Jump to content

Unknown log signers; signing log twice


CJ327
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Sorry in advance, as I'm sure these have probably been addressed elsewhere on here. I did search but could not find answers to my specific questions...

 

First, a hypothetical (very similar to a real situation I've discovered, but less complicated):  I find a cache with a name and a date in the log. Let's say it was a FTF. However, even after years have passed, that person never logged their find online. What's more, their handle, which was very clearly written in the log, does not exist at geocaching.com. I also googled the handle in conjunction with various geocaching keywords and found nothing. So, because it's now essentially untraceable, does this not "count" as a find, even if it is clearly first name to be signed in the original cache log?

 

Second question, more obscure: what if a person signs a log twice. The person only logged it online once (the first time they signed it). But they signed it again a couple of years later (only one or two other people had signed the log in the interim. If I were counting the number of finds for that cache, I would only count that person's find once, correct? (the original find)

 

I know these are odd questions, but I can be a bit obsessed with stats sometimes!

Thanks!

Link to comment

I can answer one of your questions. Lots and lots and lots of people sign the physical log and never log online. This is especially common in my caches on popular travelling roads like Rt. 66.  There is no requirement to log your finds online, and if there were it would not be enforceable. So it's not. I know four people, myself included, who do not log all their finds. I don't care about the numbers and just don't feel like logging all my finds. FT F is the first to find.  Whether or not they claim FT F in an online log, anyone else is not FTF. I've seen several forum posts from someone asking if they can claim FT F if the person who found the cache first doesn't claim it. No. If you are not first don't claim first. No one can stop you if you wanted to, but I don't recommend it.

I hope that helps.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Thanks for the reply to that first question, it was a situation of whether I could rely on on automatically calculated stats (such as on project-gc), or whether I needed to manually do it. I see the answer is the latter!

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, CJ327 said:

First, a hypothetical (very similar to a real situation I've discovered, but less complicated):  I find a cache with a name and a date in the log. Let's say it was a FTF. However, even after years have passed, that person never logged their find online. What's more, their handle, which was very clearly written in the log, does not exist at geocaching.com. I also googled the handle in conjunction with various geocaching keywords and found nothing. So, because it's now essentially untraceable, does this not "count" as a find, even if it is clearly first name to be signed in the original cache log?

 

Second question, more obscure: what if a person signs a log twice. The person only logged it online once (the first time they signed it). But they signed it again a couple of years later (only one or two other people had signed the log in the interim. If I were counting the number of finds for that cache, I would only count that person's find once, correct? (the original find)

 

I know these are odd questions, but I can be a bit obsessed with stats sometimes!

 

The log's signed, right?  If they ever came back to log online, and said they signed as (whatever name) and stated that date , sure, it's a find.

We know quite a few folks who don't log online at all,  and many of them don't even use their geocaching handle in the cache log.    :)

 

People can no longer log online more than once on any cache, but they could at one time

 -  Try figuring that into your stat obsession...  :D

Some sign the cache log when dropping trackables,  adding swag when dropping by,  even fixing the container for the CO,  just to keep an accurate log record of who visited.  Simple.

They could sign that cache every time they walked by it and it's only that one, original "find", "smiley, "point"  online that counts for anything.

 - Well...now...

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CJ327 said:

 So, because it's now essentially untraceable, does this not "count" as a find, even if it is clearly first name to be signed in the original cache log?

 

Forgot to mention...   When we take new people under wing, we don't push them to join the site before we head out.  There's a couple here who said they do similar.

We do have them sign the log though, so if at some point they want to join and are interested in finds enough that they would like them counted, they simply state on their "Found it" that they were with me, and signed under (pick  a name).

We know of at least one I recall, that if they stayed with the hobby to join, they would have had a FTF (they found it...).  Was a cool cache too.  :)

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

 I know four people, myself included, who do not log all their finds. I don't care about the numbers and just don't feel like logging all my finds.

 

Couldn't find a waving emoticon.  :laughing:     We're one of four I guess...

Haven't logged most events attended since we started, and quite a few cache finds as well.

If I had more than two figs you could have them too,  how I feel about stats.   :)

I'd love to see find count optional myself,  but have the system remove the caches you found (which is pretty-much the only reason I log finds)..

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Couldn't find a waving emoticon.  :laughing:     We're one of four I guess...

Haven't logged most events attended since we started, and quite a few cache finds as well.

If I had more than two figs you could have them too,  how I feel about stats.   :)

I'd love to see find count optional myself,  but have the system remove the caches you found (which is pretty-much the only reason I log finds)..

 

My "thing" is finding lonely caches and caches that haven't been found by anyone in years. So it's not about the numbers in the same way that most people think of the numbers. For example, this weekend, I spent two long, grueling days making a grand total of two finds (no DNFs). And it was probably my most memorable geocaching trip!

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Lots and lots and lots of people sign the physical log and never log online.

 

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Couldn't find a waving emoticon.  :laughing:     We're one of four I guess...

Haven't logged most events attended since we started, and quite a few cache finds as well.

If I had more than two figs you could have them too,  how I feel about stats.   :)

I'd love to see find count optional...

 

Same here. I did find one last week worth a favorite point so I logged it as a Find. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, CJ327 said:

 

My "thing" is finding lonely caches and caches that haven't been found by anyone in years. So it's not about the numbers in the same way that most people think of the numbers. For example, this weekend, I spent two long, grueling days making a grand total of two finds (no DNFs). And it was probably my most memorable geocaching trip!

 

:D  I like your style! 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

People can no longer log online more than once on any cache, but they could at one time

 

When I was beginning  my geocaching hobby, I occasionally visited some caches again and also logged them found again to keep my diary updated. Later I understood that this hobby is a competition and visiting the same cache more than once was not recommeded even though it was allowed.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Later I understood that this hobby is a competition and visiting the same cache more than once was not recommeded even though it was allowed.

There has never been anything wrong with visiting a cache more than once. The issue has always been over logging more than one Find for a cache. It's fine to return and log a Note, swap trackables, show your friends how cool the cache was, etc.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, niraD said:

There has never been anything wrong with visiting a cache more than once. The issue has always been over logging more than one Find for a cache. It's fine to return and log a Note, swap trackables, show your friends how cool the cache was, etc.

 

If I find a cache I am supposed to log a find. What is the problem with multiple finds? It is the competition, isn't it?

Link to comment

 

15 hours ago, CJ327 said:

So, because it's now essentially untraceable, does this not "count" as a find, even if it is clearly first name to be signed in the original cache log?

You're asking the wrong question. What you want to know is whether you can claim FTF, and my answer is "no" because you weren't the first to find it. The answer to the question you asked ("Does it count as a find?") is a little more vague because it depends on what you mean by "count" and what you mean by "a find", but those issues don't really change the fact that the person that never logged it on-line found the cache before you.

 

But, happily, "FTF" is something you can define for yourself, so while I'd frown on you claiming "FTF", I'd have no problem if you claimed "FTF that was logged" or something similar. In fact, I'd be more impressed with you because it would mean you admit there was another signature already in the log, something you could have easily kept to yourself.

15 hours ago, CJ327 said:

If I were counting the number of finds for that cache, I would only count that person's find once, correct?

First, the way things are today, a second find of a cache is officially not counted since the system will only allow you to log "found" on a cache once.

 

Before they changed this, it was allowed to log multiple finds on the same cache, and sometimes people did that intentionally, and it counted. (Probably more often people did it by accident, and it still counted, which is why GS changed things.) It wasn't done too often, mostly only on special caches that had a specific reason that made it make sense to claim finding it more than once.

 

All that's not really very related to a signature in the paper log. I revisit caches from time to time, and I sign the log again, but I never claim that as a find on-line and have no intention of it being counted as a find by anyone.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

If I find a cache I am supposed to log a find. What is the problem with multiple finds?

