Logging a find on your Own Cache...

[+Buck8Point]

or Logging a Find on the same Cache Multiple times.

 

I was just curious, do many people do this?

 

We have at least 2 Cachers in Louisiana, that Im aware of, who have logged finds on thier own caches. Ive never had an inkling to do this myself, but I was wondering if this is a common practice in other areas.

 

Also, One of the 2 Cachers has also logged finds on several caches twice, and even one cache 3 times..

Now I have visited caches that I had logged before, introducing someone else to the sport, but I have never logged a find on a single cache multiple times, and frankly I cant imagine a good reason to do so.

 

Untill I saw this for myself, I didnt even think the system even allowed multiple find logs on a single cache, by the same Geocacher.

 

Do others do this as well?

 

I believe in to each his own, in Geocaching, but this just doesnt seem like the way the Game was intended to be played.

 

Buck8Point

 

Buck8Point

-------------------------

If I can't Fix it, It's Definately Broke.

 

[This message was edited by Buck8Point on July 18, 2002 at 11:16 PM.]

[+shybabe924]

What's challenging about finding the same cache 3 times? You already know where it is! Oh well, now you know the stats are just diddley squat

 

Shybabe924

 

=============

 

If life gives you lemons, squeeze the juice into a watergun and shoot other people in the eyes.

[+shybabe924]

What's challenging about finding the same cache 3 times? You already know where it is! Oh well, now you know the stats are just diddley squat

 

Shybabe924

 

=============

 

If life gives you lemons, squeeze the juice into a watergun and shoot other people in the eyes.

[+briansnat]

I've heard of this being done, but it isn't right. It's just plain dishonest. Some people log finds when they visit a cache to do maintenance. Either they're ignorant or simply out to pad their find numbers.

 

Same goes for multiple finds on the same cache. There is one execption I can think of. I have a cache that roams around a large county park. Each finder is asked to move the cache to a new area and record the new coordinates at a fixed location. I have no problem with cachers recording multiple finds with this and in fact I encourage it.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[+Trudy & the beast]

Here is a new twist, I am wondering if anyone else has seen it. I have found a log at one of the caches that we have placed and there is no corresponding log on the geocaching site. I understand that there are people who will falsly log a cache as found on the net to pad their count, but it appears there may be players who keep real finds between themselves and the cache owners...

very interesting.

[DisQuoi]

Clearly, this is a continuation of the discussion about people logging caches based on physical evidence of plundering. In other words, what should be "allowed" when logging a "find".

 

First of all, if you mean "to each his own", you shouldn't follow by questioning someone's choice.

 

Second, this isn't a competetive game so there's little incentive to "pad" or "cheat". I'm not "playing against" you when I wake up on a Saturday morning and grab my unit (hehe ... GPS unit).

 

Third, it's not a question of honesty. How someone tracks their geocaching should have no impact on your day. If someone has a rationale for why they logged a cache, let them. If rules are ever written up for how to log a cache on geocaching.com, then there will be room for calling someone honest or dishonest.

 

Fourth, I see little difference in multiple loggings of a cache that moves around a park versus any other cache.

[+Markwell]

I posted this response in this thread, but it is germain to this discussion.

 

There were only two instances where a cache that I set up in the database have been logged as "found" by me.

 

The first was The Photographer’s Cache VI. I didn't post those coordinates of the cache, Glenn95630 did. I happened to go out and find coordinates that he had suggested. Having found one of the Photographer's Caches, I will not find one again.

 

The second instance was in the 2001 Chicago Suburbs Geo-Picnic. I logged the event on to the website, but was paired with Bryan. Bryan and I went out the day before and hid 7 temporary caches in the park. The way we logged finding them was to log multiple finds on the picnic page (never occurred to me to just set up extra cache pages like I did this year).

 

Since I found a cache that Bryan had placed, I logged it as found.

 

It should also be noted that the 2001 Picnic scenario would also be a reason for multiple logs on one page.

 

All that having been said - multiple finds on a single cache or finds on a single cache that you placed and uploaded the coordinates... bad form.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Markwell]

I posted this response in this thread, but it is germain to this discussion.

 

There were only two instances where a cache that I set up in the database have been logged as "found" by me.

 

The first was The Photographer’s Cache VI. I didn't post those coordinates of the cache, Glenn95630 did. I happened to go out and find coordinates that he had suggested. Having found one of the Photographer's Caches, I will not find one again.

 

The second instance was in the 2001 Chicago Suburbs Geo-Picnic. I logged the event on to the website, but was paired with Bryan. Bryan and I went out the day before and hid 7 temporary caches in the park. The way we logged finding them was to log multiple finds on the picnic page (never occurred to me to just set up extra cache pages like I did this year).

 

Since I found a cache that Bryan had placed, I logged it as found.

 

It should also be noted that the 2001 Picnic scenario would also be a reason for multiple logs on one page.

 

All that having been said - multiple finds on a single cache or finds on a single cache that you placed and uploaded the coordinates... bad form.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Markwell]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:

I have found a log at one of the caches that we have placed and there is no corresponding log on the geocaching site.

---

It's actually not a new twist, just a frustrating one. I have two remote caches (600 miles) that my in-laws watch for me. They don't go to the location unless it is warranted (plundering, other problems).

 

I never get to hear the stories of the people who don't log their finds on the internet. It's sad...

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I know of a cacher that does log his own caches as finds. It seems a bit silly to me but, that's his business I guess.

 

quote:

---

I have found a log at one of the caches that we have placed and there is no corresponding log on the geocaching site.

---

This happens all too often. I know another local cacher that never logs his finds on the internet. I don't know why, but I think that this is cheating the placer. After all part of the reason for placing the cache is so you'll get e-mails that someone found it. But again, this is his business. Just not something I'd agree with.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+parkrrrr]

I had a travel bug moved by someone who doesn't log his finds on the internet. I still don't know how many caches it might have been in and out of before it miraculously turned up again one day.

 

Someone did go to the cache where it was last seen and checked the physical log for me, which told me who had it, and it did turn up the day after I emailed him and asked what had happened to it, but I'm hoping that that's a coincidence.

 

[+Sabaharr]

It seems it is about time that some basic rules are made about posting finds. Double posting a roaming cache is the only instance I can justify. Then I wonder why someone would want to go after the same one twice. There are enough different ones to find. As for posting your own cache as a find, well, maybe that person had amnesia and forgot where he or she put it. Any other case is, to me, unethical. Since there are no rules there is nothing that can be done about it, so I hope the ones who do that feel good telling others they found a number of caches when it was actually far less. Websters defines FIND as "to get by searching", and FOUND as "the past tense of FIND". So in this instance clicking the FOUND IT button is a long stretch of the truth (read between the lines on that statement). It isn't much of a search if you have been there before, or put it there yourself.

 

Sabaharr

[+parkrrrr]

I have another case where one could presumably log two finds, were one of a mind to do so. Check out my (parkrrrr's) 4/25 log to GeoOtter's PEZ Cache and the log entry before it. I didn't log this as another find, but I think I might have been justified in doing so had I wanted to.

 

[+tntyz]

There is a cache nearby that I've already logged as a find. However, I have learned that the cache is in the same park, but moved to a different location. I certainly intend to find and log it twice!

[SunCrush]

I would log again if a cache i once logged moved to a new location. That pretty much means its in a different spot and you have to find it... but if it was in the same spot.. why waste valuable cache time doing the same one over and over again.

[SunCrush]

I would log again if a cache i once logged moved to a new location. That pretty much means its in a different spot and you have to find it... but if it was in the same spot.. why waste valuable cache time doing the same one over and over again.

[+briansnat]

People keep saying that find counts don't mean anything. But they obviously do matter to some, otherwise why would they take the trouble to pad their counts with false finds, finds on their own caches and other specious finds?

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[Rubbertoe]

Just found a local guy who 'placed' a virtual cache, and then logged it for himself...

 

justification?

 

Like I said... it doesn't matter to me either way, since I'm only out here to see how well I do - not to compete against others.

 

I just don't understand why people would want to do this - it seems to contaminate all the real finds that one has, when you have questionable ones in your find list like that.

 

Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

[+LarsThorwald]

There's no justification for logging your own cache. Period. I've seen it here in SoCal - mostly with people who just started, have only found one and are already out placing one. I'm hoping experience brings intelligence and reason (hey, I've got to hope for SOMETHING)!

 

Charlie

 

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

[+majicman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LarsThorwald:

There's no justification for logging your own cache. Period. I've seen it here in SoCal - mostly with people who just started, have only found one and are already out placing one. I'm hoping experience brings intelligence and reason (hey, I've got to hope for SOMETHING)!

 

Charlie

 

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

---

 

You'd think with the density of caches (that I have heard about) in CA that wouldn't be necessary. Heck fire, we only got 200+ in the whole Great State of Okrahoma! (and 10 percent of them is mine!)

 

--majicman

[+LarsThorwald]

I know.. and I've got that many within 50 miles of my house!

 

Charlie

 

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

[+majicman]

You have my deep envy. It won't stop me, once I clear out this area, it is just gonna involve a lot of driving in the future!

 

--majicman

[+Rockdoctors]

Silly version of hide and seek. Tell your kids where to hide. Count to ten. Then, go and find them (if you can) and get all excited jump up and down and tell them to go hide again. Logging your own caches is plain silly!!!!!!!!

 

TRUST ME I KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT