+Nurse Dave Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Question: I thought at one point Jeremy was going to change things so that a cacher may only log a cache once. Or at least if it's logged multiple times it would still only add 1 to the find count. Am I wrong or was this dropped? Link to comment
FallenFaery Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 This sort of seems like a bad idea, because for things like event caches and the event owners typically let you log the temp caches on the main event site. if they made it so you could only log a cache once you'd lose all those temp caches. Link to comment
+Nurse Dave Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 Well, um, ya. One cache, one log. Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 This sort of seems like a bad idea, because for things like event caches and the event owners typically let you log the temp caches on the main event site. I wouldn't say that that practice is typical. I know it is common in some areas, but we tend to avoid doing that here in the Northwest. Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 There are still a few traveling caches around. Each find is new since they change location constantly. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I finally decided it wasn't really about the numbers, so if someone wanted to inflate theirs with finds (eg: Event cache temporary caches), so be it. Not that I'm one to shy away from an argument, but it was definitely the path of least resistance. Link to comment
+Nurse Dave Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 Fair enough, thanks J. Link to comment
+res2100 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Another reason to log a 2nd find on a cache is if the cache is moved to a new location (so it's just like a new cache hide), which does seem to happen a lot. Also in my opinion if it moves considerably, it should be an entirely new cache. ...and if it ain't broken, don't fix it...I think it works rather well the way it is now. Link to comment
+Nurse Dave Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 If it's moved a large enough distance it's supposed to be a new caches because the approvers need to approve the new location. If it's not moved far enough for that in my opinion you're padding your numbers. Just like a cache here were it was replaced and the old one is still there. People are logging the dang thing twice because they are finding two containers just a short distance apart. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Yeah. The way it is now you can apply your own rules to a particular find count and decide whether it is fair or not. I like how they are broken out by type on the profile page now. Link to comment
Recommended Posts