Best practice on re logging caches

[+TheZenWizard]

A couple of times I have noticed cachers relogging finds under their personal account (caches they might have found and logged under a team account that they now want to separate (possibly because they no longer cache together, for example)). I doubt that's a problem in the greater scheme of things. Of course, if it's a cache I am watching (which is usually because I couldn't find it) suddenly I get notified that someone has found it only to discover that it's a relog of an old cache. Nothing much to do about that - when I know it's a relog, I can ignore it. Vaguely annoying but no biggie. Fortunately I am not watching a huge list. What I don't know is what the implications are for reviewers. Suddenly the logs have a 'found' log as the most recent one which will be later than any DNFs - does that remove it from any list of flagged caches up for review? I guess I don't know what tools are available/used by reviewers, but I can guess this might be an issue in the same way that incorrectly logging a DNF as a find must confuse the reviewing systems. So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches? And as a bigger question, what flags up a cache as needing review and what (if anything) resets that flag?
 

[+Max and 99]

6 minutes ago, TheZenWizard said:

A couple of times I have noticed cachers relogging finds under their personal account (caches they might have found and logged under a team account that they now want to separate (possibly because they no longer cache together, for example)). I doubt that's a problem in the greater scheme of things. Of course, if it's a cache I am watching (which is usually because I couldn't find it) suddenly I get notified that someone has found it only to discover that it's a relog of an old cache. Nothing much to do about that - when I know it's a relog, I can ignore it. Vaguely annoying but no biggie. Fortunately I am not watching a huge list. What I don't know is what the implications are for reviewers. Suddenly the logs have a 'found' log as the most recent one which will be later than any DNFs - does that remove it from any list of flagged caches up for review? I guess I don't know what tools are available/used by reviewers, but I can guess this might be an issue in the same way that incorrectly logging a DNF as a find must confuse the reviewing systems. So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches? And as a bigger question, what flags up a cache as needing review and what (if anything) resets that flag?
 

if those caches would be logged on the correct date it would solve a lot of problems! 

[+on4bam]

If an account gets split for whatever reason and a new account want to log all caches already found earlier I would guess logging them on the same date as the original find and adding "found as joint account but now also logging under own account" would be the most accurate as finds would have their right date. However, it looks strange that a new 2020 account would log caches as found in 2011.

 

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, TheZenWizard said:

A couple of times I have noticed cachers relogging finds under their personal account (caches they might have found and logged under a team account that they now want to separate (possibly because they no longer cache together, for example)).

I doubt that's a problem in the greater scheme of things. Of course, if it's a cache I am watching (which is usually because I couldn't find it) suddenly I get notified that someone has found it only to discover that it's a relog of an old cache. Nothing much to do about that - when I know it's a relog, I can ignore it. Vaguely annoying but no biggie.

Fortunately I am not watching a huge list. What I don't know is what the implications are for reviewers.

Suddenly the logs have a 'found' log as the most recent one which will be later than any DNFs - does that remove it from any list of flagged caches up for review? I guess I don't know what tools are available/used by reviewers, but I can guess this might be an issue in the same way that incorrectly logging a DNF as a find must confuse the reviewing systems. So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches? And as a bigger question, what flags up a cache as needing review and what (if anything) resets that flag?

 

Did the logs say what they were doing?   Reviewers read logs too...

Last month I removed, and "relogged" a cache found from 2015 over a question asked in these forums. 

Back-dating solves issues for others (it's sent back to it's original date), but it wouldn't for you if on the watchlist. 

It also stays with me on the profile for 30 days, but still with the correct date found.

Most families with kids, if their kids stay, they want an account of their own.  They simply back-date all caches found with mom n dad.

I'd bet that's hundreds a week.

Someone back-dating a log has nothing to do with you.  Curious why it's "fortunate" your watchlist isn't huge.  Thanks.  

 

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, TheZenWizard said:

So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches?

What I did when I created my geocaching.com account was that I logged all my finds, setting the date of the logs to the date when I actually found them, and mentioning that a friend had introduced several of us to geocaching that day.

 

When I've introduced others to geocaching, I've told them to do the same thing: log their finds, setting the date of the logs to the date(s) when they actually found them, and mentioning that they were with me before they had an account.

 

For splitting a team account, I would suggest the same thing: (re)log the find, setting the date of the logs to the dates when they actually found them, and mentioning that they were originally part of the team account when they found the caches.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, TheZenWizard said:

Suddenly the logs have a 'found' log as the most recent one which will be later than any DNFs - does that remove it from any list of flagged caches up for review? I guess I don't know what tools are available/used by reviewers, but I can guess this might be an issue in the same way that incorrectly logging a DNF as a find must confuse the reviewing systems. So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches? And as a bigger question, what flags up a cache as needing review and what (if anything) resets that flag?

 

Yet another reason why it's better to use NM logs to report caches that need maintenance rather than try to second-guess that from DNF logs which most of the time just mean some blind freddy like me can't see the obvious cache staring him in the face. An NM isn't erased by subsequent finds, it takes an OM log by the owner to do that.

[+humboldt flier]

Hmmmmm, Re-logging depends if you are "clear cutting" or selective logging how and when to go back in and log some more.  Buuuuut I may be a tad off base.

[+lee737]

23 hours ago, TheZenWizard said:

So what ARE the guidelines for relogging caches? And as a bigger question, what flags up a cache as needing review and what (if anything) resets that flag?
 

There are no (official) guidelines to relogging AFAIK..... a lot that do it don't even put the reason for the 5 year old log in the log, let alone correctly date it......

My suspicion is that the erroneously dated 'Found' log will play havoc with the 'cache health score', but since the health score is a closely guarded secret, it seems we won't know by how much.....

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm sure GSAK has tools to make this process much easier.