FEATURE REQUEST: Warn if logging Found on cache you've already found

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not really angry with Keystone for improvidently locking another thread; but that thread is just another example of why this feature request should've be implemented a long time ago.

 

It is relatively easy to accidentally log the same cache twice. There may be occasions where multiple logs make sense, or where a cacher doesn't care that their find count (or their sister's find count) is "wrong" because a cache was logged multiple times.

 

So I don't want to prevent multiple logs, but I do think there should be a warning when you post a find log to cache where you already have a find logged. This would be relatively simple on the website.

 

While it might take a while for old versions of apps to retire, there is nothing preventing apps from using the current API to check if a cache is already found by a user before submitting a Found log and asking for confirmation that they really want to do this.

 

A lot of people have complained that popular feature requests have languished while Groundspeak developers add souvenirs, challenges, and other "better mistakes". I know I suggested this one way back one of the earlier suggestion sites. I can't for the life of me understand why this hasn't been implemented.

 

It must be that Groundspeak hates chinldren, and wants to make them angry because their sister's find count is wrong. But even adult geocachers have expressed frustration because they can't figure out why their count isn't what they expected.

 

Do I sound angry enough

[+T.D.M.22]

I'm not really angry with Keystone for improvidently locking another thread;

 

So other people do use that word.

 

I do agree with you-they know what we want, but instead we get grey icons, and 31 souvinirs.

[+ADKer]

 

It must be that Groundspeak hates chinldren, and wants to make them angry because their sister's find count is wrong. But even adult geocachers have expressed frustration because they can't figure out why their count isn't what they expected.

 

Do I sound angry enough

 

Uh...um...ah....

 

Well, I think I have a guess as to why Keystone closed your thread!

[Keystone]

I closed the thread that led to this one because the OP took an angry tone and did not articulate a website feature suggestion or bug report.

 

Toz has articulated a feature suggestion. Providently, it's posted in the feature suggestion forum.

 

If someone bumps this thread in 2016 with a post that says just "LOL," it would be locked at that time due to improvident bumping. If Toz bumps his own thread in 2016 with a wall of tl;dr that restates the compelling reasons for the still-unimplemented suggestion, that would be a provident bump.

[+Semper Questio]

Keystone, there are times you just crack me up. This time I'm gonna have to clean some of my Glenfiddich off my laptop.

 

As for Toz's idea, I agree wholeheartedly. There are times that multiple logs are legit and so they should not be prevented, but a warning would be a good thing.

[+ADKer]

By the way, project-gc.com has a feature to detect duplicate logs.

[jholly]

Keystone, there are times you just crack me up. This time I'm gonna have to clean some of my Glenfiddich off my laptop.

 

As for Toz's idea, I agree wholeheartedly. There are times that multiple logs are legit and so they should not be prevented, but a warning would be a good thing.

The large, prominent smiley in the upper right hand corner of the cache page on a cache you previously logged is not a indication you previously logged the cache? It is not exactly a warning because it does not have a flashing scrolling banner, but it certainly is easy to see and ever since it was implemented I had put the wish for an indication I previously logged this cache in the done column.

[+Semper Questio]

Keystone, there are times you just crack me up. This time I'm gonna have to clean some of my Glenfiddich off my laptop.

 

As for Toz's idea, I agree wholeheartedly. There are times that multiple logs are legit and so they should not be prevented, but a warning would be a good thing.

The large, prominent smiley in the upper right hand corner of the cache page on a cache you previously logged is not a indication you previously logged the cache? It is not exactly a warning because it does not have a flashing scrolling banner, but it certainly is easy to see and ever since it was implemented I had put the wish for an indication I previously logged this cache in the done column.

 

Ya know, not everyone does things the way you do. People log from field notes, from smartphone apps, and Lord knows how many other ways and many of them don't have any way of telling you have logged anything on that cache before.

[+Walts Hunting]

Smart phone apps have a setting that will not return found caches in a search so double logging from them is a self created error. Field notes probably come from a dedicated device that has a PQ loaded which you can set to not return found caches so again self inflicted. I travel winter and summer often to the same places and have no trouble avoiding found caches. It doesn't take much effort to only look for unfounded ones.

[+Semper Questio]

Smart phone apps have a setting that will not return found caches in a search so double logging from them is a self created error. Field notes probably come from a dedicated device that has a PQ loaded which you can set to not return found caches so again self inflicted. I travel winter and summer often to the same places and have no trouble avoiding found caches. It doesn't take much effort to only look for unfounded ones.

 

I have no trouble avoiding them either. I never select them in my PQs. But self-inflicted or not, it would still be a good thing to have in place and would help finders keep from multi-logging and help COs keep from having to deal with cleaning up the faulty dupes. For those of us that know how to avoid unwanted multi-logging, it won't make 1 whit of difference, so where's the harm?