What do you think of TBs that exist multiple times in different caches (e.g. stamps)?

[+jefflebow]

I came across a lot of TBs recently, that are just a stamp in the logbook. When I looked them up online, I saw that they are discovered in many different caches and their location is not the cache I saw them in, which means the stamp must have been used multiple times. As far as I understand this is against the HQ guidelines. My question: What do you think of this and do you discover and log the TBs when you see them? I am really interested to hear your opinion! On the one hand I want to log every trackable I see, on the other I don't want to support this practice.

 

[Darwin473]

This sounds like a virtual TB that is publicly discoverable - like sharing a photo on the internet.

 

I can't say I'm a fan of the idea (either really, I prefer the physical TB which is carried from cache to cache) but I can certainly see the attraction. The TB never gets lost or damaged, it gets to travel places and required the owner to make a custom thing for their TB. I think that this type of virtual TB should be set up to only be able to log Visits and Discovered. It shouldn't be logged as Dropped into a cache because the actual TB (the stamp) is still in the owners hands.

 

I don't think it's against the rules, but it's certainly rare. If I was going to do this I think I'd prefer to get a bunch of stickers made up.

[+Max and 99]

41 minutes ago, jefflebow said:

I came across a lot of TBs recently, that are just a stamp in the logbook. When I looked them up online, I saw that they are discovered in many different caches and their location is not the cache I saw them in, which means the stamp must have been used multiple times. As far as I understand this is against the HQ guidelines. My question: What do you think of this and do you discover and log the TBs when you see them? I am really interested to hear your opinion! On the one hand I want to log every trackable I see, on the other I don't want to support this practice.

 

I see this quite often in tag trades. The mailers often come with TB codes that are added to and shared. 

What guideline does this violate? I'm too lazy to look it up. ?

I ignore 99% of them that I get. 

[+cerberus1]

40 minutes ago, jefflebow said:

I came across a lot of TBs recently, that are just a stamp in the logbook. When I looked them up online, I saw that they are discovered in many different caches and their location is not the cache I saw them in, which means the stamp must have been used multiple times. As far as I understand this is against the HQ guidelines. My question: What do you think of this and do you discover and log the TBs when you see them? I am really interested to hear your opinion! On the one hand I want to log every trackable I see, on the other I don't want to support this practice.

 

IIRC, it's not against guidelines unless it becomes a problem.   Is it a problem ?

Otherwise we'd never be able to replace "missing" trackables just in case the first happened to be "found" again.    

[+Max and 99]

18 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

I think that this type of virtual TB should be set up to only be able to log Visits and Discovered.

I think many of them that I see on mailers say Discover Me. 

[+TriciaG]

Multiple physical TBs that travel, are in different caches, and cachers get all confused when someone "grabs" it from them when (one of them) is physically in their possession: bad.

 

A TB code duplicated many times and meant for discovery only: no problem.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've run across several cases of a geocacher's signature stamp having a TB code.  No problem.  Meant to be discovered.

I've also run into a few cases of duplicate TBs.  One was a re-release of a bug that had been missing for years.  Then the original was found in Europe and moved.  The owner asked that I mail the one I had back to him.  And he repaid me for the postage.  Another was obviously several bugs released.  I grabbed the one I found and put it in a cache.  Someone grabbed it from that cache, and moved it elsewhere.  The cache where I hid it was archived, so that resolves part of that problem.