Suggested feature: "Revisited" log type

[+Ragnemalm]

I propose that "revisited" would be a useful log type, to go back to a cache that you found long ago and log it again, not as "found" but as "revisited".

 

Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones, and those who don't tend to waste much petrol to get to caches far away. If a revisit would count as a kind of log, you can take a second turn in your home area. I think this would be very good to keep beginners!

 

How? In order to make it interesting, significant time should pass between the first and second visit. Then the location as well as the hide may have changed. I would suggest at least one year, possibly more, but one year would be a decent balance to make the feature interesting for beginners.

 

I would suggest that you sign the log as usual, plus an "R" mark. On the map, I guess it could be a little marker in the corner on the "happy face" or something like that.

 

You should also be encouraged to visit it in a different way, another time of year, another time of day, or in some different way, You may visit that island cache by boat instead of walking on the ice, you may visit a cache at night, and not least, you can climb that tree that you previously logged standing on the ground while your pal climbed it.

 

Does it sound boring to revisit a cache you already found? Well, I have revisited many good caches, and there are also many caches that I never log in the first place because they are of no interest to me (in my case power trails, others skip high T). Like all caching, you can take it or leave it as you prefer.

 

Compare this to Turf or Pokemon Go. In Turf you visit the same place over and over, to reclaim it, and I believe you do the same in Pokemon Go. They can visit the same zone hundreds of times, and this is normal! I propose we could do it *twice*.

 

Finally, this could be a nice premium feature.

 

Any opinions, ideas, variations? Is there some reason why this would not benefit the hobby?

[+Max and 99]

15 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

I propose that "revisited" would be a useful log type, to go back to a cache that you found long ago and log it again, not as "found" but as "revisited".

 

Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones, and those who don't tend to waste much petrol to get to caches far away. If a revisit would count as a kind of log, you can take a second turn in your home area. I think this would be very good to keep beginners!

 

How? In order to make it interesting, significant time should pass between the first and second visit. Then the location as well as the hide may have changed. I would suggest at least one year, possibly more, but one year would be a decent balance to make the feature interesting for beginners.

 

I would suggest that you sign the log as usual, plus an "R" mark. On the map, I guess it could be a little marker in the corner on the "happy face" or something like that.

 

You should also be encouraged to visit it in a different way, another time of year, another time of day, or in some different way, You may visit that island cache by boat instead of walking on the ice, you may visit a cache at night, and not least, you can climb that tree that you previously logged standing on the ground while your pal climbed it.

 

Does it sound boring to revisit a cache you already found? Well, I have revisited many good caches, and there are also many caches that I never log in the first place because they are of no interest to me (in my case power trails, others skip high T). Like all caching, you can take it or leave it as you prefer.

 

Compare this to Turf or Pokemon Go. In Turf you visit the same place over and over, to reclaim it, and I believe you do the same in Pokemon Go. They can visit the same zone hundreds of times, and this is normal! I propose we could do it *twice*.

 

Finally, this could be a nice premium feature.

 

Any opinions, ideas, variations? Is there some reason why this would not benefit the hobby?

Do I have to sign the log again or is it just a suggestion? 

 

[+Ragnemalm]

18 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Do I have to sign the log again or is it just a suggestion?

 

Everything is a suggestion.

 

I consider that signing the log would make it "real", there is proof of the visit just like the found. But that is a matter of the status the log type would have.

[+arisoft]

49 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Why? Because many cachers tend to give up when the entire area is covered and there aren't many new ones, and those who don't tend to waste much petrol to get to caches far away. If a revisit would count as a kind of log, you can take a second turn in your home area. I think this would be very good to keep beginners!

 

Delete the original find or change the log type to note and then revisit the cache as a new one. You can do this as many times you want.

[+Ragnemalm]

16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Delete the original find or change the log type to note and then revisit the cache as a new one. You can do this as many times you want.

 

From the point of view of making any kind of log, you do have a point. You can also do what we already do, post a note about the visit.

 

But there is no reward in doing that, nothing is added to your accomplishments, no change on your map or in your statistics (or whatever you care about). There is no attraction in that for keeping a cacher running out of local caches.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Ragnemalm

[+on4bam]

I have never revisited a cache and probably would never revisit one. There's no reason to do so. There's no benefit for an extra logtype but anyone can revisit any cache and post a note for personal tracking.

 

 

Edit: Oh, I didn't realize the point is to be "rewarded"

Edited November 24, 2019 by on4bam

[+arisoft]

6 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

But there is no reward

 

What do you mean? Geocaching is not a rewarding hobby?

[+Goldenwattle]

I have only ever revisited a cache to drop off a TB. I have no interest to do otherwise and I can't imagine being interested to do this if this were introduced. When I drop off a TB I just make a Note and write 'TB drop'.

There appears to be many caches where you live, but once you have found all the caches in walking and cycling distance, can't you take public transport and go caching in another area? Maybe even take your bike. Today for instance I put my bike on the bus to go geocaching the other side of a steep hill.