After the first time you find a cache, you know where and how it's hidden. If you go back, have you really found it again?

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

It is the competition, isn't it?

For some people, perhaps. For others, not at all.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, CJ327 said:

it was a situation of whether I could rely on on automatically calculated stats (such as on project-gc), or whether I needed to manually do it.

FTFs aren't automatically calculated on Project-GC. You have to manually add tags to your Found it logs when claiming a FTF, such as {*FTF*}. An alternate method is to add the cache to a public bookmark and then adding that bookmark to your Project-GC settings. See this explanation.

Link to comment
On 5/28/2018 at 10:14 AM, arisoft said:

Later I understood that this hobby is a competition and visiting the same cache more than once was not recommeded even though it was allowed.

 

This hobby may be a competition for some but not everyone views it as a competition.  I don't ever recall anyone recommending that one should not revisit a cache.  It's certainly not something enforceable and in general I prefer caches at locations that I'd want to revisit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, briansnat said:
23 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

If I find a cache I am supposed to log a find. What is the problem with multiple finds? It is the competition, isn't it?

How do you find something if you already know where it is?

 

If I revisit a location and "find" the container again, I'll post a note (or nothing at all).  In fact, the site prevents us from logging a find more than once on a cache.  There was a cache about a mile from me that I revisited and "found" again a half dozen times.  It was  foreign coin exchange themed cache and I'd occasionally  stop there to drop in some coins after traveling and post a note indicating what coins I'd added.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, niraD said:

After the first time you find a cache, you know where and how it's hidden. If you go back, have you really found it again?

 

I should log a Did Not Find (DNF) if I don't find the cache again.  One meaning for finding is to identify (something) as being present.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I should log a Did Not Find (DNF) if I don't find the cache again.

Sure, if you return and don't find the cache, then go ahead and log a DNF. You might even log a NM if you think the owner needs to do something about it.

 

But as long as I have been geocaching, the norm has been to log a Find the first time you visit and find a geocache, and to log a Note for any return visits where you locate a cache that you've previously found. There used to be exceptions (some more accepted than others), but now even those exceptions are no longer allowed as the site enforces a maximum of one Find log per GC code per user.

Link to comment

Paper log = people who actually found the cache (mostly cachers, but you'll see the occasional muggle sig. after an accidental find!) .People can sign the paper as often as they like.

Online log = people who claim the find online- this site now only allows this once per cache/cacher ID.

For any cache there may be a perfect agreement between the two , or there may be major discrepancies, see here for a clue why.

 

Best advice I have is forget FTF, ignore statistics, don't ponder complex logging situations, they simply don't matter. Get out and find some caches. Experiencing the outdoors and getting some exercise is good for the mind and the body* , worrying over pointless numbers isn't.

 

 

* Possibly also the soul if you think it exists .

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I should log a Did Not Find (DNF) if I don't find the cache again.  One meaning for finding is to identify (something) as being present.

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Sure, if you return and don't find the cache, then go ahead and log a DNF. You might even log a NM if you think the owner needs to do something about it.

 

We had a rude NM for a "cache not there" when a person with only three finds couldn't spot it, tagging along  with an "experienced cacher" who found it earlier.

We found it still there, then realized that "experienced cacher" found it two years before  it was moved 300'. 

 -  Apparently neither of them bothered to turn the GPSr on, and just going by that cacher's memory.   Great introduction to the hobby...

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

But as long as I have been geocaching, the norm has been to log a Find the first time you visit and find a geocache, and to log a Note for any return visits where you locate a cache that you've previously found. There used to be exceptions (some more accepted than others), but now even those exceptions are no longer allowed as the site enforces a maximum of one Find log per GC code per user.

 

The site started to prevent multiple finds because the app started send multiple find logs as you may remember. That was strictly a technical solution to a technical problem but it also makes it clear that only one find is allowed to log on-line. My opinion is that "the norm" was just for competition. It was just too easy to find the same caches again and again.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
On 28/05/2018 at 3:12 PM, arisoft said:

 

If I find a cache I am supposed to log a find. What is the problem with multiple finds? It is the competition, isn't it?

