Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs

[+Team Microdot]

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

 

I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.

 

I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).

Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.

 

Save yourself the effort - I'm not the slightest bit interested.

 

Not you but maybe others. The last sentence was not specifically addressed to you but did not warrant a post of its own. The rest should explain that what you wrote above "just as well and equally valid and valuable" is not true in its generality for the reasons I provided.

 

Now even less interested but glad you at least fixed your misquote

[+db3034]

I, like many many people enjoy YOSM caches. This virtual cache should be exempted from this change. Many of the YOSM's involve a long and at times hard climb to reach the YOSM. Certainly more so than the vast majority of other caches and as such the 'finder' should be allowed the 'reward' of being able to log after all the effort they have put into getting to the TP or finding the elusive bolt.

Presumably this must have been discussed when the concept of the YOSM was allowed to be launched. Presumably the group that made the decision are the same group, but possibly not the exact same people, that are now wanting to change the rules concerning the YOSM that they originally agreed to when it was set up. This has to be wrong and common sense says that this particular cache should remain as it is at present especially as the powers that be were involved in the setting up of it.

[+Lil Devil]

blah blah YOSM blah blah

YOSM was published in 2002 when Locationless caches were allowed.

 

When the other Locationless caches were archived in 2005, YOSM was missed because it is misclassified as a Virtual cache.

 

The powers that be made their decision 12 years ago that this should be archived. You could say they're just cleaning up loose ends now.

[+SwineFlew]

Whats the fess about? You guys are taking the hobby way too serious.

 

One cache = One find. Time to stop those silly little things.

[+Cardinal Red]

Whats the fess about? You guys are taking the hobby way too serious.

 

One cache = One find. Time to stop those silly little things.

 

No, now is not the time. The time was 17 years ago. How much of this is tied to the new Geocache Health Score? I refuse to believe Groundspeak suddenly cares one moldy fermented fig what their customers think.

[+tundra70]

I'd like to add my view to this topic, as we have found GC45CC YOSM many times. Our view is that it's a great idea, and has taken us to numerous places in the UK we would have been unlikely to visit.

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community. I know lost of cachers who have only logged it once, because it messes up the stats, which if fine (so do lab caches).

Surely one of the strengths of our hobby is the diversity, and the odd anomaly? It would be (and will be) duller if everything is standardised. Most of the anomalies are old ones, that could not be set today. But why remove the few remaining oddities just to standardise everything?

The double-logging issue, based on our owned caches, stems from new-ish cachers using their 'phones and pressing the log button twice. It seems to be a sledge-hammer to crack a very small nut to respond to a minor problem by banishing some well-loved caches to the dustbin.

Some of the other posts on here seem to get very agitated by minor points about cache adoption and the reasons behind it, among other things. We think we should value a bit of diversity and recognise that people want to pursue the common activity in slightly different ways.

Cameron & Debbie

(tundra70)

[+cerberus1]

Why change anything. When logging a cache why not have an option to say "you have logged this before do you want to log again?" Or something similar. I log the YOSM cache based in the UK and some of these are on top of mountains!!! I have logged this 135 times to date. As a reformed couch potato I plead with Groundspeak to save GC45CC it's a national institution here in the U.K. There were even events last weekend to celebrate its existence. Fingers crossed you see sense and keep it.

In the US, we aren't allowed a "smiley" for any benchmarks we've found, though it does sit separately at the bottom of our finds, with an asterisk that reads ,"* Benchmarks are not included in Total Found ".

 

If you want to find benchmarks, and feel so strongly about keeping a record of them, why not simply log a Write Note?

Write Notes are recorded, and separated by type of log, on your profile of Your Geocaching Logs (all).

[+cerberus1]

Why change anything. When logging a cache why not have an option to say "you have logged this before do you want to log again?" Or something similar.

Using a phone?

 

Using a pc, on every cache page is a huge smiley with Found It! (and the date you did) directly above/touching the Log a New Visit entry.

I don't believe anyone could miss that.

I'd bet that a good percentage of cachers are still using a GPSr, or a phone, but logging at home too, so many simply aren't paying any attention to it after, oh, say 50 caches later.

 

- But if the app doesn't have a reminder, I'd like to see that too.

 

Edited for a "Duh..."

If this goes through, there's no need for that change to the app.

Edited March 30, 2017 by cerberus1

[+SwineFlew]

blah blah YOSM blah blah

YOSM was published in 2002 when Locationless caches were allowed.

 

When the other Locationless caches were archived in 2005, YOSM was missed because it is misclassified as a Virtual cache.

 

The powers that be made their decision 12 years ago that this should be archived. You could say they're just cleaning up loose ends now.

 

Just archived YOSM and forget about it.

[+W1zz]

GC43F3-Brass Cap Cache was created March 21 2002 at present has 20,202 finds

GC45CC-Ye Ole Survey Monuments was created March 25 2002 at present has 22,630 finds

GCA0D6-Stash n' Dash was created November 15 2002 at present has 1558 finds

GC4411 -LEAP FROG was created March 2 2002 at present has 384 finds

 

2,000,000+ active caches in the world. Why should Groundspeak make an exception for a handful that don't respect the guidelines ? These are virtuals or locationless caches in disguise. Of course, they are interesting because they are rare. But logging them once should be enough.

 

Personally, if I had climbed hundreds of hills to find a brass cap monument, I'd like to see an equivalent amount of Found logs in my profile. If those locations are so meaningful, why not get them their own cache ?

[cezanne]

Personally, if I had climbed hundreds of hills to find a brass cap monument, I'd like to see an equivalent amount of Found logs in my profile. If those locations are so meaningful, why not get them their own cache ?

 

Have you understood what locationless caches were about? Their main attraction comes from something which neither can be cast in the number of found it logs nor can it be implemented by hiding physical caches at all such locations.

[+J Grouchy]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

 

Of course those folks who can use one cache to obtain many smilies would like it...it bumps their numbers.

[+thomfre]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

The double-logging issue, based on our owned caches, stems from new-ish cachers using their 'phones and pressing the log button twice. It seems to be a sledge-hammer to crack a very small nut to respond to a minor problem by banishing some well-loved caches to the dustbin.

It's also a problem when you have intermittent internet connection, or the site has heavy load. You only click once (doesn't matter if it's app, GSAK or website), but the log is saved twice.

This change will ensure that *all* cases leading to duplicate logs will be eliminated. It will also be the end of endless discussions like "Do I log my own cache? The site allows me to do it, so it must be okay. Right?" etc.

[+J Grouchy]

It will also be the end of endless discussions like "Do I log my own cache? The site allows me to do it, so it must be okay. Right?" etc.

 

No...then those discussions will become "why won't it let me log my own cache?" threads.

[+thomfre]

2,000,000+ active caches in the world. Why should Groundspeak make an exception for a handful that don't respect the guidelines ? These are virtuals or locationless caches in disguise. Of course, they are interesting because they are rare. But logging them once should be enough.

 

It's almost 3,000,000 now...

 

If Groundspeak make this exception, it will be hard for them to deny the next request like: "I want an exception for my cache! GCXXXX got, so I want too!"

Much easier to just make one rule, and let every cache follow that. Less programming involved, and not that much that can cause problems.

Personally, if I had climbed hundreds of hills to find a brass cap monument, I'd like to see an equivalent amount of Found logs in my profile. If those locations are so meaningful, why not get them their own cache ?

+1

[+thomfre]

It will also be the end of endless discussions like "Do I log my own cache? The site allows me to do it, so it must be okay. Right?" etc.

 

No...then those discussions will become "why won't it let me log my own cache?" threads.

True... At least those are a lot easier to answer...

[+SwineFlew]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

 

Of course those folks who can use one cache to obtain many smilies would like it...it bumps their numbers.

 

And they are here protesting about shutting down their secret weapon.

 

Time to even out playing field.

[+tundra70]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

 

Of course those folks who can use one cache to obtain many smilies would like it...it bumps their numbers.

 

It's an interesting point, although it does seem to misunderstand that it is in (currently) about 725 different locations across England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and other islands around the coast. If we wanted to 'bump up' our numbers we would just do a trail of 100 trads in an afternoon along a nice flat lane or two.

[+Northumbria biker]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

[+J Grouchy]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

[+cerberus1]

Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

While I used to sorta agree, the issues that come up frequently on logging alone here would now be kept to only the fake finders and throwdowners.

 

Only HQ knows how many issues they've had in emails and the Help Center over this logging carp, and I'd bet they'd rather spend their time doing something constructive, insteada sorting through "look what they're doing now".

 

- Which reminds me, there's a lotta logging of a certain moving cache right now.

[+tundra70]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

 

I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

[+SwineFlew]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

Northumbria biker found that cache 307 times!! Even found his own caches 11 times. Also double found 4 times on other caches. Hes serious in bumping up his numbers. Hes upset that GS is putting a stop to his number bumping.

[+thomfre]

Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find.

 

If it's not done for the numbers, why not just post a note? The cache will still be findable (but you only get one smiley).

 

Are there really no other caches to find near the survey monuments? I'm trying to understand why this one cache is so much more important than the ~3 million other caches.

[+SwineFlew]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

 

I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

You found that cache 453 times. I can see why you are upset about it. :blink:

[+J Grouchy]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

 

I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

 

The difference being that I log each of those only once. Even if I went out to find a 700 stage multi, I wouldn't log each stage as a find...I'd log one find, anything additional being a Note.

[cezanne]

The difference being that I log each of those only once. Even if I went out to find a 700 stage multi, I wouldn't log each stage as a find...I'd log one find, anything additional being a Note.

 

A multi cache with 700 stages is however not the same as a locationless cache. Every finder of the multi goes to the same locations. It's not up a task of the cacher to find a new suitable location to qualify for a find.

[+bflentje]

I'll be so gutted if the YOSM cache GC45CC is not made an exception. It's the only cache that I have been interested in for a while now which had taken me from orkney in the far north of the uk to Brighton in the far south. It's been interesting as it could be a hidden rivet your trying to find or a huge pillar, mostly in scenic locations and some which require a good walk. It's been much better than trying to find the ever growing amount of dross caches just chucked out of a car window with no thought to the location people are being brought to.

 

SAVE THE YOSM GC45CC

 

Gutted? Good grief.

[+Team Hugs]

Mounting my soapbox ...

 

As much as I love this obsession hobby, I really wish Geocaching HQ would figure out a way to make game-changing announcements better.

• The return of challenge caches. When the one-year anniversary of the moratorium was near, a post was made to the forums indicating that the moratorium would be lifted "shortly", and then leaking several of the details of the new rules for challenge caches. Of course, those details were incomplete, which lead to massive speculation and confusion about what was to come, because no-one in the know would confirm or deny anything other than the incomplete details that had been leaked.
• Jeremy Irish stepping down as President. No official announcement, just a post to someone's social media account, which got massively copied around the 'net, leading to frequent questions regarding whether or not the post was legitimate (since many of us are skeptical about anything like this).
• Now, this change in logging policies. Pre-announcement news is sent to one of the users of the Geocaching Partner API, who posts it on their forums, which then gets copied to a thousand Facebook groups (that's how I saw it). Yet again, the brief announcement generates lots of questions (e.g. "what about adopting found caches?", "can YOSM be grandfathered?", "will old duplicate finds be deleted?"), which are going unanswered because no-one is authorized to speak officially to the subject yet. And so a lot of folks are getting worked up over questions that probably have answers that we'll have in a few weeks, but no-one knows whether to trust that the answers will make sense.

I'd like to think there are better ways to let folks know about changes like this.

 

P.S. For me, the specific change announced here is a bit of a "meh". I've only seen one cache in my area that had multiple finds --- and it was a mystery that was deliberately set up to allow for multiple finds. (Yes, it pushed the limits of The Rules a bit hard.) It's not going to affect the way I cache one way or another.

[+Northumbria biker]

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

Northumbria biker found that cache 307 times!! Even found his own caches 11 times. Also double found 4 times on other caches. Hes serious in bumping up his numbers. Hes upset that GS is putting a stop to his number bumping.

[+The Magna Defender]

With regard to my adoption post. I took them on at short notice after the original CO got in a trademark huff and threatened to archive a series of 200 that had been out less than a month. This is AFTER he archived a similar crop of hides after an argument with caching police. Why should I as a finder and everyone else for that matter feel the need to rush around every new cache published on the off chance the CO will get in a huff and bin it before I get to it.

[+Northumbria biker]

Not sure where the count of the times I logged my own caches comes from but the only ones I have knowingly logged are caches I have adopted or Event caches I have organised. If someone can point to any others I will gladly delete the logs.

[+Team Microdot]

With regard to my adoption post. I took them on at short notice after the original CO got in a trademark huff and threatened to archive a series of 200 that had been out less than a month. This is AFTER he archived a similar crop of hides after an argument with caching police. Why should I as a finder and everyone else for that matter feel the need to rush around every new cache published on the off chance the CO will get in a huff and bin it before I get to it.

 

Good question - why should you feel that need?

[+Team Microdot]

They had their time. Now it's time to go

 

I'm very confused with this type of comment? What is geocaching? Well here's a log from my Brass Cap cache that does give me a great explanation of what geocaching is all about. Note the comment....

"They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together "

 

Wow! 15 years of brass caps. I found my first brass cap back in June 2008, so I am only approaching my 9th Anniversary of finding them. Hunting brass caps has taken me as far north as Steen River at the NWT border to as far south as Coutts at the USA border. They have taken me as far west as Boundary Lake near the BC border to as far east as Jaycee Park at the SK border. I have found brass caps at elevations as low as 249m in Fort McMurray to as high as 2803m on the summit of Mount Allan. Cap hunting has had me looking in areas as public as under a manhole in front of the old King Eddy Hotel in Calgary to the middle of nowhere in a forest north of Hinton. They’ve brought me from large cities to tiny hamlets and National Parks to small greenspaces. I’ve had the pleasure of many memorable brass cap outings involving extreme weather, forest fires, animal encounters, route finding challenges, snow coverage, excavations, metal detecting and just plain difficulty in finding them. They are the reason we have explored so much of our great province. The most favourite reason I love hunting for caps is all the fun I’ve had finding them with family and good friends and the memories we have created together.

 

I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.

 

It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.

 

I've never bothered to look at how YOSM works but having now taken the time to do so, including having a look at the dedicated website which supports it, I do rather like the idea and I do think it deserves a special dispensation.

 

To me it is very much in what I see as the true spirit of geocaching and, if nothing else, I can see how it might take me to great locations and I wouldn't be going there only to find a box of wet junk that nobody can be bothered to maintain because it's relatively out-of-the-way.

 

I still won't mourn its loss if it ends up going, because I'm not already invested in it, but neither will I be upset if it is allowed to remain and continue in its current form.

 

I think one of the better aspects of geocaching, one of the things that people identify time and time again as the things that stand out for them and provide them with their best memories are the oddities, the unusual things, those things which differ from the norm - and this looks to me to be very much one of those things.

[+Harry Dolphin]

It seems as though not much thought has gone into this. As you can see just from the posts on this thread, there are all sorts of exceptions for caches set up during the early days of caching that were approved of at that time. Perhaps Groundspeak should reconsider this.

 

Tear the bandage off, I say. Maybe painful at first, but the rare exceptions (which I still don't personally feel SHOULD be exceptions) don't really justify the frustrations that the multiple logging can cause.

 

To set a standard now and move foreword with it is good, but to go back and attempt to rewrite history will cause lots of problems.

 

Like I said before, I highly doubt they would delete existing duplicates. I don't see anything indicating they would do that. I'm certain they'll let existing duplicates stand and moving forward will just block new duplicates from happening.

 

The exceptions are not so rare for those who started in this hobby early.

 

Yes. I have nine duplicate logs. And I'm proud of them. One a moving cache. The second log was 62 miles from the first. There were Locationless Caches that changed the objective every so often. And the excellent series of unknown caches involving a photo of something specific. Again, the objective changed every month or so. Multiple logs were prmitted on all of these. The unknown caches were archived at the same time as the Locationless Caches.

I do think that existing caches that permit multiple logs from different locations should be grandfathered. The brass caps have intrigued me.

But I do agree that not permitting multiple logs on most caches is a very good idea. There was one cacher who logged my webcam cache nine times! Then didn't understand why I deleted eight of her logs. Her App was misbehaving.

I have logged DNF on some of my caches. I didn't find them. That's a DNF to me! I then performed Owner maintenance.

[+duncanhoyle]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

 

22000+ finds but 2917 unique finders (1038 have logged more than once). That gives ~21% favourite points. It's in the top 10 for favourites in the UK.

[+ChileHead]

With regard to my adoption post. I took them on at short notice after the original CO got in a trademark huff and threatened to archive a series of 200 that had been out less than a month. This is AFTER he archived a similar crop of hides after an argument with caching police. Why should I as a finder and everyone else for that matter feel the need to rush around every new cache published on the off chance the CO will get in a huff and bin it before I get to it.

 

I have never felt the need to adopt any cache because it might be archived. Unlike Pokemon, you don't have to find them all. If they get archived, more spots will open up for new caches with cache owners who will take care of them. I would have absolutely no interest in adopting a cache because somebody got huffy and left, unless it happened to be a legendary cache that shouldn't get archived.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I admittedly have not read this entire topic but I'll drop my random 2c in here anyway for better or worse.