[+Ragnemalm]

20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

What do you mean? Geocaching is not a rewarding hobby?

 

Not when there are no caches left to find, when you must use half a day to get to the closest ones you havn't found. You want some kind of accomplishment but don't quite have the time to go on a multi-hour trip to do it.

 

That's when I consider switching to Turf just to get the exercise. And when cachers do that, we lose them.

[+barefootjeff]

I've revisited some of my finds for various reasons, sometimes to drop TBs, sometimes because I'm close by while doing other caches in the area, or sometimes just because it's a nice place to revisit, stretch my legs and soak up the scenery. Posting a note seems perfectly adequate for logging such visits.

[+Ragnemalm]

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have only ever revisited a cache to drop off a TB. I have no interest to do otherwise and I can't imagine being interested to do this if this were introduced.

 

Like I said, nobody would force you.

 

I have revisited *many* caches - the best ones. And when possible, I do that to improve the experience, to manage it in a different way, solving a puzzle that was originally solved by others in the same team, to overcome a physical challenge... There are plenty of reasons to do so, but I think a log type would encourage that.

[+on4bam]

54 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 There are plenty of reasons to do so, but I think a log type would encourage that.

 

The logtype is already there: "Write note" so I don't think that's your motive, I guess you want that +1 on your statistics.

Looking at your profile it looks like you get out of you local zone every once in a while and even your local zone has lots of caches so unless you stay really close to home it would surprise me you already "logged them all".

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by on4bam

[+Goldenwattle]

51 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

log type

'Write note' is the log to use. The rare time I revisit a cache - mainly to drop a TB - 'write note' is available to use.

[+L0ne.R]

Start a new account. 

 

I did this after about 5 years of using a team account. I started my own account and instead of logging the local ones I found into my new account I decided to revisit them before logging as found.  It was interesting. Many of the older caches had changed significantly,  or they felt like a new experience because I went at a different time of year and I’d forgotten about how it was hidden.  

[+Mudfrog]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

'Write note' is the log to use. The rare time I revisit a cache - mainly to drop a TB - 'write note' is available to use.

 

I've revisited various caches a few times. This one,  Four Cache Loop, is a memorable one that I've had the pleasure of doing 4 or 5 times. The first visit was my find, the future visits were all notes. And because there is a full size logbook, I've always logged and signed it with each visit. The reward for me was meeting the challenge of completing it again and the socializing with new and old caching friends along the way. 

 

I suppose a "revisit" reward might help keep things from coming to a stall in cache lean areas. Otherwise, I don't see the point since this is not a problem in most areas.

[+CAVinoGal]

5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Not when there are no caches left to find, when you must use half a day to get to the closest ones you havn't found. You want some kind of accomplishment but don't quite have the time to go on a multi-hour trip to do it.

 

That's when I consider switching to Turf just to get the exercise.  (Emphasis  mine)

 

So are you doing it for the exercise?  Or for the "accomplishment"?  

 

There are about a dozen or more geocaches hidden within a 2 mile walk around my neighborhood, all of which I have found when I first began this hobby nearly 3 years ago, or they are placed or adopted by me or my husband.  I walk for exercise, and often eyeball all of these, occasionally checking the logsheets, so I have revisited literally HUNDREDS of times.  I don't want or need another smilie or icon for those revisits, and I don't log anything UNLESS someone has logged a DNF or a problem.   Then I post an update, but that's rare.

 

Are you out walking for exercise?  Do you need to accomplish something other than the exercise to motivate you to walk?  Yes, I enjoy a good hike/walk with new caches to find, but we do need to drive a bit to find a good spot to hike with caches we haven't yet found.  But as you said, it's not always practical to make the trip to do so.  On those days, I walk around my neighborhood, checking already found caches.  

 

The only time it was an issue was when we were going for a cache find every day in 2018 and we had to travel further and further to get it by the end of the year.  Even then, I'm not sure we would have counted "re-finds" as our COTD.  If it's a memborable enough re-find (with a friend new to geocaching, for example) I'll just use a Write Note log - I really don't need another stat.

Edited November 24, 2019 by CAVinoGal

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I propose that "revisited" would be a useful log type, to go back to a cache that you found long ago and log it again, not as "found" but as "revisited".

 - snip -

Any opinions, ideas, variations? Is there some reason why this would not benefit the hobby?

4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

From the point of view of making any kind of log, you do have a point. You can also do what we already do, post a note about the visit.

But there is no reward in doing that, nothing is added to your accomplishments, no change on your map or in your statistics (or whatever you care about). There is no attraction in that for keeping a cacher running out of local caches.

 

 Isn't reward the only draw here ?    It appears you were here early enough to remember multiple logs on the same caches,

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that Groundspeak would want to rehash "multiple logging methods" again...

 

I've "revisited" caches time-to-time, most when near a spot I'm interested in (not necessarily the cache...), and stop while there to tell the CO his distant hide is still okay. 

I leave a Write Note,  or if a friend will simply give 'em a call.

If few actually regular or large hides to visit, I've been known to stop at the ones I'm aware of, from the day after Thanksgiving until Christmas day.

I fill them full of a well-known company's ornament collection. 

Kids love it, and those left later is an added draw to find one with an ornament in it with their new play toy.

Both reasons I stop is not only to give back a little to the hobby, but to present goodwill.    No "reward" needed for goodwill...  

[+Ragnemalm]

20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Isn't reward the only draw here ?    It appears you were here early enough to remember multiple logs on the same caches,

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that Groundspeak would want to rehash "multiple logging methods" again...

 

I've "revisited" caches time-to-time, most when near a spot I'm interested in (not necessarily the cache...), and stop while there to tell the CO his distant hide is still okay. 

 

Multiple "found" logs were indeed allowed in the past. (I never did it except once by accident and then I corrected it.) What I propose is to allow that in a controlled fashion. If you may log it again, but not as another "found" but as "revisited", and only once more and beyond a time limit, then it becomes an accomplishment and not a cheat.

 

Reward, yes. It will be a "point" in your statistics that you may desire. One more thing to make challenges from, one more calendar that you can fill... That is what many are doing, right? So what do you do when the calendar is full? Fill it twice? Sure, but when there are few available nearby, how about starting on the "revisited" calendar? Or the "revisted" matrix?

 

There are several benefits, and you mention one that I find important: The CO gets confirmations that the cache is OK! This will also give other cachers the same confirmaton. So you consider whether you should take that 5 km hike to try that cache that hasn't been found in five years? Oh, someone made "revisit" on it! Good, then I will try! Caches will not be lonely quite as much! We can't make "lonely days" challenges any more but this would help a little bit.

 

So there are multiple benefits, and nothing negative for us users. (Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?) The cost is for Groudspeak to support another log type.

[+Ragnemalm]

21 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

So are you doing it for the exercise?  Or for the "accomplishment"?  

 

There are about a dozen or more geocaches hidden within a 2 mile walk around my neighborhood, all of which I have found when I first began this hobby nearly 3 years ago, or they are placed or adopted by me or my husband.  I walk for exercise, and often eyeball all of these, occasionally checking the logsheets, so I have revisited literally HUNDREDS of times.  I don't want or need another smilie or icon for those revisits, and I don't log anything UNLESS someone has logged a DNF or a problem.   Then I post an update, but that's rare.

 

Are you out walking for exercise?  Do you need to accomplish something other than the exercise to motivate you to walk?  Yes, I enjoy a good hike/walk with new caches to find, but we do need to drive a bit to find a good spot to hike with caches we haven't yet found.  But as you said, it's not always practical to make the trip to do so.  On those days, I walk around my neighborhood, checking already found caches.  

 

The only time it was an issue was when we were going for a cache find every day in 2018 and we had to travel further and further to get it by the end of the year.  Even then, I'm not sure we would have counted "re-finds" as our COTD.  If it's a memborable enough re-find (with a friend new to geocaching, for example) I'll just use a Write Note log - I really don't need another stat.

 

I don't think I have never *ever* gotten a "note" for a revisit. I would like them but I only get notices of problems when someone is there the first time and find the cahce damaged. I have made several "revisit" note logs myself in order to help the CO but most cachers don't revisit. Most people need an encouragement to do that, and that is what I am after.

 

I cache for exercise and accomplishment, geocaching gives me both. We all know that, the multiple sides, get out, get active, see new places, overcome mental and physical challenges. But when the well is dry, what should I do? Dig somewhere else?

 

*Many* people have noticed that geocaching doesn't last for them, the whole area gets its logs and... then what? I have even seen the suggestion that caches should time out and be auto-archived after a certain time to make room for new ones, as a solution. No, I don't suggest that but that is what I hear.

[+L0ne.R]

3 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

Multiple "found" logs were indeed allowed in the past. (I never did it except once by accident and then I corrected it.) What I propose is to allow that in a controlled fashion. If you may log it again, but not as another "found" but as "revisited", and only once more and beyond a time limit, then it becomes an accomplishment and not a cheat.

 

Reward, yes. It will be a "point" in your statistics that you may desire. One more thing to make challenges from, one more calendar that you can fill... That is what many are doing, right? So what do you do when the calendar is full? Fill it twice? Sure, but when there are few available nearby, how about starting on the "revisited" calendar? Or the "revisted" matrix?

 

There are several benefits, and you mention one that I find important: The CO gets confirmations that the cache is OK! This will also give other cachers the same confirmaton. So you consider whether you should take that 5 km hike to try that cache that hasn't been found in five years? Oh, someone made "revisit" on it! Good, then I will try! Caches will not be lonely quite as much! We can't make "lonely days" challenges any more but this would help a little bit.

 

So there are multiple benefits, and nothing negative for us users. (Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?) The cost is for Groudspeak to support another log type.