 

You could log another find by creating another account for re-finds. Maybe call it arisoft-finds-it-again. 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

You could log another find by creating another account for re-finds. Maybe call it arisoft-finds-it-again. 

 

This is exactly what I am doing and sometimes I hide a cache with another account to be able to find it myself.

 

On 29.5.2018 at 12:39 AM, niraD said:

After the first time you find a cache, you know where and how it's hidden. If you go back, have you really found it again?

 

This makes me thinking, If you are geocaching with your friend and your friend finds the cache, have you really found it yourself? Should you post a note or DNF instead, because actually you did not find the cache?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, arisoft said:
On 5/28/2018 at 2:39 PM, niraD said:

After the first time you find a cache, you know where and how it's hidden. If you go back, have you really found it again?

 

This makes me thinking, If you are geocaching with your friend and your friend finds the cache, have you really found it yourself? Should you post a note or DNF instead, because actually you did not find the cache?

niraD normally searches huckle-buckle, so I imagine the worst that happens is he finds it with lots of hints from his friend. Although that just makes the question of whether he really found it himself in those cases even more interesting.

 

I do not know if niraD has ever posts a DNF on a cache that his friend found, but I wouldn't put it past him.

 

I do agree we should question niraD's logic. After all, COs sometimes can't find their own cache because it's migrated (although, alas, they're no longer allowed to file that DNF, which I always thought was one of the coolest logs possible), so it's clear someone can not know where a cache is even though they've found it before. I think the reasonable argument is more that you've found it in a logical sense once, so even though the search might be interesting and the find not assured, logically you can't find it a second time. (Although nowadays, it's just a practical matter: the system won't let you log two finds, so we no longer have to fret over whether it makes sense.)

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

After all, COs sometimes can't find their own cache because it's migrated (although, alas, they're no longer allowed to file that DNF, which I always thought was one of the coolest logs possible), so it's clear someone can not know where a cache is even though they've found it before.

Yeah, I liked the way a CO could log a DNF. I've helped multiple COs by telling them where I found their caches, because cache migration had taken them far enough from their original hiding spot that the CO couldn't find it.

 

And for the record, no, I've never logged a DNF because someone else in the group found the cache first and spoiled it for the rest of us.

Link to comment
On 5/28/2018 at 4:39 PM, niraD said:

After the first time you find a cache, you know where and how it's hidden. If you go back, have you really found it again?

 

If a perfect world maybe, but most of us don't live in Perfect.

 

I just replaced a cache after two no finds only to be notified by someone who hadn't logged yet it that it's still there.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, niraD said:

And for the record, no, I've never logged a DNF because someone else in the group found the cache first and spoiled it for the rest of us.

Actually, I was thinking about the case where despite all your friend's hints, you still couldn't find the cache for yourself.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Actually, I was thinking about the case where despite all your friend's hints, you still couldn't find the cache for yourself.

I don't think I've encountered that situation.

 

I've encountered the situation where despite all my friends' hints, I've found the regular-size cache by literally tripping over it. But I still found it.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, badlands said:

only to be notified by someone who hadn't logged yet it that it's still there.

25 minutes ago, badlands said:

Yes.  And I searched a good 20 minutes for it.

 

I hope he told you, in good detail, where he found it. 

 

I had it happen to one of our caches. We got reports that the cache was in rough shape--soaked. Disabled it so no one else would have a messy cache experience. Went to look, no cache. So I replaced it with a new Lock&Lock with a logbook and pencil. Enabled it. Next finder reported they found a soaked cache. So I went back the following day. The new cache container was dry and in place. I figured they must have been finding something else. Lucky for me after about 5 minutes of searching I found it and removed it.

 

But if I hadn't, I guess I would have left a note asking for help from the next finders (please remove the soaked cache). 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...