Is it common to adopt a cache one hasn't found?

[kanchan]

It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?), but in the reality, some cachers do adopt a cache before finding it for various reasons, and I think it's going to be a legitimate find as the adopter doesn't really know the hide while she or he is the owner of the listing. Did Groundspeak ever give it a thought on this?

 

Under the new logging policy, adopters will not be able to claim a smiley once the cache is transferred to them, They have to find the cache before the cache is transferred so they could claim a smiley. I think a warning message of some sort may help avoiding this situation. e.g., showing a message like "{adopter} hasn't found the cache yet. Are you sure to transfer the cache to {adopter}? Once the cache is transferred, {adopter} will not be able to claim a find."

[+narcissa]

It happens but I wouldn't say it's common. Cache adoption of any sort isn't all that common.

[+Mudfrog]

Not that common.

 

I would never adopt without knowing what i was adopting. It's gotta be a cache i liked and the only way i would know this is to have found it or assisted with its hide. Your best bet is to go find the cache, log it, then hit the adopt button.

[+dprovan]

I've seen it happen, but not often. But this is one of the things that annoys me about this entire discussion: there are a few reasons a CO might want to log a find on his own cache. Even though none are very likely, I don't see a justification for preventing them based on the potential of someone making a mistake in the opposite direction.

[+cerberus1]

I agree with Mudfrog. Well, so far.

Go to it. Like it (with maybe a plan to improve it). Then adopt it.

 

Often, when spotting a "looking for someone to adopt my caches" post in the community/regional forums here, or lurking on other regional sites, those caches have had red wrenches on them for months, with the CO simply not interested in fixing 'em, or they've moved a year earlier.

These same people usually get upset when I ask, "why not archive it?".

Go figure...

 

I've adopted one cache so far - it belonged to the other 2/3rds, and I'm the one who placed it for her anyway.

When it belonged to her, and though some locals do that stuff (asking why I haven't), I thought it'd be cheesy to log it.

Most times I did the maintenance too.

So of course I see no sense in logging my own caches either.

 

I guess I don't understand why someone needs to log that smiley.

[kanchan]

I've seen it happen, but not often. But this is one of the things that annoys me about this entire discussion: there are a few reasons a CO might want to log a find on his own cache. Even though none are very likely, I don't see a justification for preventing them based on the potential of someone making a mistake in the opposite direction.

I don't know why you thought I'm against the change to remove the ability for the cache owners to post a "Found It" log. I actually like the change **a lot**. How could my suggestion to add a friendly confirmation dialog upon adoption make things possibly worse?

[kanchan]

Not that common.

 

I would never adopt without knowing what i was adopting. It's gotta be a cache i liked and the only way i would know this is to have found it or assisted with its hide. Your best bet is to go find the cache, log it, then hit the adopt button.

I'm with this personally. I'm not interested in owning caches which I myself may not like. The "are you sure" message I've suggested could probably add this point as well.

[+TriciaG]

In the long thread that focuses mainly on two caches in Britain, someone posted that they had adopted a bunch of caches (200?) that they hadn't found. That way they could go find them at their leisure without danger of them being archived before they got to them.

 

I found that weird.

[+BCandMsKitty]

It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?), but in the reality, some cachers do adopt a cache before finding it for various reasons, and I think it's going to be a legitimate find as the adopter doesn't really know the hide while she or he is the owner of the listing. Did Groundspeak ever give it a thought on this?

 

Under the new logging policy, adopters will not be able to claim a smiley once the cache is transferred to them, They have to find the cache before the cache is transferred so they could claim a smiley. I think a warning message of some sort may help avoiding this situation. e.g., showing a message like "{adopter} hasn't found the cache yet. Are you sure to transfer the cache to {adopter}? Once the cache is transferred, {adopter} will not be able to claim a find."

 

So what new logging policy is that?

Is it something in the smartphone apps?

Or is it just something connected to adopted caches?

I just went to one of my caches and as a test logged a find o9n it. It went through as a normal find. (I deleted the log immediately)

So .. what's stopping you, under your adopting scenario, from just logging the find?