 

I suppose it may possibly perk up the game in areas. 

I always wonder how cachers will exploit such a feature. 

Will it make the game completely about numbers?

 

Would it become annoying to hiders when their caches are used to fluff up someone's statistics by logging finds once a day on their caches?

Are pings in their email that their caches have been found be ignored (perhaps automatically sent to the junk file) because the find logs become more meaningless? 

Would those revisiting also throwdown more often and consequently more and more COs abandon their caches and listings because "community maintenance" becomes the norm (everyone carries a sackful of upcycled pill bottles to claim their daily re-find)? 

Will the only hiders be the type that don't care about the cache or the logs, they just want to own cache listings and prefer that the community do the maintenance and in return get a re-find +1 score as their reward? 

Will it become harder for reviewers to know if a cache has been abandoned by an owner? Will it matter? 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

*Many* people have noticed that geocaching doesn't last for them, the whole area gets its logs and... then what?

Then I get on my bike and travel further afield; taking public transport if necessary across the city. I live in Australia and our public transport is nowhere as good as public transport in Europe (I am so jealous ), but I still manage to do that. Then I go travelling a lot to new areas.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Would it become annoying to hiders when their caches are used to fluff up someone's statistics by logging finds once a day on their caches?

As a CO I would hate this, as it would increase my work load to maintain caches.

[+Ragnemalm]

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Would it become annoying to hiders when their caches are used to fluff up someone's statistics by logging finds once a day on their caches?

 

That's why I suggested that the "revisit" would only count *once* and at least a year after "found". Or more.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

That's why I suggested that the "revisit" would only count *once* and at least a year after "found". Or more.

 

That would be a better option.

 

I do worry though that it would mean more throwdowns. People won't want to re-visit and not score a +1 in their stats.  In my area, many throw down upcycled pill bottles because they want the +1 in their stats. More people will likely carry upcycled leaky containers to replace the old upcycled leaky container they found a year ago but went missing. Those spots may forever be occupied by throwdown after throwdown. 

 

2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I have even seen the suggestion that caches should time out and be auto-archived after a certain time to make room for new ones, as a solution. No, I don't suggest that but that is what I hear.

 

I think I'd prefer this. Well not the auto archival, but rather encourage new owners and new hides  (and responsible maintenance - retrieve and archive).   We need new players and new hides to keep the pastime from going stale. 

[+cerberus1]

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think I'd prefer this. Well not the auto archival, but rather encourage new owners and new hides  (and responsible maintenance - retrieve and archive).   We need new players and new hides to keep the pastime from going stale. 

 

I'm all for encouraging new, responsible hiders.  

There are many folks who save and plan (I'm one) for that very old or awesome cache, maybe in another country. 

There are two countries I'm interested in right now,  and I'd want to stay a month...

So I'm against any "time out" for caches simply because of some odd need to "make room" for new, and rather they remain as long as the CO has a plan to maintain them, thanks. 

[+CAVinoGal]

4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

*Many* people have noticed that geocaching doesn't last for them, the whole area gets its logs and... then what?

 

57 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I'm all for encouraging new, responsible hiders.  

^^This!

 

There are all kinds of geocachers - some find a few and decide it's not for them and move onto some other hobby.  Some find all the ones locally and then, after a year or so, move on.  Would allowing a "revisist" log keep these cachers around for what, one more year?  If they are bored with the hobby and not willing to travel to new places, a "revisist" log type would only keep them around long enough to revisist, if that.  Personally, I would not want to log a cache twice, even if there were a different type log to do so.  I found it, got the smilie, and I'm on to the next one!

 

For me, and for those that I know who have been in this game for a long time, the challenge and the fun is NEW caches to discover in NEW places.  To visit a location I've been to prior to geocaching, and see it through new eyes and find some caches!  

 

4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I don't think I have never *ever* gotten a "note" for a revisit. I would like them but I only get notices of problems when someone is there the first time and find the cahce damaged. I have made several "revisit" note logs myself in order to help the CO but most cachers don't revisit. Most people need an encouragement to do that, and that is what I am after.

 

If I *DO* happen to revisit a cache and there is damage, I will message the CO to let them know, or "fix it" myself if I know the CO, and notify the CO by message or call.  If those I revisit on my routine walk are just fine, I don't feel a need to say that.  Find logs tell the CO it's still findable and loggable.  And after a few finds, I *WILL* check to be sure it's replaced properly and all that.  There's no need for a new log type to do that, IMO.

 

If your idea is to give geocachers an incentive to stick around after they've found all the local area caches, at least for me, this new log type would not do it.  I'm either invested enough in the hobby to travel further, hide more locally to encourage others to do the same, and be involved in the local community, OR I'm done after finding everything nearby.  And if I AM done, would being able to log them all again be an incentive to continue?  For me, it's a NO.  But that's just my opinion - and we all know there are as many of those as there are geocachers!!!

Edited November 25, 2019 by CAVinoGal
Minor typo corrections

[+cerberus1]

46 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

For me, and for those that I know who have been in this game for a long time, the challenge and the fun is NEW caches to discover in NEW places. 

To visit a location I've been to prior to geocaching, and see it through new eyes and find some caches!  

 

 ... If your idea is to give geocachers an incentive to stick around after they've found all the local area caches, at least for me, this new log type would not do it. 

I'm either invested enough in the hobby to travel further, hide more locally to encourage others to do the same, and be involved in the local community, OR I'm done after finding everything nearby. 

And if I AM done, would being able to log them all again be an incentive to continue?  For me, it's a NO. 

Yes !

Not necessarily new caches, but the reason I stay with this hobby is the desire to find cool spots I might have missed.

Hiked long before this hobby, much of mine and a few states I've "revisited" many times over.  I'm looking for something different. 

 - One series near me just showed (in logs) a clever way to access an area I've been trying to get to for quite some time.   

 

We even stopped going for the majority of "part 2" or similar remakes of caches that are at the exact spot as the original, now archived.

There's nothing "new" there other than another "smiley" at the same location.  Sometimes they're even using the same containers. 

I'll pass...

 

 

 

[+The Jester]

5 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 but most cachers don't revisit. Most people need an encouragement to do that, and that is what I am after.

 

But because most cachers don't revisit, doesn't that show that a revisit log isn't wanted or needed?  For me, there would have to be some other reason (then a revisit log to post) to get me to return.  I've only done it a handful of times - to bring the wife to a cool cache I found solo (less than a year, so no revisit log), being with a group where all members haven't found that cache (may be soon or much later so only a possible revisit log, no encouragement needed for me), or dropping TB's in TB hotel (no encouragement needed for this).

 

And, of course, the other question raised in my mind is Why?  Why are you after this new log?  The "benefits" you list sound more like after thoughts to promote this.

[+grimpil]

I expect there are other people like me who don't go out geocaching simply to visit cache locations & then need some sort of excuse to revisit.  I primarily go out hiking & before I go I download caches in the area & they become an added bonus to the walk.  Of course often a series or trail of caches will suggest a nice route which I might not have done otherwise & caching has often taken me off my tried & tested routes.  How often have I walked a particular place & said to myself "next time I will go down THAT path" & never do.  Until now.  So I found a lot of new places, surprising views & had the fun of solving the riddles & leaving a little bit of me behind at every cache.

 

I walk favourite routes many times & as I pass by past found caches I tip my hat to them, just as the same way I pause to look at a particular view for the umpteenth time.  And some locations make me chuckle when I remember the fun & frustration the search might have caused me.  But I don't feel any need to demonstrate to the world that I have been there again nor any need to boost any sort of personal statistics.  Yesterday I passed the spot I found my first ever cache & recalled how triumphant I felt that day. 

 

Whilst it must be satisfying for a CO to get lots of logs against a cache they have taken the trouble to place I would imagine that 20 quality logs from 20 finder's single visit would be more fulfilling than a 100 logs/notes from the same 20 people recording repeat visits.  

 

 

[+hal-an-tow]

I'm not in favour of this, I can't see any point in it, the  function of recording a second visit for any reason by a cacher other than the owner is covered adequately by the 'write note' log type. The opportunity to log repeated visits on one cache ( and for C.O.s to log their own caches as finds  too) used to be available, and was removed, maybe you should ask Groundspeak why they did that, they can't have thought it was an attractive feature to keep cachers involved and therefore keep the revenue rolling in.

 

If you have exhausted the finds in your local area, place some new caches yourself, with a bit of luck other cachers will return the favour and provide some new ones for you to hunt , and you will end up with a lively caching community. You can visit your own caches to perform maintenance as often as you like, and there's a log type ( and a count of it ) for all to see on the cache page.

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

being with a group where all members haven't found that cache (may be soon or much later so only a possible revisit log, no encouragement needed for me)

 

Yes, I did that a few months back. A family group in our community were doing their 1000th find and had picked out a relatively remote cache for it, one that I'd previously found early in my caching career, but I was still keen to go along with the group of seven other supporters. A nice hike on a beautiful winter's day with good company, whether or not the day ended with an increment to any of my caching statistics was irrelevant. I posted a WN with my write-up of the trip and my photos so I didn't really miss out on anything I'd normally do after a caching day. There were two other caches we visited on the way back to the car but I couldn't log finds on them either as they were my caches, instead I just sat back and watched the antics of the others as they went about their searches. It was a day I wouldn't have missed and, really, I think any "refound log" +1 statistic would have cheapened it.

 

This area doesn't have that many caches (540 caches spread acros 1680 square kilometres) but I don't recall seeing anyone give the game away because they'd found them all. Most newcomers leave after just a few months because the game doesn't interest them enough and rarely do I see any of those names on my bushland hides as they don't go beyond a few dozen P&Gs. Some hang around for a few years, maybe get a few hundred finds or even a thousand or more, before life's journey changes for them and they disappear from the caching scene. On the other hand, there's an elderly couple here with nearly 5000 finds. They started a decade ago and have found practically all the local caches within their terrain limit, but that hasn't stopped them. They travel about, logging on average a cache a day (over twice my own find rate) and whenever a new cache is published locally they're usually amongst the early finders if not FTF. They've found the secret to perpetual caching without the need for any revisit +1s.

 

[+coachstahly]

9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

Multiple "found" logs were indeed allowed in the past. (I never did it except once by accident and then I corrected it.) What I propose is to allow that in a controlled fashion. If you may log it again, but not as another "found" but as "revisited", and only once more and beyond a time limit, then it becomes an accomplishment and not a cheat.

 

Reward, yes. It will be a "point" in your statistics that you may desire. One more thing to make challenges from, one more calendar that you can fill... That is what many are doing, right? So what do you do when the calendar is full? Fill it twice? Sure, but when there are few available nearby, how about starting on the "revisited" calendar? Or the "revisted" matrix?

 

There are several benefits, and you mention one that I find important: The CO gets confirmations that the cache is OK! This will also give other cachers the same confirmaton. So you consider whether you should take that 5 km hike to try that cache that hasn't been found in five years? Oh, someone made "revisit" on it! Good, then I will try! Caches will not be lonely quite as much! We can't make "lonely days" challenges any more but this would help a little bit.

 

So there are multiple benefits, and nothing negative for us users. (Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?) The cost is for Groudspeak to support another log type.

 

Meh.  I'll downvote this particular suggestion (along with all the rest of the reasons/benefits mentioned in the OP).  I see no real benefit from this other than the negative notion (to me) that it's nothing more than a glorified +1, if that's what you're implying.  I'll revisit caches occasionally, but not that often and if it were an option, I'd not file the "revisit"  but would instead write a note, which is what I currently do for those few caches I do revisit (for whatever reason).  I revisit the Orlando TB Hotel (by the airport) the most frequently (once or twice each time I'm down there in June) and that gets visited frequently enough from finders to not need any cachers "revisiting" it to show that it's in good shape.  

 

If this would count as a find, then I find this notion laughable because you've already found it and somehow this gives you credit for a "new" find of a previously found cache.

 

A "revisited" challenge holds no real interest for me because it's basically a challenge of previously found caches.  I desire challenges that push me in a new or different direction, not a rehash of previous finds.

 

8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Would it become annoying to hiders when their caches are used to fluff up someone's statistics by logging finds once a day on their caches?

Are pings in their email that their caches have been found be ignored (perhaps automatically sent to the junk file) because the find logs become more meaningless? 

Would those revisiting also throwdown more often and consequently more and more COs abandon their caches and listings because "community maintenance" becomes the norm (everyone carries a sackful of upcycled pill bottles to claim their daily re-find)? 

Will the only hiders be the type that don't care about the cache or the logs, they just want to own cache listings and prefer that the community do the maintenance and in return get a re-find +1 score as their reward? 

Will it become harder for reviewers to know if a cache has been abandoned by an owner? Will it matter? 

 

Why should it matter if your hide fluffs up someone's stats?  It already does, once found, in some manner.  If it doesn't count as a find, then this first question is negated.

 

Any find log should be noted, even if it's a suggested revisited log idea from the OP.  It seems to me that the write note log would serve the same purpose, especially if the logger makes note of the status of the cache.

 

If the revisit log was to count as a find, then the throwdown notion holds merit.  If it's just something "extra" and has no value toward anything, then it seems throwdowns would be "wasted" by those looking for the +1 and they'd be less likely to do so.

 

Getting a find or a revisit isn't really a reward for the hider.  I don't see found logs as rewards for me hiding caches nor would I see a revisit log as anything resembling a reward either.  If it counts as a find then I think you could see the type of maintenance you mention in the question above, but I don't know if that would create hiders who only seem to want community maintained caches.  I don't think they go hand in hand.

 

The reviewer point is certainly a valid one, especially if this revisited idea counts toward adding a +1.  The incentive to toss out a throwdown for those looking for the +1 would certainly prevent any maintenance issues from popping up that could alert reviewers to issues with a cache.

 

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Most people need an encouragement to do that, and that is what I am after.

 

Why?  Why would people want to revisit a cache once they've found it?  TB hotels are the only ones I can really think would be worth revisiting since there's an actual purpose behind the visit.  If the only purpose behind the revisit is a +1, this notion isn't worth much.  If you're looking for people to go back to a cache they've found previously, the ONLY draw for many of them would be the +1 and I find that to be a really bad idea.  As many have previously noted, we cache to find places we might not have otherwise found on our own.  If I want to revisit a place I was brought to via geocaching, it's most likely because of the place, not because of the geocache.

 

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I have even seen the suggestion that caches should time out and be auto-archived after a certain time to make room for new ones, as a solution. No, I don't suggest that but that is what I hear.

 

No, no, no, no, no.  Every cache has a shelf life, even the oldies. Let them run their course and then let them be archived when it's time for them to be removed from the field.

 

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As a CO I would hate this, as it would increase my work load to maintain caches.

 

It might, to some extent, but that's part and parcel of being a CO.  Simple solutions would be to own less caches, create caches that don't get found frequently, and increase the number of signature spaces of the log (more sheets or a larger log) inside the cache.  There's a reason GS shut down the possibility of logging multiple finds and this idea of a revisit isn't going to fly, especially if it does count as a +1.  The OP even suggested limiting it to a year before a revisit so I'm not sure this would really increase the traffic to anyone's caches on that much of a grand scale.  If it were a daily revisit, then yeah, that would not be good.  That wasn't the notion of the OP though.

 

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

If you have exhausted the finds in your local area, place some new caches yourself, with a bit of luck other cachers will return the favour and provide some new ones for you to hunt , and you will end up with a lively caching community.

 

While this sounds nice in theory, it's not actually happening in real life at the rate of return many of us would hope for.  Just ask @barefootjeff.  You have to have the semblance of a community before this even becomes a possibility and then hope that they get the bug to hide a few rather than restrict themselves to finding.

Edited November 25, 2019 by coachstahly

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

(Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?)

We do? The only caches on my ignore list are local challenge caches where I don't expect to ever complete the challenge. If I were close enough to an Ape cache to care, I'd have found it. I wouldn't ignore it.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

create caches that don't get found frequently, and increase the number of signature spaces of the log (more sheets or a larger log) inside the cache.

With that in mind I placed a good sized small cache with a note pad log and hid it beside a quiet country road. It was there for a statistical reason explained in the description, and accidentally also has a nice view as a bonus. It didn't get many logs. But then someone placed a power trail along the road , which incorporated my cache. Suddenly lots of logs. Fortunately I had placed a good sized log book .

[+funkymunkyzone]

TLDR - I'd welcome a "Revisit" log, but only if it did *not* add to my find count, and it was only for the purpose of me identifying the difference between a revisit (usually to drop a TB, or visiting a previously found cache with friends who haven't found it) and a write note that could be for anything.

[+Goldenwattle]

11 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

visiting a previously found cache with friends who haven't found it

When I do that usually my friends include me in the list of who visited, so I don't need to make a log.

[+cerberus1]

 

13 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

(Most of us already ignore Ape caches, right?)

3 hours ago, niraD said:

We do? The only caches on my ignore list are local challenge caches where I don't expect to ever complete the challenge. If I were close enough to an Ape cache to care, I'd have found it. I wouldn't ignore it.

Yeah...

We're still challenge-free, and I intend to keep it that way.  

One of the original Ape caches is on our to-do list,  in one of the few countries (Brazil) we'd like to eventually find time for. 

I'd like to stay a month.

 

 

 

[+niraD]

36 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We're still challenge-free, and I intend to keep it that way.  

I've completed some challenges. I'm even tracking my progress on some that I haven't completed yet. But there are a few in my local area that I don't expect to ever complete (including the original Jasmer and the original Fizzy, FWIW).

 

38 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

One of the original Ape caches is on our to-do list,  in one of the few countries (Brazil) we'd like to eventually find time for. 

I don't expect to get the Brazil one, but if I'm ever in the area, I'll make a point of getting the Washington one. I don't have any immediate plans to get it though. Still, I'm not ignoring it.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

TLDR - I'd welcome a "Revisit" log, but only if it did *not* add to my find count, and it was only for the purpose of me identifying the difference between a revisit (usually to drop a TB, or visiting a previously found cache with friends who haven't found it) and a write note that could be for anything.

 

While waiting for a storm to pass, I've just gone through all my WN logs to try to classify them:

• 28 notes posted on my own hides for anything that doesn't qualify as an OM, including some TB drops
• 10 TB drops on other people's caches
• 2 previous finds that I revisited with friends
• 10 advising of a belated FP
• 28 posting info for the CO and/or other cachers
• 26 partial attempts, usually multis I hadn't completed or intended searches that didn't really start enough to be a DNF
• 2 posted in order to log an NM/NA with the new logging system
• 4 revisiting a previous find when in the area
• 1 advising that I'd qualified for a challenge
• 1 after deleting an incorrectly-logged find
• 3 placement logs on moving caches
• 3 event apologies
• 1 long log extension
• 1 find on a throwdown that I refused to log as a find

With all those different WN scenarios and revisits only accounting for a small percentage of them, does that really warrant a different log type just for those?

[+bflentje]

On 11/24/2019 at 5:07 AM, on4bam said:

I have never revisited a cache and probably would never revisit one. 

 

I revisit caches all the time and I either log a note stating such or I do nothing. And that works well for me.

