logging multiple finds on one cache

[+Rustynails]

I was looking over cache GC28A41 doing some research for another challenge and noticed many people logging multiple finds. One logged 190 finds on this cache. I guess one more way to get the numbers.

[+Walts Hunting]

I didn't see anyone with 190 but one in the high 80's. Seems like it is encouraged in the description.

 

This cache is at the listed coordinates. You may find the cache and sign the log whenever it is convenient for you, but you cannot log the cache as a find until you have completed the challenge.

 

In order to complete this challenge you must find (or have found) caches of room104's that begin with each letter of the alphabet. For example, you must have found at least one cache that begins with the letter "A," such as "Arthur Read," one that begins with the letter "B," such as "Big Bang Theory," and so on. If a cache starts with "A" or "The," then it will be alphabetized as "A" and "T." Caches beginning with numbers or symbols do not count.

 

Any caches that you have ever found or will find of room104's count for this challenge - even caches that have since been archived. There is no control date for this challenge. Additionally, if you are able to complete the alphabet again using completely different caches from your first list, you may log this cache as a find again, given you sign the log again. It is possible for a person to complete this challenge multiple times using different caches, thereby getting multiple finds on this cache.

 

Please create a list of the 26 A-Z caches you've found of room104's. A bookmark list is an excellent way to do this. You may also include your list in your log by including the GC code for each of the caches.

[+Don_J]

I wonder if the guy has signed the log 190 times? The whole thing seems a bit silly to me.

 

I remember when a visiting cacher placed a nearby cache with a maintenance plan with a local cacher. If you found the cache, you can post a find. If you upload a photo of you doing a Yoga pose at GZ, you could log a second find. I guess this may have been common in her area but she got a lot of, "We don't do that these here parts" logs. Many posted Yoga photos just for fun and took their single smiley.

[+briansnat]

Geocaching is getting strangerer and strangerer. It never ceases to amaze me the things the numbers hounds come up with for another smiley or a dozen or two.

Edited September 25, 2013 by briansnat

[+lamoracke]

All we need are two offsetting challenge caches which allow you to log a find if you find any cache with the word challenge in it before hand. One person can just log each one back to back to 100,000 finds. Found A. Found B. Found A. Found B. Etc etc.

Edited September 25, 2013 by lamoracke

[+Mirage Breton]

On the subject of unwillingly logging twice a cache.

It happened to me lately and I kept seeing in the stats: "found x caches including x-1 containers".

I was puzzled and didn't know on which cache I had made the mistake.

Then I found that on GC-Project, you have a duplicate cache function. It then shows you exactly which cache is logged twice so you can delete one log. Cool!

[+dprovan]

All we need are two offsetting challenge caches which allow you to log a find if you find any cache with the word challenge in it before hand. One person can just log each one back to back to 100,000 finds. Found A. Found B. Found A. Found B. Etc etc.

I don't see why you'd need two. Once you qualify for the challenge, you find the challenge cache. Hey! You just qualified for the challenge again, so you could find the same challenge cache again. Hey! You just...

[+lamoracke]

All we need are two offsetting challenge caches which allow you to log a find if you find any cache with the word challenge in it before hand. One person can just log each one back to back to 100,000 finds. Found A. Found B. Found A. Found B. Etc etc.

I don't see why you'd need two. Once you qualify for the challenge, you find the challenge cache. Hey! You just qualified for the challenge again, so you could find the same challenge cache again. Hey! You just...

 

I foresaw getting around a rule that you could not use the cache you are logging as the cache you are qualifying for. Either way, an infinity loop.

[Blue Square Thing]

I don't see why you'd need two. Once you qualify for the challenge, you find the challenge cache. Hey! You just qualified for the challenge again, so you could find the same challenge cache again. Hey! You just...

 

I foresaw getting around a rule that you could not use the cache you are logging as the cache you are qualifying for. Either way, an infinity loop.

Ah, yes, but the recursive nature of dprovan's solution is more elegant don't you think ;-)

[+bflentje]

I was looking over cache GC28A41 doing some research for another challenge and noticed many people logging multiple finds. One logged 190 finds on this cache. I guess one more way to get the numbers.

 

That's funny, I was told by our local MN reviewers that you can't have a challenge that is based on finds by one specific hider. This is just another example of the inconsistencies that irritate those of us that like to hide.

[+cheech gang]

I was looking over cache GC28A41 doing some research for another challenge and noticed many people logging multiple finds. One logged 190 finds on this cache. I guess one more way to get the numbers.

 

That's funny, I was told by our local MN reviewers that you can't have a challenge that is based on finds by one specific hider. This is just another example of the inconsistencies that irritate those of us that like to hide.

 

From guidelines

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published

 

But the challenge that is referenced is from 2010, before this particular guideline was written..

Edited September 25, 2013 by cheech gang

[+CanadianRockies]

I was looking over cache GC28A41 doing some research for another challenge and noticed many people logging multiple finds. One logged 190 finds on this cache. I guess one more way to get the numbers.

 

That's funny, I was told by our local MN reviewers that you can't have a challenge that is based on finds by one specific hider. This is just another example of the inconsistencies that irritate those of us that like to hide.

 

From guidelines

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published

 

But the challenge that is referenced is from 2010, before this particular guideline was written..

And because of that, it was grandfathered. From farther down the guidelines:

 

Note: Challenge geocaches published prior to the guideline update 3/12/12 are grandfathered into the game and do not need to comply with current guidelines.

[+ChileHead]

Geocaching is getting strangerer and strangerer. It never ceases to amaze me the things the numbers hounds come up with for another smiley or a dozen or two.

 

There are regional difference obviously in how everybody plays. It used to be common in my area at some of the larger events to log temporary event caches, but that has gone out of favor. But it's still common in other areas.

 

I don't personally agree with multiple logging of any cache or event, and if it makes you happy then whatever. An event like the following:

http://coord.info/GC2BVC3

where everybody logs the event hundreds of times seems over the top (over 10,000 logs on that event), but I've seen similar events in other areas. I'm making no judgement on people that want to play that way ... just pointing out that it seems to be a regional thing on what is and isn't accepted.

 

I like to have my total # finds equal my total # unique caches found. Every once in a while I'll notice they are off by one or two, then I have to go find the offending log, usually cause by an erroneous phone log.

[+M 5]

I was looking over cache GC28A41 doing some research for another challenge and noticed many people logging multiple finds. One logged 190 finds on this cache. I guess one more way to get the numbers.

 

That's funny, I was told by our local MN reviewers that you can't have a challenge that is based on finds by one specific hider. This is just another example of the inconsistencies that irritate those of us that like to hide.

 

From guidelines

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published

 

But the challenge that is referenced is from 2010, before this particular guideline was written..

And because of that, it was grandfathered. From farther down the guidelines:

 

Note: Challenge geocaches published prior to the guideline update 3/12/12 are grandfathered into the game and do not need to comply with current guidelines.

 

That particular guideline was well before the 3-12-12 date listed above. I don't know the actual date, but I know of 2 caches published in november of 2010 that were in violation of that guideline, (I remember when they were published, and knew they slipped them through) someone must have complained and they were then archived in march of 2011 for that reason.

Edited September 25, 2013 by M 5

[+ArcherDragoon]

...

Edited September 26, 2013 by ArcherDragoon

[JASTA 11]

A new low in the lameness that geocaching has become.

 

[+niraD]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

[+ras_oscar]

On the subject of unwillingly logging twice a cache.

It happened to me lately and I kept seeing in the stats: "found x caches including x-1 containers".

I was puzzled and didn't know on which cache I had made the mistake.

Then I found that on GC-Project, you have a duplicate cache function. It then shows you exactly which cache is logged twice so you can delete one log. Cool!

You can also do that if you have GSAK. Download your finds log to a separate database and sort by fcount. The multiples will rise to the top.

[+baloo&bd]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
to comply with forum guidelines

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

I'm not sure what might have led you to that conclusion but for me that's certainly not true. I have a rather large collection of souvenirs primarily from the US States and countries in which I've found a cache. I actually avoided the 31 days in August souvenirs as much as I could (but since I found caches in 3 new states in August I couldn't avoid them completely). In the past four years I've logged fewer than 100 finds each year. I'm hoping to add three new countries, all that have souvenirs, next month but I suspect I still won't find more than a dozen caches all month.

 

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
edited quoted text

[Pup Patrol]

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

Gee, thanks for taking a shot at me. Yes, you just insulted me.

 

I'm not a "numbers hound" by any means. I do like souvenirs. I like to think that I will be able to qualify for some local Challenge caches.

 

I think that if someone doesn't like some part of the geocaching game, that they should not take that as an opportunity to insult other members.

 

If you don't like it, ignore it. Or is it easier to just throw insults out at people you don't know, just because they DO like the things you don't?

 

 

B.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
edited quoted text

[+J Grouchy]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

I'm not sure what might have led you to that conclusion but for me that's certainly not true. I have a rather large collection of souvenirs primarily from the US States and countries in which I've found a cache. I actually avoided the 31 days in August souvenirs as much as I could (but since I found caches in 3 new states in August I couldn't avoid them completely). In the past four years I've logged fewer than 100 finds each year. I'm hoping to add three new countries, all that have souvenirs, next month but I suspect I still won't find more than a dozen caches all month.

 

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

 

Only one I could think of would be for a "moving cache", which are not even allowed anymore. I do think "Found It" logs should be limited to one per cache. Sometimes, if I'm using a mobile app to log it, it will somehow go through twice and I have to go back and delete it. I've seen several folks log the same comment twice in a row, which leads me to believe the same thing happened to them and they just aren't as vigilant about deleting the duplicates as I am. If it were a function of the site to disallow duplicates/multiple 'Found it' logs, that wouldn't be such an issue anymore.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
edited quoted text

[+CanadianRockies]

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

I've logged multiple finds on four caches. Two of them are grandfathered moving caches. Each time I've found them, they have been hidden in different locations. The other two are grandfathered benchmark caches. One is for benchmarks in Alberta, Canada. The other is for benchmarks in the United Kingdom.

 

I also know of some monthly events that keep using the same GC number. It makes it easier to provide links to those events to new geocachers who might not how to search for events (especially ones that haven't been published yet).

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

I'm not sure what might have led you to that conclusion but for me that's certainly not true. I have a rather large collection of souvenirs primarily from the US States and countries in which I've found a cache. I actually avoided the 31 days in August souvenirs as much as I could (but since I found caches in 3 new states in August I couldn't avoid them completely). In the past four years I've logged fewer than 100 finds each year. I'm hoping to add three new countries, all that have souvenirs, next month but I suspect I still won't find more than a dozen caches all month.

 

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

 

 

 

And I can't think of a single compelling reason why I, or anyone else for that matter, should care if they do.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
edited quoted text

[+jellis]

I stopped doing that even when the COs said it's okay. It messes with my true numbers so I deleted all my duplicate finds on the same cache. That even included where COs allowed for multiple finds Multis where each stage had it's own logsheet.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know who invented the canard of one find per GC number. While the generally accepted idea that once you find something you can't find it again works for most traditional caches, there does seem to be some reasonable exceptions.

 

In the old days moving caches could typically be found many times. If it was moved and rehidden by someone else it was fair game to be found again - even by the original owner. Locationless caches could similarly be logged multiple times.

 

I've always thought of having some multi/puzzle cache that depending on choices made at various stages would have different final caches to log. I would allow people to log it for each final cache they found. Now I could probably do this by hiding 5 Wherigo caches that all use the same Wherigo cartridge. You can play the cartridge many times and depending on your choices in play would end up finding a different cache.

 

Of course we see caches that allow multiple online find for a variety of reasons beyond finding a cache. I find it silly to be using the found log for posting a photo of myself doing a yoga pose a the cache. But by the same token, I find it silly to have to do some geocaching challenge to be able to log the cache in first place.

 

To me the find log is to indicate on the website that you've found the cache. However since some numbers hounds will use the find log for silly reasons, I'm willing to accept an idea where you log the cache if you find it and then the owner can allow additional find logs for whatever reason they like.

 

There are certainly people who will do some challenge to get that find on a challenge cache or to collect a souvenir who will not log the second find. I don't really understand the objection, though I expect it's that Groundspeak officially recognized challenges and souvenirs but isn't clear on where they stand regarding allowing multiple finds. Some people may believe that there is an actual rule against this.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
to comply with forum guidelines

[+Don_J]

I've logged three caches twice.

 

1. CO turned an Altoids tin hidden under a foot bridge into a four part Night Cache.

2. CO turned a film can under a lamp post skirt in a park parking lot into a regular sized food container hidden 200' down a 45° slope in heavy brush.

3. CO placed identical caches on each side of the road and allowed a log for each.

 

1. and 2., I found a totally different cache hidden in a totally different manner three to four years later. The only thing that the finds have in common are the GC#s

 

3. I never should have logged the second find. I was new and now have a different perspective.

[+Sagefox]

To me the find log is to indicate on the website that you've found the cache. However since some numbers hounds will use the find log for silly reasons, I'm willing to accept an idea where you log the cache if you find it and then the owner can allow additional find logs for whatever reason they like.

I don't understand this. Because C/Os and finders are willing to abuse cache find logging it is therefore o.k. to abuse cache find logging... and multiple times such as in this case?

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone
edited quoted text

[+bjohio]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

I'm not sure what might have led you to that conclusion but for me that's certainly not true. I have a rather large collection of souvenirs primarily from the US States and countries in which I've found a cache. I actually avoided the 31 days in August souvenirs as much as I could (but since I found caches in 3 new states in August I couldn't avoid them completely). In the past four years I've logged fewer than 100 finds each year. I'm hoping to add three new countries, all that have souvenirs, next month but I suspect I still won't find more than a dozen caches all month.

 

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

 

I never understood why GS allows multiple finds on a single cache. I do understand some of the logic in logging a multiple find on a cache that has changed locations or container type. But, if the location or container has changed so dramatically that it requires an additional 'found' log, shouldn't the cache have been archived and a new GC number created anyways?

 

Personally, I get a bit irritated when my cell phone occasionally logs a multiple find. Then I have to go back and fuss around finding and deleting the log. If would be great if that was a preference in my account settings, "Do not allow multiple found logs on a single cache."

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keystone

[+edscott]

Frankly, I wish GS would implement something that prevented more than one found it (or attended) log per GC number. The fact that the system allows it just leads abuse of the feature and I can't think of a single compelling reason why we should be able to post more than 1 found it or attended log on a cache.

I've logged multiple finds on four caches. Two of them are grandfathered moving caches. Each time I've found them, they have been hidden in different locations. The other two are grandfathered benchmark caches. One is for benchmarks in Alberta, Canada. The other is for benchmarks in the United Kingdom.

 

I also know of some monthly events that keep using the same GC number. It makes it easier to provide links to those events to new geocachers who might not how to search for events (especially ones that haven't been published yet).

 

I have 16 multiple logs. a couple of them were traveling caches that I found in different locations when they went through this area, one was a cache that was moved several hundred feet but retained the same GC number. The owner called it a new cache and encouraged previous finders to find and log it again. The rest are from a monthly gathering that kept the same GC# for a year at a time but as the location changed new logs were permitted. None of those situations should happen anymore, so I don't know of any situation where anyone should be logging any additional multiple finds.

[Keystone]

A number of posts have been hidden from view or edited, to keep the thread from going off topic and to keep the discussion respectful. If you cannot respect people who hold different opinions, don't post.

[Clan Riffster]

Two of them are grandfathered moving caches.

I'm not sure how I would treat a second trip to a moving cache. Probably log it as a note. I've only found one, as best I recall. I figure I'd treat an event which reused the GC number the same way. It's probably symptomatic of my inner anal retentiveness, but it makes me cringe to see the number of logs not match the number of unique finds. I've fudged those numbers a couple times on accident, and I felt like Monk seeing a box out of place.

[+ras_oscar]

Everybody plays their own way. From some of the posts above, it is evident that there are situations where multiple finds on the same GC number are appropriate. For that reason GS online mechanisms allow the practice. I have never personally encountered those situations. Therefore, when I see my found it count higher than my unique caches count, it indicates I have made a logging error that I need to correct.

[+redsox_mark]

Currently my find count and unique caches match.

 

However I am aware of a UK "benchmark" based cache where the same GC code is used for several hundred different physical locations. http://coord.info/GC45CC If I found several of them I would have no issue with logging multiple finds against that GC code.

 

I've also seen challenge caches which allow multiple finds if you qualify multiple times or in a different way.

 

What I find amazing about the specific cache in question is the owner has 6000+ hides (and presumably uses all letters of the alphabet) ... no wonder it is possible to complete the challenge many times. Personally I don't think I could be bothered to return to that same cache tens or even hundreds of times, but to each his own.

[+dprovan]

1. and 2., I found a totally different cache hidden in a totally different manner three to four years later. The only thing that the finds have in common are the GC#s

I understand your logic, but since they have the same code, they are the same cache. I don't know why a CO would reuse the same code when hiding a completely different cache, but since they did, I'd never log these twice, even if the CO's intention was that the second version be considered a new cache.

 

I've got no problem with you logging them twice, I'm just saying I wouldn't.

[+niraD]

1. and 2., I found a totally different cache hidden in a totally different manner three to four years later. The only thing that the finds have in common are the GC#s

I understand your logic, but since they have the same code, they are the same cache.

Just a quibble: They might be the same listing, but that is not the same thing as being the same cache.

 

Personally, I probably wouldn't log the new cache with the old GC code, but that's mostly because I'd never see the revised listing if I had logged a find against that GC code already. If I did somehow find a new cache with an old GC code, then I'd go ahead and log it, even though that would create a second log against the old GC code.

 

And if I ever find a grandfathered traveling cache more than once, then I'll log it again too. But the traveling cache would have to be mentioned in our local forums, because I'll never see it again otherwise.

[+dprovan]

Just a quibble: They might be the same listing, but that is not the same thing as being the same cache.

No, I disagree. I'd say it might be a different container, but that is not the same thing as being a different cache. I claim that even though the hide and the container and even the location is different, it's still the same cache precisely because it has the same ID. If the CO thinks it's a different cache, he should have listed it as a different cache.

 

(By the way, from the sounds of it, the listing was changed, too, just not the listing's ID.)

[+Don_J]

1. and 2., I found a totally different cache hidden in a totally different manner three to four years later. The only thing that the finds have in common are the GC#s

I understand your logic, but since they have the same code, they are the same cache. I don't know why a CO would reuse the same code when hiding a completely different cache, but since they did, I'd never log these twice, even if the CO's intention was that the second version be considered a new cache.

 

I've got no problem with you logging them twice, I'm just saying I wouldn't.

 

You have to understand that not all cachers live and breath geocaching on a daily basis. They do not understand all of the nuances of the game, and in each case, the cachers are the type that were avid geocachers until about 2004, no longer look for caches except for once or twice a year, and jump in to do maintenance on their caches when they need to. They do not know that guidelines and attitudes have changed over the years. It seems perfectly acceptable to them to replace a current cache in a totally different manner because they don't care about unique GC#s, find counts or stats that say X finds on Y unique caches.

[+Don_J]

1. and 2., I found a totally different cache hidden in a totally different manner three to four years later. The only thing that the finds have in common are the GC#s

I understand your logic, but since they have the same code, they are the same cache.

Just a quibble: They might be the same listing, but that is not the same thing as being the same cache.

 

Personally, I probably wouldn't log the new cache with the old GC code, but that's mostly because I'd never see the revised listing if I had logged a find against that GC code already. If I did somehow find a new cache with an old GC code, then I'd go ahead and log it, even though that would create a second log against the old GC code.

 

And if I ever find a grandfathered traveling cache more than once, then I'll log it again too. But the traveling cache would have to be mentioned in our local forums, because I'll never see it again otherwise.

 

In both cases, I was with other cachers and did not understand why they had a cache on their GPSr that I didn't have, so I followed their lead. The experiences were so different that I didn't realize that they were listings that I had already logged until I got home and looked them up.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The issue would go away if Challenge Caches were replaced with some sort of badge/achievement system. In this case, when someone has completed the challenge requirements multiple times, it makes more sense to award multiple levels of a badge/achievement than for them to log multiple finds on a cache. IMHO, of course.

 

Not sure that would work since souvenir, badges, etc. appear to only appeal to a very small number of cachers.

 

Come to think of it, those tend to be the same as the number hounds, so maybe.

 

Nah. I'll do challenge caches if I qualify for them (though some re rather silly). I'll even work at interesting challenges! Completed NJ DeLorme and County Challenges. They were fun! Slowly working on the PA county challenge. May take a number of years... And, of course, the Fizzy and Jasmer Challenges.

Badges?!? I have no interest in them. Challenge caches? Yes!

 

As to multiple finds on caches: I have several. One moving cache. A few Locationless caches where the find was different. and a few old-style mystery caches where the requirements changed. Of those, only the moving caches still exist. Times were different back then.

As to logging 'attended' several times for temporary 'non-listed' caches at an event? Nope. I only attended once, and those caches were not listed on the site. Those are not loggable caches.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Harry Dolphin

[+DragonsWest]

Considering the original idea of the Stash Game, as begun by Ulmer, et al, where does it state or is implied "One visit per cache?" Honestly, if you go up to the mountains once a year and like to hike out to some place which has an old cache, I could certainly see someone thinking each year's find is a unique experience.

 

In my humble opinion, the game is to each person different. Don't ruin people's fun by expecting more rules.

[+taunus.ami]

I am a new guy, but I have done this once. I was surprised that my number went up when I logged the visit.

 

My reason for returning, was that the cache had a TB in it with a goal of traveling to the US and I happened to be flying there and thought it would be cool to take it along.

 

I really am not one for just increasing numbers, but I want to log everything. I also see some value in multiple visits. It can give the cache owner information on the cache without the need to physically go check on it (ex. 3 DNF's logged, then someone else logs a repeat find).

 

Maybe it could be logged as a visit and not count toward unique finds?

Edited October 19, 2013 by taunus.ami

[+Don_J]

I am a new guy, but I have done this once. I was surprised that my number went up when I logged the visit.

 

My reason for returning, was that the cache had a TB in it with a goal of traveling to the US and I happened to be flying there and thought it would be cool to take it along.

 

I really am not one for just increasing numbers, but I want to log everything. I also see some value in multiple visits. It can give the cache owner information on the cache without the need to physically go check on it (ex. 3 DNF's logged, then someone else logs a repeat find).

 

Maybe it could be logged as a visit and not count toward unique finds?

 

That is exactly what posting a Note log does.

[+taunus.ami]

Post a Note Log - I have to look into that! Thanks!

 

I am a new guy, but I have done this once. I was surprised that my number went up when I logged the visit.

 

My reason for returning, was that the cache had a TB in it with a goal of traveling to the US and I happened to be flying there and thought it would be cool to take it along.

 

I really am not one for just increasing numbers, but I want to log everything. I also see some value in multiple visits. It can give the cache owner information on the cache without the need to physically go check on it (ex. 3 DNF's logged, then someone else logs a repeat find).

 

Maybe it could be logged as a visit and not count toward unique finds?

 

That is exactly what posting a Note log does.

[+fizzymagic]

Post a Note Log - I have to look into that! Thanks!

 

Just go back and change the log type to Write Note and the find will automagically disappear!

[+hotshoe]

Considering the original idea of the Stash Game, as begun by Ulmer, et al, where does it state or is implied "One visit per cache?" Honestly, if you go up to the mountains once a year and like to hike out to some place which has an old cache, I could certainly see someone thinking each year's find is a unique experience.

 

In my humble opinion, the game is to each person different. Don't ruin people's fun by expecting more rules.

Yeah, I go along with you.

 

I just posted a find on one of your new-ish caches - Mt Caroline livermore - and the last time I hiked there was many years ago. I remembered nothing about the trail nor where I found the previous cache - archived - not even what side of the trail it had been on. If the old cache were still there, instead of your new one, it still would have been a "new experience" to me, and I would be perfectly fine with a smiley for the feels-new-to-me second find. Even if I remembered exactly where the cache was, behind which bush, I would probably look for it anyways just out of curiosity to see how it had held up over the years. As a matter of time and energy to travel new places, I don't hike the same trail twice anywhere; in the whole decade that was the first time it's happened - but I can see that re-finding an old cache is definitely in the spirit of the game envisioned by the founders.

 

I log my finds as "Finds" in service for all the other geocachers, who use recent finds in sorting their PQs; and for the cache owner, too, who gets better information about their cache from find logs than from having to read through their "note" log emails. If anyone finds one of my caches a second time, I would be happy for them to log a "find"; I don't have any desire to tell them they have to post a "note" instead. Why try to be bossy?

 

It's stupid for people to complain that geocaching has gotten to be too much about the numbers and then turn around and expend energy trying to make it all about the numbers - oh, no, the sky is falling because the numbers don't match up exactly! So what! I don't have any idea how many caches I've found - well, I do know it's thousands and I think they're all unique except 2 - I could not care less about the numbers and all I care about is whether they were interesting experiences with good caches.

 

If a person thinks geocaching is too much about the numbers, then they should ignore the numbers altogether, not focus more and more attention on rules about numbers. Don't rigidly and meanly try to suppress other people's numbers. Don't try to incite TPTB to make a new rule that no one can log a cache more than once, no matter what, "because it messes with the numbers".

 

You should never care about someone else's numbers Even if you have to be absolutely anal about your own because you can't just relax and enjoy the experiences, then be polite and keep it to yourself.

[+DragonsWest]

Another angle - sometimes a particular cache is muggled or destroyed, but the CO goes out and places a new container, possibly with new coordinates. A find on the refreshed cache, in my book, is a NEW find - the only thing which is old is cache page image stored on a server somewhere.