 

EDIT

Never mind ... I just went to the announcements threads and saw the changes.

Edited April 1, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

[+redsox_mark]

I don't think it is that common.

 

I did it once. I found a cache which needed some maintenance. The CO emailed me and said they had moved out of the area, so they could not maintain it, but asked if I would like to adopt it. Which I did. They had a second cache and asked if I could take that one too. I had not found it, but said yes. I almost immediately went out to try it find it, I never could find it, and eventually I archived it.

[+L0ne.R]

In the long thread that focuses mainly on two caches in Britain, someone posted that they had adopted a bunch of caches (200?) that they hadn't found. That way they could go find them at their leisure without danger of them being archived before they got to them.

 

I found that weird.

 

I think someone else (in another discussion) eluded to that practice too. The cache is adopted under a name he uses for adoptions. Then found under their regular account.

 

Another person adopts caches because they are old, or they have special D/T ratings coveted by grid fillers. Never visited the original, the cache is long gone all that remains is the listing.

 

I wonder why some COs won't archive their cache instead of adopting them out. Is it a pseudo-sense of land acquisition? That spot is mine and I'm not giving it up. Maybe they don't realize that the new owner can pretty much wipe everything but the GC code. Their cache may have no history that it was ever theirs in the first place. Personally, I'd rather archive it to keep the history. And because I don't trust anyone to continue to maintain it to my standards. A handcrafted birdhouse checked on several times a year, may end up becoming a neglected pill bottle.

Edited April 1, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

I wonder why some COs won't archive their cache instead of adopting them out. Is it a pseudo-sense of land acquisition? That spot is mine and I'm not giving it up. Maybe they don't realize that the new owner can pretty much wipe everything but the GC code. Their cache may have no history that it was ever theirs in the first place. Personally, I'd rather archive it to keep the history. And because I don't trust anyone to continue to maintain it to my standards. A handcrafted birdhouse checked on several times a year, may end up becoming a neglected pill bottle.

So far, we had no issues simply archiving our hides.

To date, other than a power trail "filling in" the now "missing spaces" on a bike trail, no one has placed a cache at any of the other spots.

 

I had a shoulder issue and another knee surgery (at the same time) this past Winter...

Guess a few think I can't heal, since while out, I got a buncha offers to take over a good-sized hide that, by talks with the land manager, probably wouldn't be allowed in that area today.

 

If I just archived it without at least offering adoption, my house'd be egged every day afterwards.

[+noncentric]

Personally, I wouldn't want to adopt a cache unless I had already found it. Or at least I'd have to find it before pressing the "adopt" button.

 

I can understand adopting a cache rather than having it archived though, in some instances. For example, if it's a fun puzzle or multi with a good hiding place. I've found some mystery caches where the theme of the puzzle was an excellent match to the hiding spot.

Another cacher could copy the stages/puzzle and place their own cache in the same hiding spot, or even change the stages/puzzle and still use the same hiding spot. I think it would be disappointing for finders that go through the steps and arrive at GZ to see that there's no 'search' involved because they've found it before and know exactly where it's hidden. This disappointment is more likely if the stages/puzzle are changed, since they'd be less likely to realize that it's a duplicate of a previous hide.

 

In the long thread that focuses mainly on two caches in Britain, someone posted that they had adopted a bunch of caches (200?) that they hadn't found. That way they could go find them at their leisure without danger of them being archived before they got to them.

 

I found that weird.

Not only did he not find them yet, he also said they were caches he "didn't want". Yes, very odd.

 

I've seen it happen, but not often. But this is one of the things that annoys me about this entire discussion: there are a few reasons a CO might want to log a find on his own cache. Even though none are very likely, I don't see a justification for preventing them based on the potential of someone making a mistake in the opposite direction.

Reminds me of a cacher in my area. They were relatively new and had placed some caches. One was very difficult to find, bad coords, and we started a dialogue after I contacted him asking for a hint. I later saw that he had logged his own caches and mentioned that it's generally frowned upon to log one's own hides (with link to Help Center article). His reply was that he did that so they wouldn't show up on his map. Use the filter? Anyway, that's how he wanted to manage his cache map.

Fast forward a bit and I've seen him logging one-word finds on caches that are not available (blocked by construction), probably missing (strings of DNF's surrounding their find), unqualified (challenge caches they don't qualify for), or unlikely to have been found by him (dozens of difficult puzzles that very few cachers have solved all found on the same day). These are all in the same general map area, so I'd wager many of them are being logged just to keep his map clear. Ugh, whatever! I've learned that if I get an alert that a cache I'm watching was Found by him, then I don't get my hopes up and head out thinking it's a good opportunity to avenge my previous DNF.

[+Team Microdot]

In the long thread that focuses mainly on two caches in Britain, someone posted that they had adopted a bunch of caches (200?) that they hadn't found. That way they could go find them at their leisure without danger of them being archived before they got to them.

 

I found that weird.

 

Tip of the iceberg

[kanchan]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It seems that almost nobody here wants to adopt a cache before finding it. I don't, either (I have never adopted any caches). It was an old hide and the original owner was moving out of town, so one of the local cachers stepped in and adopted it to save the historic cache for the community, later to realize the cache is no longer loggable after mid April, so he will try to find it before that happens (he already has that year/month, so this is not for his Jasmer). I still think my suggestion would probably help to avoid this kind of situation in the future, but I guess Groundspeak is not interested in it.

[+dprovan]

I've seen it happen, but not often. But this is one of the things that annoys me about this entire discussion: there are a few reasons a CO might want to log a find on his own cache. Even though none are very likely, I don't see a justification for preventing them based on the potential of someone making a mistake in the opposite direction.

I don't know why you thought I'm against the change to remove the ability for the cache owners to post a "Found It" log. I actually like the change **a lot**. How could my suggestion to add a friendly confirmation dialog upon adoption make things possibly worse?

I was just objecting to the basic line of thought without really thinking very hard about where it was leading you. You feel like you've established, through this thread, that almost nobody wants to adopt a cache before finding it, and I still say that that finding it unimportant.

 

But perhaps you can help me see the light. The main reason it's so easy for me to make this point is that no specific justification for this change has been presented, just a general feeling that "everyone knows" owners posting finds is bad and should be prevented. So can you please expand on why you like this change a lot? Do these finds cause problems, or do you think the user interface needs to be simplified, or what? My problem is I see no advantage at all, so I'm kinda at a loss at how to respond to the various lines of reasoning suggesting it's OK to get rid of it because life isn't ruined without it.

[+narcissa]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It seems that almost nobody here wants to adopt a cache before finding it. I don't, either (I have never adopted any caches). It was an old hide and the original owner was moving out of town, so one of the local cachers stepped in and adopted it to save the historic cache for the community, later to realize the cache is no longer loggable after mid April, so he will try to find it before that happens (he already has that year/month, so this is not for his Jasmer). I still think my suggestion would probably help to avoid this kind of situation in the future, but I guess Groundspeak is not interested in it.

 

1. If you want to make an actual feature suggestion, this isn't the place to do so.

 

2. Your suggestion would absolutely help with the scenario you've described, but it's a rare and unimportant issue and therefore the solution is unlikely to garner much enthusiasm from other cachers.

[kanchan]

I've seen it happen, but not often. But this is one of the things that annoys me about this entire discussion: there are a few reasons a CO might want to log a find on his own cache. Even though none are very likely, I don't see a justification for preventing them based on the potential of someone making a mistake in the opposite direction.

I don't know why you thought I'm against the change to remove the ability for the cache owners to post a "Found It" log. I actually like the change **a lot**. How could my suggestion to add a friendly confirmation dialog upon adoption make things possibly worse?

I was just objecting to the basic line of thought without really thinking very hard about where it was leading you. You feel like you've established, through this thread, that almost nobody wants to adopt a cache before finding it, and I still say that that finding it unimportant.

 

But perhaps you can help me see the light. The main reason it's so easy for me to make this point is that no specific justification for this change has been presented, just a general feeling that "everyone knows" owners posting finds is bad and should be prevented. So can you please expand on why you like this change a lot? Do these finds cause problems, or do you think the user interface needs to be simplified, or what? My problem is I see no advantage at all, so I'm kinda at a loss at how to respond to the various lines of reasoning suggesting it's OK to get rid of it because life isn't ruined without it.

I like the change in the logging policy a lot as I've seen so many duplicate "Found It" logs being posted accidentally, by smartphone app users most probably. The advantage is far superior to the really small issue which I raised on behalf of people who don't mind adopting before finding. So again, I like the change, and that should totally remain. I've never argued that. I'm ONLY suggesting a friendly warning (or informational) message which appears upon adoption, only when the adopter hasn't found the cache, to make sure the adopter understands that they won't be able to claim a find once the cache is transferred, as that has always been possible after the adoption was implemented. I hope this makes my suggestion a bit clearer.

Edited April 2, 2017 by kanchan

[kanchan]

2. Your suggestion would absolutely help with the scenario you've described, but it's a rare and unimportant issue and therefore the solution is unlikely to garner much enthusiasm from other cachers.

Thanks for understanding my point, and I agree to the latter point too. Even the original cacher who adopted a cache before finding it didn't bother to comment here. As a player, I don't personally care. It's unimportant to me, and apparently, unimportant to everyone.

[+dprovan]

I like the change in the logging policy a lot as I've seen so many duplicate "Found It" logs being posted accidentally, by smartphone app users most probably.

I see a duplicate log maybe once a week, at most. Is that what you mean by "so many"? And I just ignore them since they have almost no impact on me. Are they more of a problem for you? You own a lot more caches than I do. Is this a log maintenance issue?

 

Oh, and since you keep expecting me to respond to your suggested feature instead of the question in the title: no, this doesn't come up often enough to bother people about when they're adopting a cache. But more to the point, warning them during adoption makes no more sense then warning them when they create a cache: we just assume people that create a cache know they won't be able to log it, so we should assume people adopting a cache know that, too.

[kanchan]

Duplicate logs are annoying when one goes out for caching, reads logs, and realizes that one has loaded only limited number of logs (like five) in their GPS device and all of them are the TFTC log by the same person. I know you'd say that's rare and unimportant, but I'm answering to your question anyway. It's really annoying when that happens, and that happens. I do think it's rare that one adopts a cache that one hasn't found, especially when adoption by iteself is already rare. That's my initial expectation too. But since I heard other opinions I decided to run it here too, as I thought the other opinion was legitimate enough. I now know I'm talking about a rare situation and thanks to all the feedback I now agree it's unimportant to most of us including myself who had adopted a cache he hadn't found. I would still say that adoption and new hides are not same (I see your point), but I guess that's unimportant too.

[+dprovan]

Duplicate logs are annoying when one goes out for caching, reads logs, and realizes that one has loaded only limited number of logs (like five) in their GPS device and all of them are the TFTC log by the same person. I know you'd say that's rare and unimportant, but I'm answering to your question anyway. It's really annoying when that happens, and that happens.

Does it really? I've seen five redundant logs maybe 3 or 4 times in 6 years, and never when I was looking at the log while searching. Much more common to have 5 or 6 equally vacuous logs by a group.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue you out of being annoyed. It just strikes me as one of those problems that looms larger in the imagination than in practice. You specifically said you liked the feature a lot, so that made me think such logs caused more trouble than the occasional inability to glean info from past logs in the field.

[+noncentric]

This reminds me of comments where forum posters say "the website/app allows me to do it, so Groundspeak must be okay with it".

 

Maybe GS is trying to align their 'system' (website/app logging) with what they advise cachers to do on their 4.4. Logging Etiquette page. I could understand such alignment as a goal, and I don't think it's a bad one, although it does end up not accounting for certain situations that come up infrequently.

 

In regards to kanchan's original suggestion about a warning message, I see the point. I don't think it would be bad to remind potential adopters that they won't be able to log a find on a cache after they've adopted it. However, I don't think it's worth developer time to code for checking whether the adopter has found the subject cache to determine whether the warning message should be presented. Instead, it could be a bullet point on the 6.14. Adopt or transfer a geocache page. If a cacher then adopts a cache and gets angry that they can't log a find on it, well - they should've read about adopting caches before adopting.

[kanchan]

However, I don't think it's worth developer time to code for checking whether the adopter has found the subject cache to determine whether the warning message should be presented. Instead, it could be a bullet point on the 6.14. Adopt or transfer a geocache page. If a cacher then adopts a cache and gets angry that they can't log a find on it, well - they should've read about adopting caches before adopting.

Maybe. Being a software engineer, I don't expect it is going to take more than a couple of hours to code and test this -- just a single SQL query to see if the adopter has a find on the adopting cache, and popup a message if it doesn't. The translation takes some effort, but it's free and Groudspeak has more than sufficient volunteer translators (I know that as they cut me saying they have enough). But then, it appears that it's not important enough. I understand. Thanks!

 

Edit to add: I used this sub-forum is because I wanted to see the community's opinion first. If it's common, I was to submit it in the feature request/bug report forum. But that will not happen.

Edited April 3, 2017 by kanchan

[kanchan]

You specifically said you liked the feature a lot, so that made me think such logs caused more trouble than the occasional inability to glean info from past logs in the field.

Well, I always like it a lot when the implementation matches what's documented elsewhere. Don't ask why. That's just my personal preference.

[+The Magna Defender]

I and my friend were the ones who adopted a large series of 200 on the hills.

 

Perhaps some background info is needed.

 

The original CO had a habit of getting in a huff and binning everything to then republish in the same spot.

 

After archiving a large original series, he then chucked out another series of 200 less than a month later.

 

Of course he got in another huff and threatened to archive the new series of 200 less than a month after publication due to the actions of our local caching police.

 

Also at which time the hills upon which the caches were set, were in the process of being reclassified as SSSI meaning NO new caches can be published up there.

 

Therefore we had little choice but to take them over so everyone could enjoy them, not just the saddos who rushed out for the FTFs

[+niraD]

Therefore we had little choice but to take them over

Really? You couldn't think of any other possible responses to the original CO's behavior?

[+noncentric]

Also at which time the hills upon which the caches were set, were in the process of being reclassified as SSSI meaning NO new caches can be published up there.

 

Therefore we had little choice but to take them over so everyone could enjoy them, not just the saddos who rushed out for the FTFs

"Little choice"? I suppose another option could've been to just let them get archived. If the land is being classified as special interest, then it's probably better to not have a bunch of cachers roaming about anyway.

 

Honestly, I think the bigger issue about your adoption that raised questions is the assumption that you "had to" adopt these caches that you "didn't want" anyway, just so you could claim finds on them. If they had been adopted because they were in great locations, had crafty containers, or otherwise were interesting caches that added (not just numbers) to the caching landscape in the area - then great. But when they were adopted just to avoid losing the chance to get 200 smileys, for the adopters or other cachers, then that's when it seemed a bit odd.

[+The Magna Defender]

I shouldn't need to rush to every cache on the off chance it might be archived within a month.

[+narcissa]

I shouldn't need to rush to every cache on the off chance it might be archived within a month.

 

You shouldn't, and you don't.

[+noncentric]

I shouldn't need to rush to every cache on the off chance it might be archived within a month.

You don't need to find every cache that gets published. Or do you?

If a cache gets published and is archived before you find it, then is that a problem?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I shouldn't need to rush to every cache on the off chance it might be archived within a month.

You don't need to find every cache that gets published. Or do you?

If a cache gets published and is archived before you find it, then is that a problem?

 

Depends on how many times I've DNFd it.

[cezanne]

It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?),

 

Just a small remark: Not yet having filed a found it log does not necessarily mean that one does not yet have found a cache.

Some reasons could be: challenge cache for which one has not yet qualified, logging backlog, puzzle not yet solved (some cachers wait with their online log until they did - it's no rule of course), found final of long multi cache by chance coupled with the wish to first visit all stages (same comment as for the previous scenario).

 

The new change by Groundspeak will push cachers into creating other accounts and use shuffle around the caches. That's the same sort of approach which will be used for NM logs. The number of second accounts will for sure increase.

[+Pine and Poplar]

We've adopted one cache since we started caching. It was an older cache that we didn't want to see go away and we hadn't previously found it.

 

I don't see any problems with adopting a cache that you haven't previously found. You may not know exactly where it was hidden, but I assume the original owner would give the new owner a spoiler/hint if it was really necessary. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that you will find it, but neither does being the original owner. I have had a few of the caches I've hidden migrate enough to the point where I almost called off the search and replaced them.

[+Team Microdot]

I and my friend were the ones who adopted a large series of 200 on the hills.

 

Perhaps some background info is needed.

 

The original CO had a habit of getting in a huff and binning everything to then republish in the same spot.

 

After archiving a large original series, he then chucked out another series of 200 less than a month later.

 

Of course he got in another huff and threatened to archive the new series of 200 less than a month after publication due to the actions of our local caching police.

 

All that reviewer time wasted

[+DanOCan]

Duplicate logs are annoying when one goes out for caching, reads logs, and realizes that one has loaded only limited number of logs (like five) in their GPS device and all of them are the TFTC log by the same person. I know you'd say that's rare and unimportant, but I'm answering to your question anyway. It's really annoying when that happens, and that happens.

I'm much more likely to see TFTC logs from five different people. Or the same cut and paste logs that I saw on every other cache in the area.

[+DanOCan]

I shouldn't need to rush to every cache on the off chance it might be archived within a month.

If they're being routinely archived as you described, I wouldn't bother hunting for them anyway. Visiting boring caches in the same location over and over doesn't sound very appealing.

[+DanOCan]

It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?), but in the reality, some cachers do adopt a cache before finding it for various reasons, and I think it's going to be a legitimate find as the adopter doesn't really know the hide while she or he is the owner of the listing. Did Groundspeak ever give it a thought on this?

I have adopted a number of caches (three or four) that I had not yet found. Wasn't really a big issue as most of them were fairly simple hides and I was more interested in seeing them continue for "historical" purposes.

As for your question, I'm sure Groundspeak gave it some thought and then decided to go ahead and do whatever they wanted in the first place.

[+briansnat]

I've adopted three caches. Two traditionals and a virtual. When I had adopted them I had never found one of the traditionals or the virtual. I made a maintenance run on the traditional shortly after I adopted it, just so I knew where it was. `14 years later I still have not visited the virtual site.

[+dprovan]

As for your question, I'm sure Groundspeak gave it some thought and then decided to go ahead and do whatever they wanted in the first place.

Hey, that's not fair! I'm sure they also went out and asked 10 people "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we...?" so they could say lots of people asked for it.

[+VAVAPAM]

As to the assumption that most would not adopt a cache they'd not previously found: Of course, if the cache has been in need of maintenance with a history of DNFs, often there is no ability to log a find before adoption. I have seen these and thought, "That's such a shame," and considered whether they are in my "maintenance comfort zone", and if they are - if close to my own or my home base - I will consider offering to adopt if it's in a great place or highlights a great feature, facility or service; however, most often the COs have been out of the game for a while and do not respond, though not always.

 

As to the adoption warning: To me, adoption means transfer of *ownership* and therefore logging a find on one's own adopted cache would fall into the category of PLE (poor logging etiquette). On the other hand, I appreciate that not everybody's thought processes are the same. In my case, I would not expect to be able to log it, but perhaps there are others that might wish to do so. I don't think it's safe to assume that some adopters would expect to be unable to log their un-found adopted caches as a new find.

 

I see no harm in such a notice ... perhaps a simple, standard checkbox similar to the ones for creating a cache would do. (Whether you're creating a new cache or simply editing the listing, you still have to check those boxes, so I assume there's no code to search whether you've already indicated that you've read those guidelines before.) So, a simple checkbox statement such as, "I understand that I will not be able to log this as a find after I take ownership of this cache," or something - whether the adopter had found it or not - might indeed serve to give notice and pause to some who might expect to have been able to do so, thereby precluding some disgruntled adopters' complaints.

 

Would it be superfluous? For what I think may be a great number of other geocachers: NO, I really do not think it would be. For me and most who visit the forums: Yes.

 

edit-spelling, sheesh

Edited April 9, 2017 by VAVAPAM

[+cerberus1]

In my case, I would not expect to be able to log it, but perhaps there are others that might wish to do so. I don't think it's safe to assume that some adopters would expect to be unable to log their un-found adopted caches as a new find.

Sometime this month, logging your own cache as found will no longer be possible.

It is safe to say that.

 

Edited to add the Upcoming Logging Rules.

Edited April 9, 2017 by cerberus1

[+VAVAPAM]

In my case, I would not expect to be able to log it, but perhaps there are others that might wish to do so. I don't think it's safe to assume that some adopters would expect to be unable to log their un-found adopted caches as a new find.

Sometime this month, logging your own cache as found will no longer be possible.

It is safe to say that.

 

Edited to add the Upcoming Logging Rules.

 

Alrighty, then; thank you for that!

 

Will inability change expectations? Just saying, not sure those would change.

Edited April 9, 2017 by VAVAPAM

[+cerberus1]

In my case, I would not expect to be able to log it, but perhaps there are others that might wish to do so. I don't think it's safe to assume that some adopters would expect to be unable to log their un-found adopted caches as a new find.

Sometime this month, logging your own cache as found will no longer be possible.

It is safe to say that.

 

Edited to add the Upcoming Logging Rules.

 

Alrighty, then; thank you for that!

 

Will inability change expectations? Just saying, not sure those would change.

Oh, I fully expect folks who don't get, or pay attention to the newsletter and emails, who don't notice notices on profiles, and never visit the forums to bombard the site with "the system won't let me log a find !" threads - to find it's their own cache.

[+noncentric]

So, a simple checkbox statement such as, "I understand that I will not be able to log this as a find after I take ownership of this cache," or something - whether the adopter had found it or not - might indeed serve to give notice and pause to some who might expect to have been able to do so, thereby precluding some disgruntled adopters' complaints.

+1

I like that idea, especially as a checkbox that goes on every adoption form, regardless of whether the adopter has found the cache or not. Having it a standard part of the form would presumably be easier than customizing the form to only present that warning only if the adopter had not yet found the cache.

[+dprovan]

I see no harm in such a notice ... perhaps a simple, standard checkbox similar to the ones for creating a cache would do.

The harm is that every adoption is made more complicated by a case that it's not important. I think it's silly to stop a CO from logging a find on their own cache, but it compounds the problem to make someone doing an adoption track down and check a box just to make sure they know they won't be able to do something they weren't planning on doing, anyway. If they are one of the few COs that ends up with a good reason to log a find sometime later, likely they'll have forgotten all about the checkbox by that time, anyway.

 

Happily, I don't think I have to argue this point since the justifications for removing the ability to log a find is "confusion" and "streamline", so it would make no sense for GS to unstreamline adoption by adding a checkbox that will likely confuse some people.

[+Team Microdot]

I see no harm in such a notice ... perhaps a simple, standard checkbox similar to the ones for creating a cache would do.

The harm is that every adoption is made more complicated by a case that it's not important. I think it's silly to stop a CO from logging a find on their own cache, but it compounds the problem to make someone doing an adoption track down and check a box just to make sure they know they won't be able to do something they weren't planning on doing, anyway. If they are one of the few COs that ends up with a good reason to log a find sometime later, likely they'll have forgotten all about the checkbox by that time, anyway.

 

Happily, I don't think I have to argue this point since the justifications for removing the ability to log a find is "confusion" and "streamline", so it would make no sense for GS to unstreamline adoption by adding a checkbox that will likely confuse some people.

