some way of demonstrating that I created caches even if I don't currently own them, but since there's not, can I at least log them as finds? I mean, there's no difficulty there...I know where they are...but is it fair for me to log them? I ask mainly because I have kept an eye on the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread over the years, and I shudder to think of appearing there!

Thanks!

Not that I've adopted any caches, or adopted out any, but I wouldn't. We all laugh at the former local cacher who had a lot of evil mystery caches. He has come back a few times, and logged his previously owned caches. That's just cheesy.

On the other fin, my caching partner and I work together on most of my hides. Poor Bear has sixty or so caches on his 'nearby list' that he was instrumental in hiding, but are in my name. He has no interest in logging them. Cheesy. He has one cache in his name. I will not log it. We worked on it together.

ou may log them if you wish... But: Cheesy.

1.7k · July 2, 2013

- event attendances shouldn't be counted as finds!

I agree whole heartedly. For me, a cache is a container, at a set of coordinates, with a log to sign. I don't consider sitting in a pub eating hot wings to be a cache, nor a sinkhole in the middle of a forest, or a plaque along a roafway, or a digital video camera hooked to the Internet, or the act of cleaning up litter. But I am not the one running Groundspeak. In the examples listed above, I have selected what I felt was the appropriate log type, and Groundspeak counted that toward my total cache finds.

Groundspeak don't have any rules about logging your own challenge caches. It's down to general consensus. I've seen CO's do it, and others not do it. I haven't done it and won't do it, because the general consensus currently is not to do it. If consensus changed, I might do it, but not to pad the numbers because I honestly couldn't care less about the numbers (if I did, I would have found more than the 20 or so I did last month).

Incidentally though, just because there is a log type there for attending an event, doesn't mean you as the event owner should use it. That's simply an argument for logging your own caches as well - that because you can and it will count on your finds, you should.

Edited July 2, 2013 by funkymunkyzone

9.3k · July 2, 2013

Incidentally though, just because there is a log type there for attending an event, doesn't mean you as the event owner should use it. That's simply an argument for logging your own caches as well - that because you can and it will count on your finds, you should.

Actually, it's an argument for using the most accurate log type.

If I owned a challenge cache, many would argue that logging a "Found It!" simply because I completed whatever challenge I set up would be using an inaccurate log type, as I could not "Find" a cache if I already knew where it was. With an event that I host, since I did, in fact, attend it, then using the "Attended" log type would be the most accurate. The fact that it counts toward my total finds is inconsequential.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Clan Riffster

1.7k · July 3, 2013

Incidentally though, just because there is a log type there for attending an event, doesn't mean you as the event owner should use it. That's simply an argument for logging your own caches as well - that because you can and it will count on your finds, you should.

Actually, it's an argument for using the most accurate log type.

If I owned a challenge cache, many would argue that logging a "Found It!" simply because I completed whatever challenge I set up would be using an inaccurate log type, as I could not "Find" a cache if I already knew where it was. With an event that I host, since I did, in fact, attend it, then using the "Attended" log type would be the most accurate. The fact that it counts toward my total finds is inconsequential.

I understand - it was more that you seemed to be arguing that you felt it was innapropriate to include events, CITOs, webcams in your "find count" but you were just shrugging your shoulders "what can I do, I'm not Groundspeak". I'm simply pointing out there is something you can do if you honestly feel those shouldn't be counted as cache finds - just don't log them, write notes instead.

Instead, the feeling I get is a kind of wishy washy "I did what was intended in order for the cache find to count" - meaning I found the trad, I attended the event and/or picked up rubbish, or I arranged to have the webcam take a picture of me. All I'm suggesting is that the essence of the challenge was more about the, perhaps, hundreds/thousands of cache finds required to complete the challenge, rather than the, perhaps, finding the park 'n' grab final at the end.

I don't disagree that the general consensus is currently not to log your own challenge when you complete it, but like changing the "found it" log on events to "attended" things can and do change, sometimes from executive decisions, and sometimes because of changes in people's opinions.

I'm not for a moment suggesting you're all wrong for seeing challenge caches the way you do, but I honestly don't fully understand why the arbitrary line is drawn where it is. Perhaps if challenge caches were a different type and treated more like an event....

9.3k · July 3, 2013

I'm not for a moment suggesting you're all wrong for seeing challenge caches the way you do,

I think that's key to this debate.

Since Groundspeak has elected not to weigh in, officially, on the issue, any and all opinions are perfectly valid. Log 'em as finds. Log 'em as notes. Don't log 'em at all. All are okay. It's when one person hops on the proverbial soapbox, telling others how the game must be played that problems arise. Like you, I'll follow the herd on this issue.

1.7k · July 3, 2013

I'm not for a moment suggesting you're all wrong for seeing challenge caches the way you do,

I think that's key to this debate.

Since Groundspeak has elected not to weigh in, officially, on the issue, any and all opinions are perfectly valid. Log 'em as finds. Log 'em as notes. Don't log 'em at all. All are okay. It's when one person hops on the proverbial soapbox, telling others how the game must be played that problems arise. Like you, I'll follow the herd on this issue.

Yeah, don't mind me - I just habitually (annoyingly) question the placement of arbitrary lines. Or more accurately why some will defend and justify to their dying breath the precise position of an arbitrary line.

7.9k · July 4, 2013

"To thine own self be true," says Polonius in Hamlet.

I will look to the herd for some guidance, but if my muse says 'graze on the mountaintop' while the rest of the herd grazes in the valley...then by golly I'm heading up the mountain!

July 7, 2013

What would the etiquette be on logging my own previous hides as finds?

If you have to ask, then answer is probably 'poor'.

I ask mainly because I have kept an eye on the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread over the years, and I shudder to think of appearing there!

That's the best thread in the forums.

I wouldn't do it. How could I "find" something if I know where it is?

Agreed.

How much are three smileys really worth to you?

Go find three other caches and feel better about it.

1.7k · July 7, 2013

How much are three smileys really worth to you?

Go find three other caches and feel better about it.

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

7.5k · July 7, 2013

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

I actually think it's healthy to be forced to consider from time to time whether you want to claim a find simply because it's a find. The proper response isn't to be annoying, but rather to think about it and decided whether or not your motives really are different.

For example, "clearing unfound caches" might easily be just about the numbers when you really think about it. An unfound box on the map might be seen as a blot against a quest for perfection. After all, if that's not it, what's the big deal about seeing a cache on the map that you know personally? Are you thinking the original owner is 1) going to be looking at this area regularly, and 2) not remembering that that cache used to be his?

1.7k · July 7, 2013

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

I actually think it's healthy to be forced to consider from time to time whether you want to claim a find simply because it's a find. The proper response isn't to be annoying, but rather to think about it and decided whether or not your motives really are different.

For example, "clearing unfound caches" might easily be just about the numbers when you really think about it. An unfound box on the map might be seen as a blot against a quest for perfection. After all, if that's not it, what's the big deal about seeing a cache on the map that you know personally? Are you thinking the original owner is 1) going to be looking at this area regularly, and 2) not remembering that that cache used to be his?

If someone is motivated simply to "clear the map" within a radius from home, I would suggest it is unlikely to have anything to do with numbers. One could have 1000 within 50 miles from home, or one could have 50 within that same distance... the number of caches is not relevant.

July 7, 2013

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

That one icon on the map in a sea of smileys getting on your nerves?

Get rid of it by placing it on your ignore list.

I made no accusations back there. The OP asked a question and I gave my opinion.

There must be better things to do than watching forum discussions waiting for a chance to chime in as being offended.

(Hint: That was an accusation)

1.7k · July 7, 2013

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

That one icon on the map in a sea of smileys getting on your nerves?

Get rid of it by placing it on your ignore list.

I made no accusations back there. The OP asked a question and I gave my opinion.

There must be better things to do than watching forum discussions waiting for a chance to chime in as being offended.

(Hint: That was an accusation)

Offended? Me? Hehe - no. Sorry to disappoint.

I stand by what I said. It *might* be all about the numbers for you, given you brought up the value of 3 smileys and that they should go find 3 others and feel better about them (meaning it's the 3 find points that are most important), but the OP never suggested it was for them.

With regards any smileys on the map getting on my nerves - no not at all, but then this isn't about me. For the OP - I don't know, but we all play the game differently and no one's motivations are any more or less valid, including whether or not it's all abut the numbers.

What I was referring to as annoying is the projection onto people of it being "all about the numbers" for them, and the implication that this is in some way a bad way to play the game.

Edited July 7, 2013 by funkymunkyzone

10.2k · July 7, 2013

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

That one icon on the map in a sea of smileys getting on your nerves?

Get rid of it by placing it on your ignore list.

I made no accusations back there. The OP asked a question and I gave my opinion.

There must be better things to do than watching forum discussions waiting for a chance to chime in as being offended.

(Hint: That was an accusation)

Proof that almost no one uses the ignore list, or even knows how it works. Otherwise, their wouldn't even be a discussion here. Put it on your ignore list, and it's as if it never even existed. Anywhere on the website. Even if someone else finds it, and you're looking at their profile, you won't even see it in their finds, as if it never existed. Brilliant, eh?

1.7k · July 7, 2013

Proof that almost no one uses the ignore list, or even knows how it works. Otherwise, their wouldn't even be a discussion here. Put it on your ignore list, and it's as if it never even existed. Anywhere on the website. Even if someone else finds it, and you're looking at their profile, you won't even see it in their finds, as if it never existed. Brilliant, eh?

Ok - I'll bite, but I'll put this in context by establishing that I'm personally not at all interested in clearing my map.

