Is there a way to email everyone who signed my log book?

[Bowtie_Mafia1]

Here's a quick version of what i want to do. I had a cache with over 100 logs and the container became damaged. Most cachers said it was easy to find, so instead of fixing the easy container,my son and I installed a new container with more camouflage (increasing the difficulty). I'd like to be able to email everyone who logged that cache and let them know, it's a new and improved cache site. Is that doable??

[+Isonzo Karst]

If you've altered the cache hunt a great deal, say difficulty 1 to difficulty 3, archive the original cache page, putting the difficulty rating and the rest of the cache page back to where it was for all previous finders before archiving (retiring), then write up the current more difficult version as a new cache. That way, it shows up as a new unfound for the locals, and by leaving the old description as it was for those who have already found it, it makes sense to their experience of the cache.

 

You can reach any person who logged online by emailing them through the site, but very few will log a second find on the same cache.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=126

 

You need to post an Owner Maintenance log to clear the red Needs Maintenance attribute.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Isonzo Karst

[+Bear and Ragged]

I'd like to be able to email everyone who logged that cache and let them know, it's a new and improved cache site.

 

So? Want me to come along and re-find it? (Adding a duplicate Found It log?) No thanks!

 

Archive it. New listing -new cache to find, I'll pop back!

 

If it's a New and Improved cache site, it's a new and improved cache, with a new and improved cache listing.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I would archive and publish a new one.

 

No, there's no way of emailing everyone who's logged a Find.

Edited August 31, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+Lil Devil]

Why? If I had found it, I wouldn't want to be bothered to know you changed it. Please don't email me. I'm not going to come back to something I already found.

 

Like the others said, if it's that much better, archive the old and submit a new. Then I'll have a new cache to find.

[+sbell111]

Why? If I had found it, I wouldn't want to be bothered to know you changed it. Please don't email me. I'm not going to come back to something I already found.

 

Like the others said, if it's that much better, archive the old and submit a new. Then I'll have a new cache to find.

That makes no sense to me.

 

While I agree that if the changes were significant, then it should be archived and relisted. However, this should be done so that prior finder's history is accurate, not so people can have a 'new' cache to find. As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

[+Lil Devil]

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

But what is described in the OP is not "the same experience."

 

... I installed a new container with more camouflage (increasing the difficulty).

Sounds like a new, more difficult experience to me.

[+WarNinjas]

The only reason I would want to email everyone about changing a cache is if was a high difficulty and/or terrain and we changed it to be easier. Maybe it would mess up there stats. Otherwise I don't think anyone would care. Just my opinion though. It might be a different situation.

[+sbell111]

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

But what is described in the OP is not "the same experience."

 

... I installed a new container with more camouflage (increasing the difficulty).

Sounds like a new, more difficult experience to me.

I agree and that's why I stated that I think that he should relist it.

 

That being said, the experience of refinding that new cache would be exactly the same regardless if he still used the old internet page or created a new one.

[+niraD]

That being said, the experience of refinding that new cache would be exactly the same regardless if he still used the old internet page or created a new one.

Maybe. But if he edits the old page, then a lot of people will never find the new cache because they've already found the old one (or already put it on their ignore lists). If he creates a new listing, then it won't be hidden from anyone (at least initially).

[+sbell111]

That being said, the experience of refinding that new cache would be exactly the same regardless if he still used the old internet page or created a new one.

Maybe. But if he edits the old page, then a lot of people will never find the new cache because they've already found the old one (or already put it on their ignore lists). If he creates a new listing, then it won't be hidden from anyone (at least initially).

My post was a response to a specific post.

[+wmpastor]

Why? If I had found it, I wouldn't want to be bothered to know you changed it. Please don't email me. I'm not going to come back to something I already found.

 

Like the others said, if it's that much better, archive the old and submit a new. Then I'll have a new cache to find.

That makes no sense to me.

 

While I agree that if the changes were significant, then it should be archived and relisted. However, this should be done so that prior finder's history is accurate, not so people can have a 'new' cache to find. As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

Yes, the only difference is the smiley. This is actually a good test of who cares about "the numbers" and who doesn't!

 

Of course, it's also a test of how much they liked the experience in general....

[+Adventure.AS]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

[+narcissa]

I think you're overestimating the degree to which any past finders will care about the changes. I would not be pleased to receive an email about something like that.

[+sbell111]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

I'm not seeing how the search experience is any different whether the old listing is used or a new one created. If someone just gave you the coordinates (plus size, D/T and hint) and you didn't ever see the cache page, would the search experience be any different?

Edited September 5, 2014 by sbell111

[+Adventure.AS]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

I'm not seeing how the search experience is any different whether the old listing is used or a new one created. If someone just gave you the coordinates (plus size, D/T and hint) and you didn't ever see the cache page, would the search experience be any different?

According to the OP the cache would be a new container and new camouflage, making it a different searching experience. Also, my experience has been that most cache placements tend to migrate a bit around GZ and a find that I make may not be where the cache was originally. Therefore, the search, most likely, would be different than the first time I went to seek the cache.

[+sbell111]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

I'm not seeing how the search experience is any different whether the old listing is used or a new one created. If someone just gave you the coordinates (plus size, D/T and hint) and you didn't ever see the cache page, would the search experience be any different?

According to the OP the cache would be a new container and new camouflage, making it a different searching experience. Also, my experience has been that most cache placements tend to migrate a bit around GZ and a find that I make may not be where the cache was originally. Therefore, the search, most likely, would be different than the first time I went to seek the cache.

You might want to reread the posts that you are responding to.

 

The issue was whether it would be the same search experience to find the altered cache using the old cache page or a new cache page. Either way, you are searching for the new container with new camo. The only difference really is the GC#.

[+Adventure.AS]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

I'm not seeing how the search experience is any different whether the old listing is used or a new one created. If someone just gave you the coordinates (plus size, D/T and hint) and you didn't ever see the cache page, would the search experience be any different?

According to the OP the cache would be a new container and new camouflage, making it a different searching experience. Also, my experience has been that most cache placements tend to migrate a bit around GZ and a find that I make may not be where the cache was originally. Therefore, the search, most likely, would be different than the first time I went to seek the cache.

You might want to reread the posts that you are responding to.

 

The issue was whether it would be the same search experience to find the altered cache using the old cache page or a new cache page. Either way, you are searching for the new container with new camo. The only difference really is the GC#.

It boils down this: IMHO it would be a different search experience, not a re-run, so would be better with a new GC#.

[+sbell111]

...

 

As far as having a 'new' cache to find, it doesn't matter if you find it again under the old listing or under a new listing. It's the same experience.

 

IMHO, that is like saying watching a recording of a great game is the same experience as when you watched it live, without knowing the outcome. The excitement of anticipation of what the outcome will be is missing in the re-run.

 

While I agree that a nice walk with a scenic view is a good each time you take it, but the final search and find of a new listing could be a rewarding addition making the walk even better.

I'm not seeing how the search experience is any different whether the old listing is used or a new one created. If someone just gave you the coordinates (plus size, D/T and hint) and you didn't ever see the cache page, would the search experience be any different?

According to the OP the cache would be a new container and new camouflage, making it a different searching experience. Also, my experience has been that most cache placements tend to migrate a bit around GZ and a find that I make may not be where the cache was originally. Therefore, the search, most likely, would be different than the first time I went to seek the cache.

You might want to reread the posts that you are responding to.

 

The issue was whether it would be the same search experience to find the altered cache using the old cache page or a new cache page. Either way, you are searching for the new container with new camo. The only difference really is the GC#.

It boils down this: IMHO it would be a different search experience, not a re-run, so would be better with a new GC#.

Please explain how the search experience would differ, instead of just stating that it would be different.

[+Adventure.AS]

Please explain how the search experience would differ, instead of just stating that it would be different.

I'm not sure why this discussion is becoming obtuse. IMHO some differences:

 

1. New container

2. New camouflage

3. Different satellite constellation (pointing GPSr to a different GZ)

4. Different location (perhaps due to original migrating or CO intentionally moving it) (As an aside, I have sometimes had a hard time finding one of my own caches because of migration.)

5. Different season (perhaps)

6. Different time of day (perhaps)

7. Different lighting conditions (perhaps)

 

The only thing similar is the drive or walk up to within 12 metres of GZ, the search is different.

 

You have led me to believe that for some people they can only say "if you have seen one geocache you have seen them all".

[+MKFmly]

I'm not sure why this discussion is becoming obtuse. IMHO some differences:

 

1. New container

2. New camouflage

3. Different satellite constellation (pointing GPSr to a different GZ)

4. Different location (perhaps due to original migrating or CO intentionally moving it) (As an aside, I have sometimes had a hard time finding one of my own caches because of migration.)

5. Different season (perhaps)

6. Different time of day (perhaps)

7. Different lighting conditions (perhaps)

 

The only thing similar is the drive or walk up to within 12 metres of GZ, the search is different.

 

It's obtuse because all those noted items can change for the seeker on any given day and are not related to the current cache page.

 

A little off topic.

 

A fair number of cachers recoil at the mere thought of double logging a cache, but a new cache page is made for esentially the same cache in essentially the same location then its WIGAS. You can split hairs (or what if) on how much semantic change makes it a "different cache" but based on the OP this is esentially the same cache in the same location.

 

So? Want me to come along and re-find it? (Adding a duplicate Found It log?) No thanks!

 

Archive it. New listing -new cache to find, I'll pop back!

 

If it's a New and Improved cache site, it's a new and improved cache, with a new and improved cache listing

[+wmpastor]

In limited cases I've stayed on the watchlist of caches I've found. So those who want updates have already "requested" them by doing that. So by the CO doing nothing, those who want updates will get them, & those that want to avoid spam will get their wish. WIN-WIN - with no extra work (which should please Roman!)