 

IMO it would have been better to allow people as many duplicate finds as they want, but simply display a count of "geocaches found" not "find logs on geocaches" - I would think that would make everyone happy(ish).

 

I mean there really is no reason why you shouldn't log a find twice if you find a cache twice - it's kind of a statement of fact - but the essence of the "1 geocache 1 find" is more about counting the number of geocaches found and not muddying it with the number of times you've walked to the top of the hill and found the same one.

 

Anyway, seems to me this would keep the moving cache or YOSM crowds happy as they can keep logging as many times as they want.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

With regard to my adoption post. I took them on at short notice after the original CO got in a trademark huff and threatened to archive a series of 200 that had been out less than a month. This is AFTER he archived a similar crop of hides after an argument with caching police. Why should I as a finder and everyone else for that matter feel the need to rush around every new cache published on the off chance the CO will get in a huff and bin it before I get to it.

 

Good question - why should you feel that need?

 

By the way - which of these stories is true - the one where the CO got in a trademark huff and threatened to archive a series of 200 or your original story?

 

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching.

[+kathrynandsandra]

This is totally fine for traditional caches, but a disaster for YOSM. Surely an exception could be made for these. They've lasted 15 years and have thousands of genuine finds. Although the cache number is the same, you can never log the same monument twice. There's no way this falls into the same category as a duplicate log for the same cache. Let's hope Groundspeak have another look at this.

[+funkymunkyzone]

When I joined up some 11 years ago now and started caching, I found a cache and then went back later and found it again to retrieve a travel bug. I logged both visits as finds, under the impression that the "find count" would *obviously* be calculated as the number of geocaches I had found and not the number of find logs. I was quickly "educated" by another local cacher and I changed my second find log to a note, but in my mind I thought at the time that was very silly, that my statement of fact "find" log had to be entered as something else because of an inability for the counting algorithm to handle the situation. Input of data should always be simple and dumb, and most importantly truthful. The smarts should be in the analysis, counting, stats, whatever.

[+bflentje]

I'll out do some of you. I've logged my own cache(s) 70 times. Five of those finds were caches I adopted after the fact. The other 65 finds were on one particular cache.. with the following disclaimer in my profile:

 

To clarify the difference between bflentje's Finds versus Unique Geocaches, that is a result of a practice used in the early days of geocaching. When you attended an event, event owners would hide Temporary Geocaches. Those temporary geocaches could be logged and added to your find count by logging the event once for your attendance, and then logging the event again multiple times, to represent each temporary geocache you found while attending the event. Thankfully, that practice was abandoned by just about everyone in the geocaching community. Unfortunately though, for those of us that have been around a while, the long term effects are reflected within our statistics. Why not just delete all of the duplicate event Found It logs you ask? Because other statistics, such as milestones, would be messed up. :-(

[+cerberus1]

IMO it would have been better to allow people as many duplicate finds as they want, but simply display a count of "geocaches found" not "find logs on geocaches" - I would think that would make everyone happy(ish).

I really missed the "100 finds (87 distinct)" section on folks stats.

You kinda knew where some were coming from with "issues" (giving it a look).

Easy to spot the post fibbers.

 

We've talked to some who didn't even know they still have that with those long megeocachingprofile stats on their profile pages.

Edited March 30, 2017 by cerberus1

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find.

 

If it's not done for the numbers, why not just post a note? The cache will still be findable (but you only get one smiley).

 

Are there really no other caches to find near the survey monuments? I'm trying to understand why this one cache is so much more important than the ~3 million other caches.

 

OK. I seem to have triggered these rather extensive threads.

Until a couple of years ago I didn't log GC45CC multiple times and at that time raised quite an argument against multiple logs.

 

I got converted much as anything by a reviewers comments amongst many others.

I started logging them and rather enjoyed seeking them out.

I'm not a youngster or in good health. A walk into them or often up to them is often excrutiatingly exhaustive.

I arrive there as I've said often exhausted sometimes their siting is such that to just record the details of each monument I cling on tightly.

Next I wonder how the hell the engineers created each unique monument in such an environment. I've struggled just to get myself here; they have had to carry materials here and then spend time and effort in creation.

Some have a uniform shape many others do not but each will be unique in some way just as our logs are unique in that we have to submit a photo showing ourselves at the location.

 

My original trigger post was merely a where do we stand on YOSM's previous logs or future.

 

I can see the need to quell duplicate and erroneous logs but am unsure of a few aspects;

1) Any duplicate logs on my account were as a result of connection timeouts at time of logging in my early days of caching. It often took hours if not days to complete just a handful of logs at the end of which you were so exhausted you would likely not spot the duplicates.

Presumably when creating a new log now there has to be an extra access/interrogation of servers to confirm if the log is legitimate. Whilst many have super speed broadband these days many others do not. Will we hit a time out phenonema again?

 

2) Yes there has to be concern of how the new ruling is implemented; can old and new systems co exist? i.e. can previous logs remain or need to be lost.

 

3) Does the Grandfather status of the YOSM caches have any presedence over the new logging regime?

 

The threads seem to have drifted from the YOSM nature of the original intent.

 

The write note might be an option but equally how do you implement it;

Do existing found logs stand or get converted to notes?

Changing existing logs would also change any milestone claims. Locked milestones would display one value, statistics generators a different one.

 

Lots of unanswered questions and the original correspondence to api partners seems quite vague as to how they should approach or make adaptions.

[+egroeg]

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

 

22000+ finds but 2917 unique finders (1038 have logged more than once). That gives ~21% favourite points. It's in the top 10 for favourites in the UK.

 

So all this fuss is over something that only 1038 geocachers want to do? (Which is only about 1/3 of the cachers that have found this cache?)

[+bflentje]

IMO it would have been better to allow people as many duplicate finds as they want, but simply display a count of "geocaches found" not "find logs on geocaches" - I would think that would make everyone happy(ish).

I really missed the "100 finds (87 distinct)" section on folks stats.

You kinda knew where some were coming from with "issues" (giving it a look).

Easy to spot the post fibbers.

 

We've talked to some who didn't even know they still have that with those long megeocachingprofile stats on their profile pages.

 

See my post right above yours. Ain't no fibbing going on here. Watch those accusations you're flinging around.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Anyone logging a cache as 'found' more than once is wrong. Personally, I think extra 'found it' logs should be deleted. Really, all it does is run up ones find count. I don't do it, nor do those I cache with. Lame.

 

False numbers just ruin it for everyone. On the one hand it make you look like you may have more experience than you really do. On the other it's a slap in the face to those of us that come by our number honestly. Like I said, lame. Saying anything different is blasphemous.

 

Unless I missed something, or am not reading between the lines of the initial post (that seems to capitalize on this long overdue policy), I apologize in advance for those who just don't get it.

[+cerberus1]

IMO it would have been better to allow people as many duplicate finds as they want, but simply display a count of "geocaches found" not "find logs on geocaches" - I would think that would make everyone happy(ish).

I really missed the "100 finds (87 distinct)" section on folks stats.

You kinda knew where some were coming from with "issues" (giving it a look).

Easy to spot the post fibbers.

 

We've talked to some who didn't even know they still have that with those long megeocachingprofile stats on their profile pages.

 

See my post right above yours. Ain't no fibbing going on here. Watch those accusations you're flinging around.

Sorry if my post struck a nerve.

I apologize if you believe that "some" somehow refers to you, which wasn't my intention.

[+brendan714]

Anyone logging a cache as 'found' more than once is wrong. Personally, I think extra 'found it' logs should be deleted. Really, all it does is run up ones find count. I don't do it, nor do those I cache with. Lame.

 

False numbers just ruin it for everyone. On the one hand it make you look like you may have more experience than you really do. On the other it's a slap in the face to those of us that come by our number honestly. Like I said, lame. Saying anything different is blasphemous.

 

Unless I missed something, or am not reading between the lines of the initial post (that seems to capitalize on this long overdue policy), I apologize in advance for those who just don't get it.

Why does anyone care about anyone else's find count? I couldn't care less that my neighbour has 1 million cache finds. For that matter, I really don't care about my total find count. I don't play this game to only worry about stats or find count. Nor do I think that doing so is truly in the spirit of the game.

 

Let people log caches the way they want to. It's just a game. If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

[+dprovan]

Anyone logging a cache as 'found' more than once is wrong. Personally, I think extra 'found it' logs should be deleted. Really, all it does is run up ones find count. I don't do it, nor do those I cache with. Lame.

You're assuming the second find is not a legitimate log accurately describing a real event.