[+Goldenwattle]

25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

While waiting for a storm to pass, I've just gone through all my WN logs to try to classify them:

• 28 notes posted on my own hides for anything that doesn't qualify as an OM, including some TB drops
• 10 TB drops on other people's caches
• 2 previous finds that I revisited with friends
• 10 advising of a belated FP
• 28 posting info for the CO and/or other cachers
• 26 partial attempts, usually multis I hadn't completed or intended searches that didn't really start enough to be a DNF
• 2 posted in order to log an NM/NA with the new logging system
• 4 revisiting a previous find when in the area
• 1 advising that I'd qualified for a challenge
• 1 after deleting an incorrectly-logged find
• 3 placement logs on moving caches
• 3 event apologies
• 1 long log extension
• 1 find on a throwdown that I refused to log as a find

With all those different WN scenarios and revisits only accounting for a small percentage of them, does that really warrant a different log type just for those?

I have made 356 Write Notes, for various reasons, including revisiting. Works for me.

[+IceColdUK]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

With all those different WN scenarios and revisits only accounting for a small percentage of them, does that really warrant a different log type just for those?

But the distinction is pretty significant: was the cache actually found?  If so, it provides more objective information for the CO and future finders, and it could of course be used to improve the CHS.

[+IceColdUK]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

small percentage

And I’d say the fact that it’s a small percentage only adds weight to the suggestion - you need to wade through a lot of WNs to find a useful ‘revisit’.

[+IceColdUK]

11 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

TLDR - I'd welcome a "Revisit" log, but only if it did *not* add to my find count, and it was only for the purpose of me identifying the difference between a revisit (usually to drop a TB, or visiting a previously found cache with friends who haven't found it) and a write note that could be for anything.

+1 ?

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, if the 'revisit' purpose is informational, then it should be as limited to its use as, say the log voting is. Not a statistic, count it as a typical log / note, but flag it as something effectively like '3rd party verified' =) Especially on challenges, you can often get 50+ notes of people who find but don't qualify, vs notes for qualified but not yet found, and none of that indicates the last time the cache was actually found. (one could extend it to the issue of find logs on challenges that are 'found this a year ago, finally qualified' where the find log type now implies the wrong thing: the cache wasn't found a day ago; it may not have been found in the past year, despite 40 find logs and 75 notes.

But not to focus on Challenge Caches so much, hah, I can see value in a pseudo-logtype that indicates a cache was 'found', though not claiming a find.

But... I'm not sure the value of that benefit is sufficient to actually warrant creating the new feature. It's a "nice idea" I think, but definitely not a top priority.

[+The Jester]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

...I can see value in a pseudo-logtype that indicates a cache was 'found', though not claiming a find.

But... I'm not sure the value of that benefit is sufficient to actually warrant creating the new feature. It's a "nice idea" I think, but definitely not a top priority.

I agree somewhat, but one change to the proposal would be lifting the "one time, after one year" limit.  But I still think the WN (if you read the content) covers this nicely.

 

Of course, if added this would start a whole 'nother "discussion" on the effects on Lonely Caches...

[+frinklabs]

23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

the issue of find logs on challenges that are 'found this a year ago, finally qualified' where the find log type now implies the wrong thing: the cache wasn't found a day ago; it may not have been found in the past year, despite 40 find logs and 75 notes

 

Tangentially, this would not be an issue if there was some system that properly distinguished the Found It event from the challenge completion event.

[+thebruce0]

I knew that would come up. I thought about mentioning it, as it's, as you say, tangentially related, but decided to stay direct. If anyone else would mention it, we know who

[+JL_HSTRE]

 

On 11/25/2019 at 8:04 AM, Ragnemalm said:

That's why I suggested that the "revisit" would only count *once* and at least a year after "found". Or more.

 

But why should only the first revisit count? If I found a cache in 2015 then revisit it today that visit should be just as valid if I revisit it in 2025.

 

If you really want revisits then churn caches - archive and republish every few years. But this is already such a numbers-oriented hobby we need not encourage it further.

 

I certainly want caches to bring me to new places. Having been brought to the location by a cache, if it's worth revisiting I will be back whether there is a cache or not. On the contrary, there are several places that have unfound caches that will remain unfound by me indefinitely because I've already been there multiple times in a decade of caching and they're just not worth revisiting every year or two to bump my find count.

[+grimpil]

>>>>I certainly want caches to bring me to new places. Having been brought to the location by a cache, if it's worth revisiting I will be back whether there is a cache or not. On the contrary, there are several places that have unfound caches that will remain unfound by me indefinitely because I've already been there multiple times in a decade of caching and they're just not worth revisiting every year or two to bump my find count.<<<<<

 

My feelings exactly.  As someone else remarked - this appears to be in the main a game of numbers for a great many people.  For some of us  'tis better to travel than to arrive, but maybe we are a minority.  Life seems to be all about getting bigger numbers than the next man - number of caches, number of FB friends etc etc.  What happened to QUALITY over QUANTITY?  Sigh!