Double Counting

March 29, 2003

I am not in a race to get the most caches; however, I did note today that some geo people are going back to the same cache and counting it again . Does this have any other purpose than to run up numbers? and is it honest play if they are in the numbers game?

1.4k · March 29, 2003

I think most people check on caches they've already found if they are back in the area. I always log the book again and post a note to the cache page. I don't log it as a find though.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

March 29, 2003

Some people are just greedy I guess.

"Democracy is the belief that 20,000 lemmings can't all be wrong."

6.4k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim M CPA:
I am not in a race to get the most caches; however, I did note today that some geo people are going back to the same cache and counting it again . Does this have any other purpose than to run up numbers? and is it honest play if they are in the numbers game?

You need to look real careful before accusing someone of cheating (and yea, logging 2 finds on a normal cache, or a find on your own cache is cheating, even if just cheating yourself).

Some caches are moving caches. Usually that means that each time it gets moved to a new place, you can find it and log it again. Some caches turn out to be in poor locations and get moved after a few finds. Again, if you go out and find it again in the new spot, its ok to log it again in my book.

Sometimes, people just plain make mistakes. I once did that. I was logging a bunch of caches for the day and accidently logged one 2 times. I noticed my find count was off, and tracked it down right away and deleted it. It was only there maybe an hour.

Some people return the a cache to drop off a travel bug. They dont always understand that you can post a note on the cache and still leave the TB.

Some people ARE just greedy. They arent fooling anyone else but themselves, so who cares? I look at them, think how pathetic their life must be, and move on.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

3k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim M CPA:
I am not in a race to get the most caches; however, I did note today that some geo people are going back to the same cache and counting it again . Does this have any other purpose than to run up numbers? and is it honest play if they are in the numbers game?

It's wrong, it's reprehensible; it's cheating ... except I have heard of situations where one or more people who normally log to a common "team" name have visited a cache at separate times and each logged a find under the team name to the cache. I don't think that's cheating, but I think it would be better if people in that type of situation only logged their combined finds to the team name and logged their individual finds to individual accounts.

There are also times when a find is accidentally double-posted by the system ... that happened to me once, and I immediately deleted the duplicated.

And as Mopar stated, sometimes a cache gets moved. I do have one cache that I logged twice ... I was the first finder at its original location, which the owner decided wasn't very good, and also the first finder at its new location 1/2 mile away and on the opposite side of a river (the name of the cache also changed.) That was long ago, and I think we have all learned since then that it is better to archive a cache and create a new page.

March 29, 2003

Several of my caches have double logged finds. I thought about mentioning something to those who did it, but then I thought...What do I care if they log more than once?

My experience is that relatively new cachers really don't know any better or don't care much about find counts for it to matter. They seem to be having a good time with caching...so be it.

Maybe they will figure it out someday and change their second log to a note. If not...no big deal either way.

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

3k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Several of my caches have double logged finds. I thought about mentioning something to those who did it, but then I thought...What do I care if they log more than once?

Great. As long as you also don't care if a cache owner decides to delete your legitimate finds.

1.4k · March 29, 2003

My curiosity was piqued so I did a quick look see. There is a cacher that has logged a number of caches twice. It seems that every time he passes a cache and checks on it he logs a find.

With more than 100 traditional finds and over thirty locationless I don’t think he’s ignorant of the “Not logging a cache twice” unwritten rule. Maybe he is though.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

6.4k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:
My curiosity was piqued so I did a quick look see. There is a cacher that has logged a number of caches twice. It seems that every time he passes a cache and checks on it he logs a find.

With more than 100 traditional finds and over thirty locationless I don’t think he’s ignorant of the “Not logging a cache twice” unwritten rule. Maybe he is though.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

I looked too, Harrald, and pretty sure I know who you guys mean, even though I don't get up that way much. He also "finds" archived caches, so yea, he falls into that category of cachers I have zero respect for.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Several of my caches have double logged finds. I thought about mentioning something to those who did it, but then I thought...What do I care if they log more than once?

Great. As long as you also don't care if a cache owner decides to delete your legitimate finds.

Huh?

I thought this topic was about double logs for finds. What does my legitimate finds have to do with anything? I have no double logged finds, so what's your point?

Actually, If someone did want to delete my legitimate finds...so what! Last I looked their was no prize for having the most finds.

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

[This message was edited by Salvelinus on March 29, 2003 at 09:01 PM.]

3k · March 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Huh?

I thought this topic was about double logs for finds. What does my legitimate finds have to do with anything?

Oh ... I thought the thread might have something to do with "standards." As a cache owner, you have the responsibility to keep those caches under your control "kosher." Should someone double-log to your cache, intentionally or by accident, it is your responsibility to alert the individual to the situation, explain the proper procedure, and correct the situation yourself if that individual doesn't.

You stated, in different words, that you don't give a dadgum. In my opinion, that's a disservice to all.

38.2k · March 30, 2003

I've seen cache owners log finds during maint visits and people who revisit a cache and log multile finds. Some people do it out of ignorance. Others do it to run up their numbers. I feel sorry for the latter. It's kind of pathetic. I've never noticed this in NJ, at least for any of my caches. Wonder who it is. Hmmmmm.

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on March 30, 2003 at 04:45 AM.]

March 30, 2003

Hmm- Since we may be the ones this post is originally about (we "double listed" two caches yesterday.)

The two caches in CT we visited yesterday, (Naugatuck trail and Middlebury Landtrust) are considered new caches by the cache owner. Yes indeed we found the caches in their original hiding spot, but these have since been removed to a completely different location. We asked permission from the cache placer to post a find, even though we had found the caches in their original locations. He said to go ahead, as his feeling was that since the cache location moved, it would count as another find. I'm sure if the cache owner had a problem with our found logs, he would have deleted them.

March 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CT Trampers:
Hmm- Since we may fall into this category (we "double counted" two caches yesterday.)

The two caches in CT we visited yesterday, (Naugatuck trail and Middlebury Landtrust) are considered new caches by the cache owner. Yes indeed we found the caches in their original hiding spot, but these have since been removed to a completely different location. We asked permission from the cache placer to post a find, even though we had found the caches in their original locations. He said to go ahead, as his feeling was that since the cache location moved, it would count as another find. I'm sure if the cache owner had a problem with our found logs, he would have deleted them.

March 30, 2003

See, I even double posted this!!

March 31, 2003

quote:
My curiosity was piqued so I did a quick look see.

Three cheers for Harrald! Hip hip HOORAY! Hip hip HOORAY! Hip hip HOORAY!

Why am I cheering? Harrald knew the correct spelling for "piqued."

What a rare and lovely moment...

X is for X, and X marks the spot, On the rug in the parlor, The sand in the lot, Where once you were standing, And now you are not.

March 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:
Huh?

I thought this topic was about double logs for finds. What does my legitimate finds have to do with anything?

Oh ... I thought the thread might have something to do with "standards." As a cache owner, you have the responsibility to keep those caches under your control "kosher." Should someone double-log to your cache, intentionally or by accident, it is your responsibility to alert the individual to the situation, explain the proper procedure, and correct the situation yourself if that individual doesn't.

You stated, in different words, that you don't give a dadgum. In my opinion, that's a disservice to all.

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

38.2k · March 31, 2003

quote:
Harrald knew the correct spelling for "piqued."

That's amazing. I think 99 out of 100 people spell it "peaked". That has always annoyed me.

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

3k · March 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Salvelinus:

I know some people see the issue as "merely cheating at an unimportant little game." I don't see it that way at all. I think that if someone makes a habit of cheating at seemingly inconsequential things, it's undoubtedly an indication of their basic lack of integrity.

In other words, I wouldn't trust such a person as far as I could spit.

3k · March 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CT Trampers:
Hmm- Since we may be the ones this post is originally about (we "double listed" two caches yesterday.)

The two caches in CT we visited yesterday, (Naugatuck trail and Middlebury Landtrust) are considered new caches by the cache owner. Yes indeed we found the caches in their original hiding spot, but these have since been removed to a completely different location. We asked permission from the cache placer to post a find, even though we had found the caches in their original locations. He said to go ahead, as his feeling was that since the cache location moved, it would count as another find. I'm sure if the cache owner had a problem with our found logs, he would have deleted them.

No, we have learned from these threads over the months that it is a rare cache owner indeed who deletes even obviously fabricated logs.

Since my previous post appears not far after CT Tramper's post, I just wanted to make it clear that my comments were not addressed towards them ... it appears the situation they mention is another example of situations where it would have been better if the cache owner had created new cache pages.

March 31, 2003

Everyone can see if you double log a cache, I think that speaks for itself. And as far as numbers are concerned, I'd respect a cacher with only 100 finds in which he visited several states with considerable distance between them (like PA then colorado then onto Texas then Alaska) or across the whole world over a cacher with several hundred finds within a 200 mile radius of his home. With all the caches being traditional of course.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

3k · March 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by True-North:
And as far as numbers are concerned, I'd respect a cacher with only 100 finds in which he visited several states with considerable distance between them (like PA then colorado then onto Texas then Alaska) or across the whole world over a cacher with several hundred finds within a 200 mile radius of his home.

That's an interesting concept. But why?

If I understand what you wrote, you would hold in higher esteem someone who visited 100 tourist destination 1/1 dash-and-grab caches than someone who never left "home" but picked up 400 challenging caches.

Whatever spins your wheels, but that doesn't make sense to me. (Incidentally, I live in New Jersey and have cached as far away as Virginia and Maine. I haven't noticed any significant differences in cache quality, hiding styles, or rating accuracy.)

March 31, 2003

This thread is fasinating to me. It's such a simple hobby (or whatever you want to call it). If the cache is out there - find it & log it - one time. Why would someone want to go back to the cache they found and log another find? I also agree w/BP about finding caches all across the country - plenty of challanging caches right near my home coordinates (there are over 1500 caches within 100 miles of home).

March 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

That's an interesting concept. But why?

If I understand what you wrote, you would hold in higher esteem someone who visited 100 tourist destination 1/1 dash-and-grab caches than someone who never left "home" but picked up 400 challenging caches.

Whatever spins your wheels, but that doesn't make sense to me. (Incidentally, I live in New Jersey and have cached as far away as Virginia and Maine. I haven't noticed any significant differences in cache quality, hiding styles, or rating accuracy.)

I never mentioned tourist locations, nor did I mention ratings. I also never said that the actual cache container itself is any different in other places. However your statement of "Incidentally, I live in NJ and have cached as far away as Virginia & Maine. I haven't noticed any significant differences in cache quality, hiding styles or rating accuracy" answers your own question of "why".

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

March 31, 2003

quote:
posted March 31, 2003 09:15 AM
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Salvelinus:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by BassoonPilot

I know some people see the issue as "merely cheating at an unimportant little game." I don't see it that way at all. I think that if someone makes a habit of cheating at seemingly inconsequential things, it's undoubtedly an indication of their basic lack of integrity.

In other words, I wouldn't trust such a person as far as I could spit.

I would agree with BP. It's like when someone has two Geocache accounts or two wheresgeorge accounts. How do you trust a person like that. What are they after. What's worse is a person who meets a cacher on the trail and pretends to be someone else, and puts on a show? You just can not ever want to be associated with such a person.

3k · April 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by True-North:
However your statement of "Incidentally, I live in NJ and have cached as far away as Virginia & Maine. I haven't noticed any significant differences in cache quality, hiding styles or rating accuracy" answers your own question of "why".

Okay, then ... but since finding caches was incidental to my visits to those places, (I would have been there anyway) I fail to see your point. They were fine caches, but there are many caches of equal or superior quality within 50 miles of home.

3k · April 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:

I would agree with BP. It's like when someone has two Geocache accounts or two wheresgeorge accounts. How do you trust a person like that.

You're right. Never trust anybody ... especially those with multiple accounts who don't use them to cheat. Who would do such a thing, why would they do such a thing, what in blazes are they up to? Inquiring minds want to know.

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:
What's worse is a person who meets a cacher on the trail and pretends to be someone else, and puts on a show? You just can not ever want to be associated with such a person.

Oh, you are so right! Besides a need, in our present police state, for a National Identification Card, we also need official geocaching IDs that must be produced upon demand of anyone we meet on the trail.

1.2k · April 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:
I would agree with BP. It's like when someone has two Geocache accounts or two wheresgeorge accounts. How do you trust a person like that. What are they after.

Whoa! I have two accounts! One for me one for my wife. Only thing is I transferred all of my finds to my wife's last year some time.

I guess the worst part is when I transferred the finds, some of them didn't get added to our Team Account. (Something with registration dates or what not, it could probably be fixed, but honestly, I can't remeber what caches are in question since most of them are archived). In short we managed to lose finds.

My two points, 1. It's a game, who cares? let's have fun.

2. Is anyone *really* pulling a fast one over on us?

April 1, 2003

Team Ekitt10

I would say that in your situation, you have two real account. One for you and one for your wife. Who knows, maybe you went at diff times or sometimes together. Nothing wrong with that.

EMTJeepers

1.4k · April 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:

<<SNIP>>

Why am I cheering? Harrald knew the correct spelling for "piqued."

What a rare and lovely moment...

<<SNIP>>

While I'm not sure how to take this comment, I am sure that there's more than meets the eye going on in this thread.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

April 1, 2003

I just brought it up cause I'm a CPA, and we try to identify any double counting. Hence a quick audit.

It looks like people cleaned up their act by deleting any multiple entry finds. I checked the situation I was looking at again and it looks like they logged in the book 2x but website only once.

The situation came up when I saw in a log book the same person(s) logging different find numbers on different days, but when I checked the website there is only one entry.

But perhaps I was on to something more by mention of the comments from the thread here who may have done the double counting deed.

I originally logged my finds on my own cache when I first started geocaching in order to drop off travel bugs; then I found the post notes function could do the same thing, so I corrected mine. To err is human.. as the saying goes....

3k · April 2, 2003

Dontcha just LOVE gossip and innuendo?

quote:
Originally posted by Tim M CPA:
The situation came up when I saw in a log book the same person(s) logging different find numbers on different days, but when I checked the website there is only one entry.

I have no idea who you are gossiping about, but that statement certainly validates a simple procedure that some of us follow ... we include the find number in both our logbook entries and our online logs. In hindsight, I see we created a system of "Instant Accountability," and that's a good thing. From now on, I will be suspicious of every found log not possessing such a "paper trail," for obviously, those people have something to hide. I agree that logging multiple finds on a single cache is improper.

Many times, however, while reading logbooks I have noticed second (or third) logbook entries by individuals who stopped on the way to/from newer cache to check up on a cache they found (usually many months) earlier. I have noticed that sometimes they also leave online "notes" on the cache pages, and other times they don't. It seems a friendly and courteous thing to do. Are you certain this isn't what you noticed?

quote:
Originally posted by Tim M CPA:
But perhaps I was on to something more by mention of the comments from the thread here who may have done the double counting deed.

I need that sentence explained to me; it gave me a headache.

April 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
_Dontcha just _LOVE_ gossip and innuendo?_

No, I don't. Unfortunately, I often realize too late when I have contributed. This thread has me worried that the NJGA may succumb to the same infighting that was so publicly displayed by our friends in Maryland.

I'm also saddened that this thread was so more popular than those congratulating people on accomplishments and those discussing more positive aspects of this hobby.

Just my .02

April 2, 2003

what are you all talking about?

SR and dboggny.

38.2k · April 2, 2003

We're discussing Etoast's fake finds. He claims to have 100, but through the magic of double posting and multiple finds on his OWN caches (he's found his Beaverton cache 47 times)we found out he only has 4 finds.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 02, 2003 at 02:00 PM.]

April 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim M CPA:
But perhaps I was on to something more by mention of the comments from the thread here who may have done the double counting deed.

I need that sentence explained to me; it gave me a headache.

It says: Some people made observations regarding potential double counting. They mentioned them, here, in this thread. This is in addition to my initial inquiry/observation.

The whole issue is a discussion point, not an accusation to anyone specifically.

Keep it light.

April 2, 2003

Now Brian, you know etoast HAS a job and can only do so much.

April 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by EMTJeepers:
Now Brian, you know etoast HAS a job and can only do so much.

April 9, 2003

I'm one of the new/naïve, that didn't know any better. Since reading this I went back to the one double find I had and changed it to a note. I had gone back to get something someone left, and logged it to let others know the object was no longer there. It will never happen again

Double Counting

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

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