 

What they actually said was:

 

We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members.

[+VAVAPAM]

deprovan wrote "...it compounds the problem to make someone doing an adoption track down and check a box just to make sure they know they won't be able to do something they weren't planning on doing, anyway."

 

1)Not sure what you are envisioning, but I meant a simple checkbox - normally checked by a single finger tap or mouse click - just before the Adopt button (which would not be active until checkbox checked). No tracking down; no major ordeal; just one extra tap right there, practically a double-tap on an already very short form. Sorry for not being more clear.

2)I guess I doubt any one's ability to know someone else's plans, unless they tell me. The checkbox tells me they don't mind not logging a find on an adopted cache. If it bothers them, I guess there will be no adoption.

No confusion or confounding, 'unstreamlining'. No searching help pages. The rule is right in front of them. Accept and Adopt, or move on.

 

"If they are one of the few COs that ends up with a good reason to log a find sometime later, likely they'll have forgotten all about the checkbox by that time, anyway."

 

1)This sincerely is not meant to be facetious; chalk it up to my ignorance: What are the reasons for logging a find on your own cache?

2) Ah, but they were warned and it was acknowledged by checking that box.

[+dprovan]

What they actually said was:

 

We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members.

What did I say that didn't reflect that they said this? Yes, this is exactly the quote I was summarizing as "confusion" and "streamlining". I don't pay much attention to "someone told us to do it" since that's not an argument for doing it.

 

deprovan wrote "...it compounds the problem to make someone doing an adoption track down and check a box just to make sure they know they won't be able to do something they weren't planning on doing, anyway."

 

1)Not sure what you are envisioning, but I meant a simple checkbox - normally checked by a single finger tap or mouse click - just before the Adopt button (which would not be active until checkbox checked). No tracking down; no major ordeal; just one extra tap right there, practically a double-tap on an already very short form. Sorry for not being more clear.

You were perfectly clear: one more checkbox, one more thing to do, one more reason to get a "required field not filled in" response. I didn't say it was hard, just that it was more, and that it's entirely unnecessary.

 

2)I guess I doubt any one's ability to know someone else's plans, unless they tell me. The checkbox tells me they don't mind not logging a find on an adopted cache. If it bothers them, I guess there will be no adoption.

Here's the thing: the argument is that finds by the COs on their own caches are very rare. Even in the case of adoption, it's unusual. It makes no sense to use the rarity argument to justify the restriction, but then turn around and deny the rarity argument to support an additional component to the interface just to handle this rare occurrence. If you think enough people will want to log a find on a cache after they adopt it, then the logical conclusion is that you should let them, not that you should go to the ends of the earth to make sure they all know that you aren't going to let them.

 

1)This sincerely is not meant to be facetious; chalk it up to my ignorance: What are the reasons for logging a find on your own cache?

We're already talking about adoptions, so that's one reason right there. The other case I've seen is COs that really did have to look for their cache because it wasn't where they hid it or the hide was sufficiently harder than originally intended for one reason or another. Sure, they don't have to be able to log a find in that case, but since it's an accurate report of what happened, why prevent it? Indeed, in general: why is the default position that I have to provide enough good reasons to do it when no good reason has been presented to prevent it?

 

2) Ah, but they were warned and it was acknowledged by checking that box.

You're not the only one to be thinking this way, but it's not actually an interesting point. If it makes sense for them to be able to do it, the fact that you forced them to acknowledge they won't be able to do it doesn't suddenly make it sensible to stop them. On the other hand, if it doesn't make sense for them to be able to do it, then there's no reason to force them to acknowledge they won't be able to do it.

[+Team Microdot]

What they actually said was:

 

We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members.

What did I say that didn't reflect that they said this? Yes, this is exactly the quote I was summarizing as "confusion" and "streamlining". I don't pay much attention to "someone told us to do it" since that's not an argument for doing it.

 

The brush you were painting with was grossly oversized.

 

Reminded me of this: