SUGGESTION: Prevent duplicate finds of same cache for 24 hours.

1.4k · May 21, 2015

I believe that the system should be modified to prevent one person from logging more than one found log on a cache within 24 hours of their previous found log for that cache and to prevent a single cacher from posting multiple found logs for the same cache with the same found date.

Over the past week I have had two separate low-number cachers log duplicate finds on my caches. One was a first find, logged twice and the other was a 5th find also logged twice.

I have written to both and so far the first has replied. He was unaware of having double logged and was happy for me to delete one of his duplicate logs.

We have also had at least one occasion where a comparatively high-number cacher got in a paddy with a CO and logged over 20 Finds on a cache all on the same day.

I have also seen cases where someone logged a find and then "edited" their log by writing a second found log.

I realise that some caches may be legitimately logged as found more than once, so I'm not suggesting we ban multiple logs in this situation.

Your thoughts, please

Tony

3.3k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

1.4k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

There are some grandfathered caches which are allowed to be logged as found more than once. Three travelling caches come to mind. However, this suggestion tries to stop accidental multiple finds.

The Web site allows you to log multiple finds. The app, so I am led to believe, will do multiple retries under some circumstances without recognising that one was successful.

If it were possible to put some code deep into the logging process which would prevent multiple logging, regardless of the source of the logs, this would go away.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gill & Tony

6k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

Might be frowned on but it is OK. You can log a cache found multiple times

13.7k · May 21, 2015

We're still seeing folks (around plenty long enough to know better...) using found it for write note, TB drops and even maintenance on their own hides.

Those still using a PC, it does still say "Found It!" with that huge smiley right above "Log a New Visit".

I believe they think no one will notice. What's a few smileys here and there...

I suppose most low-number cacher doubles (and up) are phone users not sure their find went through.

- Oh heck, just tap it again, just in case.

The unvalidated users, never logging into the site (and it says "never" on their profile), probably have no clue why their new "score" of ten is on only three caches.

But with some moving caches still around, and Benchmarks multi-logged on a cache in other countries (though here in the US, Benchmarks don't count as a find), I don't see how the system would be able to differentiate between these and any other cache types (to only allow one find on a cache).

3.8k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

Well some of us non-Americans have to make do with logging a cache more than once, since we don't have Benchmark hunting...

May 21, 2015

It would be nice to have some time limit...I logged a few from my phone a while back and didn't realize for over a week that one log had been posted twice due to phone/connection issues. I've seen the same situation on some of my caches recently, as well--two identical logs within minutes. Not sure how hard that would be to write into the app/website.

13.7k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

Well some of us non-Americans have to make do with logging a cache more than once, since we don't have Benchmark hunting...

"Make do", huh...

IIRC, caches allowing benchmarks were added in other Countries when folks said, "Hey, we have benchmarks too".

- But in the US, our benchmarks don't count as finds.

They're listed at the bottom with an asterisk that reads, "* Benchmarks are not included in Total Found ".

- Guess someone could code those caches to do the same for you...

1.4k · May 21, 2015

But with some moving caches still around, and Benchmarks multi-logged on a cache in other countries (though here in the US, Benchmarks don't count as a find), I don't see how the system would be able to differentiate between these and any other cache types (to only allow one find on a cache).

The plan isn't to prevent multi-logging and isn't to prevent multiple found logs on the same cache. There is no need to differentiate between cache types.

The plan is to prevent multi-logging within a minimum time period and for the same found date. To prevent accidental multi-caching.

So, If I find a moveable cache today and log it as found, then find it again in 6 months time (or even 24 hours later) I could log the second find with the second date.

What I'm trying to prevent is multiple found logs on the same date for the same cache by the same person.

I guess it should be extended to DNF logs, although I could see someone hiking a circular trail, DNF'ing the first cache, completing the loop and then DNF'ing the same cache a second time. Maybe multiple DNf's on the same cache on the same day should be allowed, but only if there are logs on other caches in between.

15.3k · May 21, 2015

I like the suggestion for a pop-up alert for multiple Find logs. And I think it would be useful to have some sort of system to filter out duplicate logs of any kind (that is, logs with identical text, date, log type, etc.). It would be nice to have help avoiding unintended duplicates.

But as others mentioned, there are caches where multiple Find logs are encouraged. I've seen grandfathered traveling caches logged a few times in the same day. And if someone finds (and rehides) one early in the morning, and then others find (and rehide) it a couple times during the afternoon, and then the original geocacher finds (and rehides) it again later in the evening, then there's no reason not to allow multiple finds for that same cache on the same day.

1.4k · May 21, 2015

Not sure how hard that would be to write into the app/website.

That depends upon how their code is set up.

If they have a central subroutine to update the database then it should be a piece of cake. If they update the database all over the shop then it could be very tricky to ensure all areas are covered.

Basically, all they need is

Is this a "Write Found Log"request? If so, has this person already found the cache? If so, is this log for the same found date? If so, reject it.

Having looked at that, we don't even need the 24 hour delay. If they already have a found log for that date, reject it. No two Found Logs by the same person for the same date on the same cache. That would allow someone who is back-logging two finds on the same cache on different dates to do all their logging on the same day.

13.7k · May 21, 2015

But with some moving caches still around, and Benchmarks multi-logged on a cache in other countries (though here in the US, Benchmarks don't count as a find), I don't see how the system would be able to differentiate between these and any other cache types (to only allow one find on a cache).

The plan isn't to prevent multi-logging and isn't to prevent multiple found logs on the same cache. There is no need to differentiate between cache types.

The plan is to prevent multi-logging within a minimum time period and for the same found date. To prevent accidental multi-caching.

So, If I find a moveable cache today and log it as found, then find it again in 6 months time (or even 24 hours later) I could log the second find with the second date.

What I'm trying to prevent is multiple found logs on the same date for the same cache by the same person.

I guess it should be extended to DNF logs, although I could see someone hiking a circular trail, DNF'ing the first cache, completing the loop and then DNF'ing the same cache a second time. Maybe multiple DNf's on the same cache on the same day should be allowed, but only if there are logs on other caches in between.

I understand what you're saying, and pretty-much agree, just can't figure it (for now) as practical.

- That is, until these odd cache types go bye-bye.

By your design, if someone from Canada finds three benchmarks in one day, they'd have to log the cache (that they're to be listed in) on three different days.

We know of one who found the same moving cache twice in one day.

3.3k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

Well some of us non-Americans have to make do with logging a cache more than once, since we don't have Benchmark hunting...

I can't imagine that "finding" a cache the third time would be as rewarding as the first time. I must have a "low numbers" mentality.

I think if I started relogging traditional caches, I would try to rethink my philosophy of caching. If the location was so great I wanted to visit again and again, I might post a note occasionally.

I posted a note and photo once when a LPC I found previously had ten feet of snow plowed around it and over it, for example. A "newsworthy" item, you might say. But another "find" after the snow melted? No.

15.3k · May 21, 2015

Basically, all they need is

Is this a "Write Found Log"request? If so, has this person already found the cache? If so, is this log for the same found date? If so, reject it.

How about performing the same test for all cache types?

If the log date, log type, and log text are all the same as an existing log, then reject the duplicate log. Or maybe reject the log if posted via the API, and pop up a warning if posted via the web site.

1.4k · May 21, 2015

Basically, all they need is

Is this a "Write Found Log"request? If so, has this person already found the cache? If so, is this log for the same found date? If so, reject it.

How about performing the same test for all cache types?

If the log date, log type, and log text are all the same as an existing log, then reject the duplicate log. Or maybe reject the log if posted via the API, and pop up a warning if posted via the web site.

That would work. Changing the text would allow deliberate double-logging.

Now all we need is for TPTB to implement it.

14k · May 21, 2015

I thought *any* "re-finding" was frowned on.

Well some of us non-Americans have to make do with logging a cache more than once, since we don't have Benchmark hunting...

Benchmarks don't add finds to our count.

14k · May 21, 2015

I believe that the system should be modified to prevent one person from logging more than one found log on a cache within 24 hours of their previous found log for that cache and to prevent a single cacher from posting multiple found logs for the same cache with the same found date.

Your thoughts, please

Tony

This has been suggested before. Personally, I think the best approach wouldn't be to prevent someone from posting logs is to have a dialog box which something like "You have already posted a Found It log on this cache. Are you sure that you want to post another Found It log? [Yes] [Cancel]

I suspect that most of the multiple logs on caches are unintentional and this would like prevent most of those. For those intentionally posting multiple found it logs it would serve as reminder for what they're doing and for caches which might have legitimate multiple found it logs such as traveling or locationless caches they're so uncommon that the extra annoyance of an extra click is barely negligible.

May 21, 2015

I realise that some caches may be legitimately logged as found more than once, so I'm not suggesting we ban multiple logs in this situation.

It might also happen although it is highly unlikely that someone who is very late with logging his finds wanted to log two legitimate FI logs on a single cache - one from yesterday and the other one say from a year ago and the system would not allow him to log the latter one until the next day.

So I would change your demand to "prevent a user from logging two finds with the same date".

13.7k · May 21, 2015

I realise that some caches may be legitimately logged as found more than once, so I'm not suggesting we ban multiple logs in this situation.

It might also happen although it is highly unlikely that someone who is very late with logging his finds wanted to log two legitimate FI logs on a single cache - one from yesterday and the other one say from a year ago and the system would not allow him to log the latter one until the next day.

So I would change your demand to "prevent a user from logging two finds with the same date".

But then those in the UK and Canada (the only ones I'm aware of that have these) who find more than a benchmark in one day, would have to fake their find dates online.

- And besides the fake online log, for moving caches, they'd have to pre-date the containers log too.

COs are supposed to handle false logging as part of maintenance anyway.

Really want to penalize a few Countries worth of users, for a couple of phone loggers?

May 21, 2015

This thread is about a suggestion for CACHES, not benchmarks.

And don't understand your note about moving caches - there's no reason to log two finds within the same day on those caches. You usually log find ("Found it") when you find and grab it and then "write note" with new coordinates when you hide it.

13.7k · May 21, 2015

This thread is about a suggestion for CACHES, not benchmarks.

And don't understand your note about moving caches - there's no reason to log two finds within the same day on those caches. You usually log find ("Found it") when you find and grab it and then "write note" with new coordinates when you hide it.

Brass Caps (for example) is a cache that allows folks who find benchmarks (in Canada) to log all benchmarks they find on it.

The cache page says there are over 500. You can legitimately log on that cache over 500 times.

There's one in the UK also. May be some in other Countries, but I'm not aware of 'em.

Benchmarks on this site are US only. Others wanted similar in their Country too.

It's possible to log a moving cache as many times as it's rehidden by another.

We know of one who found the same moving cache twice in one day (found, rehidden, found by another and rehidden, then found again by the first), and have heard of a few with many more.

4.5k · May 21, 2015

I believe that the system should be modified to prevent one person from logging more than one found log on a cache within 24 hours of their previous found log for that cache and to prevent a single cacher from posting multiple found logs for the same cache with the same found date.

Your thoughts, please

Tony

This has been suggested before. Personally, I think the best approach wouldn't be to prevent someone from posting logs is to have a dialog box which something like "You have already posted a Found It log on this cache. Are you sure that you want to post another Found It log? [Yes] [Cancel]

I suspect that most of the multiple logs on caches are unintentional and this would like prevent most of those. For those intentionally posting multiple found it logs it would serve as reminder for what they're doing and for caches which might have legitimate multiple found it logs such as traveling or locationless caches they're so uncommon that the extra annoyance of an extra click is barely negligible.

I'm not positive but i think many of the duplicates i'm getting these days are caused by glitches when using the app. These cachers are probably only posting one log but something occurs in the system that causes the double. I doubt there'd be a dialog box pop up in these cases.

If it's true that a glitch/hiccup is causing this, then the OP's idea probably wouldn't cover it either.

May 21, 2015

Now I understand and accept your arguments. Well then, it probably should stay up to CO's to take care of duplicate finds. :mellow:

May 21, 2015

Usually this happens when logging from the app. Out in the woods, service isn't great, so sometimes it looks like the log did not submit. So you click submit again and finally get the confirmation screen... and then later (if) you look at the cache on the website you see that it posted both times that you clicked submit. :unsure:

Edited May 21, 2015 by ZeekLTK

14k · May 21, 2015

This thread is about a suggestion for CACHES, not benchmarks.

And don't understand your note about moving caches - there's no reason to log two finds within the same day on those caches. You usually log find ("Found it") when you find and grab it and then "write note" with new coordinates when you hide it.

Brass Caps (for example) is a cache that allows folks who find benchmarks (in Canada) to log all benchmarks they find on it.

The cache page says there are over 500. You can legitimately log on that cache over 500 times.

There's one in the UK also. May be some in other Countries, but I'm not aware of 'em.

Benchmarks on this site are US only. Others wanted similar in their Country too.

So, in Canada or the UK you can get 500+ finds on a cache, but in the U.S. you can't get any. How is that similar?

14k · May 21, 2015

Usually this happens when logging from the app. Out in the woods, service isn't great, so sometimes it looks like the log did not submit. So you click submit again and finally get the confirmation screen... and then later (if) you look at the cache on the website you see that it posted both times that you clicked submit.

I would suspect that the alert function that I suggested would still work in this case. The first time you hit the submit the form it's going to update the database with the log, then when " it looks like the log did not submit" that's typically because something went wrong with constructing and send the response. The next time you try to submit it would check the database, find that you had already submitted a Found It log (even if you didn't get a response the first time) and issue the "Now have already posted a found it log" alert.

3.2k · May 24, 2015

What is the world record for multiple logs on the same cache? I just deleted four of the five that appeared on one of my caches. It wasn't an application glitch as the wording was slightly different on each one.

10.1k · May 25, 2015

What is the world record for multiple logs on the same cache? I just deleted four of the five that appeared on one of my caches. It wasn't an application glitch as the wording was slightly different on each one.

I had nine finds on one of my caches. The app user didn't realize that the logs had gone through.

May 26, 2015

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.

14k · May 26, 2015

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.

Out of curiosity, would you find just an alert that indicated that you had already logged a Found It an inconvenience? The way I see it, although there are some legitimate reason to post multiple found it logs on a cache, the frequency that it occurs is not significant enough compared to the benefits of alerting someone that is unintentionally about to post a found it log on a cache they've already logged as found.

15.3k · May 26, 2015

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.
Out of curiosity, would you find just an alert that indicated that you had already logged a Found It an inconvenience? The way I see it, although there are some legitimate reason to post multiple found it logs on a cache, the frequency that it occurs is not significant enough compared to the benefits of alerting someone that is unintentionally about to post a found it log on a cache they've already logged as found.

And even if the system completely prevented duplicate logs (same cache, same date, same log type, same text), I don't see how that would be "a big inconvenience" to anyone.

3.7k · May 26, 2015

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.
Out of curiosity, would you find just an alert that indicated that you had already logged a Found It an inconvenience? The way I see it, although there are some legitimate reason to post multiple found it logs on a cache, the frequency that it occurs is not significant enough compared to the benefits of alerting someone that is unintentionally about to post a found it log on a cache they've already logged as found.
And even if the system completely prevented duplicate logs (same cache, same date, same log type, same text), I don't see how that would be "a big inconvenience" to anyone.

Agreed.

Even on the rare cases of locationless caches that allow multiple logs, how common is a second log within 24 hours? Should we even be talking about making this rarest-of-the-rare cases the reason the suggestion shouldn't be implemented?

1.3k · May 26, 2015

This feature would have certainly inconvenienced attendees of events like the Cambridge Christmas at Dickens Village IV

Perhaps if implemented, the CO could opt-out of the feature to allow this type of stuff to happen?

15.3k · May 26, 2015

This feature would have certainly inconvenienced attendees of events like the Cambridge Christmas at Dickens Village IV

Perhaps if implemented, the CO could opt-out of the feature to allow this type of stuff to happen?

Or people who post multiple Attended logs for temporary caches could include the name/number/coordinates of the temporary cache in its Attended log.

In this case, it looks like most of them do that already.

Edited May 26, 2015 by niraD

1.4k · May 26, 2015

This feature would have certainly inconvenienced attendees of events like the Cambridge Christmas at Dickens Village IV

What a totally bizarre concept! If I'm understanding this correctly, the event has a number of temporary caches, which would not normally be permitted, pretends they are physical stages of a multi and then people log the multi-event hybrid once per physical stage found?

Wow!

7.8k · May 26, 2015

This feature would have certainly inconvenienced attendees of events like the Cambridge Christmas at Dickens Village IV

What a totally bizarre concept! If I'm understanding this correctly, the event has a number of temporary caches, which would not normally be permitted, pretends they are physical stages of a multi and then people log the multi-event hybrid once per physical stage found?

Wow!

That practice is fairly common in a part of the US Midwest, but pretty much unheard-of outside that area.

I seem to remember that the practice was stopped by Groundspeak for one of that region's annual Mega Events, where many thousands of "attended" logs were commonplace even though the true attendance was nowhere near that.

When viewing the profile of a cacher from that region, their "find count" needs to be taken with about a pound of salt. :laughing:

Edited May 26, 2015 by The A-Team

13.7k · May 26, 2015

Isn't it a shame we don't have "distinct" anymore...

3.2k · May 27, 2015

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.

I can't think of any reason for it to be "inconvenient". Other than traveling caches which are at least rare or perhaps extinct, and possibly some monthly gatherings that still use the same GC# every month, why would a cache need to be logged as "found" twice by the same account?

May 27, 2015

And even if the system completely prevented duplicate logs (same cache, same date, same log type, same text), I don't see how that would be "a big inconvenience" to anyone.

(emphasis added)

I have to agree with niraD. Even if you want to allow multiple finds on the same cache on the same day, why would you want to use the exact same text. If the text is exactly the same, there is no need for a second (or subsequent) log. Anyone looking at the log is going to ignore the duplicates, anyway. However, the duplicates create a problem when you load your GPSr with only 5 (or even 10) logs.

I went for a cache on Saturday (GC2VQQM) - 9 of the last 10 logs were duplicate DNF logs. An obvious error (multiple submit presses either from the app or the website), but that meant I had only 2 meaningful logs in the GPSr.

Preventing duplicate (exact duplicate) logs would eliminate this problem. I believe the majority of the users would benefit from this.

SUGGESTION: Prevent duplicate finds of same cache for 24 hours.

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