If one of my motivations in geocaching was to clear my map within a certain radius from home, then I'd consider using the ignore list to be cheating myself at my own goal. Basically, I can't find cache x so I ignore it and *pretend* it's not there. I might see an empty map, but I'd know there are actually a couple of caches there, hidden.

You're probably right that almost no one uses the ignore list though. I have caches I could put on the ignore list as I'll never attempt them, but personally I have no trouble ignoring a cache without actually trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

10.2k · July 8, 2013

Proof that almost no one uses the ignore list, or even knows how it works. Otherwise, their wouldn't even be a discussion here. Put it on your ignore list, and it's as if it never even existed. Anywhere on the website. Even if someone else finds it, and you're looking at their profile, you won't even see it in their finds, as if it never existed. Brilliant, eh?

Ok - I'll bite, but I'll put this in context by establishing that I'm personally not at all interested in clearing my map.

If one of my motivations in geocaching was to clear my map within a certain radius from home, then I'd consider using the ignore list to be cheating myself at my own goal. Basically, I can't find cache x so I ignore it and *pretend* it's not there. I might see an empty map, but I'd know there are actually a couple of caches there, hidden.

You're probably right that almost no one uses the ignore list though. I have caches I could put on the ignore list as I'll never attempt them, but personally I have no trouble ignoring a cache without actually trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I seriously doubt there are many people out there who are interested in clearing their map. But the like 1% of Geocachers out there who want to probably think that almost everyone wants to do it. :laughing:

Speaking of 1%, I'd never find the link, but one of the times people were whining about an ignore all caches by a player enhancement, one of the Groundspeak Lackey's got frustrated, and stated that that's about the percentage of Premium Members who use the ignore list. :blink: Personally, I only know a handful of people who do. And a couple of them only have a couple impossible puzzles or Challenge caches on it.

1.7k · July 8, 2013

I seriously doubt there are many people out there who are interested in clearing their map.

I know some for whom clearing the map is a motivator and whether there are many others isn't the point. For some others, it's about racking up the finds, and for others it's about challenging themselves to visit amazing places that are difficult to get to. Everyone plays the game their own way for themselves, with their own goals and motivations.

But the like 1% of Geocachers out there who want to probably think that almost everyone wants to do it.

Interesting that you should suggest that probably so few geocachers out there would want to play the game for a different reason than you do - do you think almost everyone wants to play the same as you?

Edited July 8, 2013 by funkymunkyzone

7.5k · July 8, 2013

If someone is motivated simply to "clear the map" within a radius from home, I would suggest it is unlikely to have anything to do with numbers.

It's about the number zero.

7.9k · July 8, 2013

If someone is motivated simply to "clear the map" within a radius from home, I would suggest it is unlikely to have anything to do with numbers.

It's about the number zero.

BINGO!

1.7k · July 8, 2013

If someone is motivated simply to "clear the map" within a radius from home, I would suggest it is unlikely to have anything to do with numbers.

It's about the number zero.

Nice

Of course, however, there's a big difference between trying to keep your unfounds to 0 and trying to find every cache out there in order to rack up the numbers. One of those has a find count ceiling beyond which a "map clearer" doesn't really care - they're not out to find more than others, but rather their goal is entirely personal, based on their home coords.

7.5k · July 8, 2013

Of course, however, there's a big difference between trying to keep your unfounds to 0 and trying to find every cache out there in order to rack up the numbers. One of those has a find count ceiling beyond which a "map clearer" doesn't really care - they're not out to find more than others, but rather their goal is entirely personal, based on their home coords.

The original comment was asking why this find was important when there are other caches to be found. I think that's a valid point regardless of whether the goal is public glory or private perfection.

1.7k · July 8, 2013

The original comment was asking why this find was important when there are other caches to be found. I think that's a valid point regardless of whether the goal is public glory or private perfection.

I thought the answer to that was self-explanatory. *If* the goal was to clear the map and this unfound cache was sitting there then the importance is to turn it into a found cache, regardless of the number it added to the find count.

5k · July 9, 2013

The original comment was asking why this find was important when there are other caches to be found. I think that's a valid point regardless of whether the goal is public glory or private perfection.

I thought the answer to that was self-explanatory. *If* the goal was to clear the map and this unfound cache was sitting there then the importance is to turn it into a found cache, regardless of the number it added to the find count.

I believe that the OP's concern was seeing only smileys on the map. removing the caches through the ignore list was an option that she was not aware of.

What's sad is the way that some people immediately began assigning motivations that she obviously did not have. I don't think that it was ever about the numbers.

I personally have no desire to go into people's front yards, climb trees or crawl under newspaper racks, so I put those caches on my ignore list. When I look at my map, I see caches that I own, caches that I have found and caches that I may find in the future. I do not see caches that I have absolutely no intention of ever looking for. If I was in a situation where etiquette prevented me from posting a found log on a cache, I would treat it the same way and simply hide it from the map.

Etiquette question: logging your own caches after they've been adopted?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation