Feature Suggestion

[+Thot]

Feature Suggestion

 

I have a suggestion for the “future features” list.

 

From what I’ve read it isn’t considered Kosher to return to a previous find and log it as a find a second time (or a third or . . .). I’ve seen cases of this recently while reviewing logs. If it’s true that this is not permitted why not make it impossible for a cacher to log the same find twice. I’ve read the same thing about logging your own cache as a find, so while you’re at it you could make that impossible too.

 

If I’m wrong and these practices are acceptable ignore this suggestion.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Thot

[+geojeeper74]

Sometimes a cache gets plundered or something else happens that causes the owner to move the cache to a new location, say a hundred feet or so. In this situation I would think it would be ok for previous finders to come and find it for a second time and go ahead and log it as a find.

 

As for not being able to log a find for your own cache, I totally agree. I find that very annoying.

Edited September 18, 2004 by geojeeper74

[+strikeforce1]

Sometimes a cache gets plundered or something else happens that causes the owner to move the cache to a new location, say a hundred feet or so.  In this situation I would think it would be ok for previous finders to come and find it for a second time and go ahead and log it as a find.

 

As for not being able to log a find for your own cache, I totally agree.  I find that very annoying.

Ditto: geojeepers74 comments.

I just had to close down a cache in a local park, because of a golf course going in. I'm going to archive it because I can't keep the same puzzle pieces and concepts.

If I needed to move just the final or had to move the other stages, of slight distances, or not change the concept, I would say "No" they shouldn't get another find. But, I need to change the whole concept and move it 500yds.

I also want to keep the name. Therefor, reforming a different puzzle and experience,

I would allow repeaters the ablility to refind it. This way I get to preserver all the old logs and thoughts of cachers, and yet allow them to find the new cache and experience! SF1

Edited September 18, 2004 by strikeforce1

[+Renegade Knight]

Sometimes a cache gets plundered or something else happens that causes the owner to move the cache to a new location, say a hundred feet or so. In this situation I would think it would be ok for previous finders to come and find it for a second time and go ahead and log it as a find.

 

As for not being able to log a find for your own cache, I totally agree. I find that very annoying.

If moving it 100 feet makes it essentially the same experience then there is no need to re-vist and re-log the cache. IF it's a new experience list a new cache.

 

With Thots rule people would merely take this into consideration. If the game had been like that from day one the question wouldn't even come up. I agree with Thot's proposal.

[+Thot]

I also want to keep the name.  Therefor,  reforming a different puzzle and experience, I would allow repeaters the ablility to refind it.

Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying, but if a cache keeps the same name it would show as already found on my list and I'd never know to go back.

 

This way I get to preserver all the old logs and thoughts of cachers, and yet allow them to find the new cache and experience! SF1

If it’s a different puzzle and a different experience it doesn’t seem like the logs would have any relevance to it and might confuse cachers who were reading the logs and thought the comments were relevant to finding the current cache. I sometimes jump around in the logs, not uncommonly jumping to the first few made.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Thot

[+Riddlers]

I think it is a good idea. One find for one cache. There are some times that it should be allowed but if we know it is a rule then we can work with that.

 

If you move your cache and want to use the name, call it #2 at the end and it will still have the same name but be able to be logged again by everyone.

[lowracer]

I think a feature to prevent an owner from logging his own cache as a find is good, but:

 

-I know of several caches where you get another smiley for finding the nearby (unlisted) Bonus cache. This is very common here in Austin.

-Some event caches have temporarily hidden caches just for the event and those typically get logged on the cache page as additional smileys.

-Those who play by "Michigan Rules" will claim one smiley for each leg of a multicache.

-My webcam cache In The Future, We'll All Wear Mylar Jumpsuits (GCKE4G) allows up to four smileys depending on how many of the outrageous criteria for this cache are met.

 

I think rather than just forcing us into "everyone gets one smiley," leave it up to the cache owner. Give us a drop-down menu on the cache edit page that allows the cache owner to set the maximum number of smileys permitted for that cache. It can default to one.

[+Jamie Z]

-Some event caches have temporarily hidden caches just for the event and those typically get logged on the cache page as additional smileys.

-Those who play by "Michigan Rules" will claim one smiley for each leg of a multicache. 

-My webcam cache.

If you can get a shot of yourself balancing the Rock on your head while wearing a Mylar emergency blanket, a Homemade Tinfoil Hat and holding a sign that says "Danger Will Robinson," you get to claim 4 Smileys.

If you can get a shot of yourself balancing the Rock on your head while wearing a Mylar emergency blanket, a Homemade Tinfoil Hat and holding a sign that says "Danger Will Robinson," you get to claim 4 Smileys.

There may be a handful of legitimate reasons to log multiple finds for one cache, but these aren't them. These are practices that degrade the integrity of legitimate finds.

 

Jamie

 

[edit] changed a word.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Jamie Z

[lowracer]

There may be a handful of legitimate reasons to log multiple finds for one cache, but these aren't them. These are practices that degrade the integrity of legitimate finds.

 

Jamie

Degrade the integrity? Please. Give me a break. What is the prize for having the biggest smiley count? It's all about fun. People are having a lot of fun doing this one, and logging four smileys for it is only part of that fun.

[+Prime Suspect]

While new Moving Caches are not accepted, there are existing ones still out there. It's common for moving caches to be logged by the same person many times, even by the cache owner. Look at this one, for example. Some people have logged a dozen or more finds on it.

 

Also, event tournament caches sometimes allow multiple finds to be posted. It's pretty much up to the cache owner.

[+Thot]

There may be a handful of legitimate reasons to log multiple finds for one cache, but these aren't them. These are practices that degrade the integrity of legitimate finds.

 

Jamie

Degrade the integrity? Please. Give me a break. What is the prize for having the biggest smiley count? It's all about fun. People are having a lot of fun doing this one, and logging four smileys for it is only part of that fun.

That’s confusing to me. If, as you say, there’s no reason “for having the biggest smiley count” it suggests the count’s meaningless. If it has no meaning it’s not clear to me why the count is kept. If the count is meaningless how is “logging four smileys . . is . . part of that fun?”

 

Would you feel the same way if I placed a cache and said I wanted lots of people to come, so to make sure it’s fun they get a bonus -- they can log 5 finds for finding my cache? If the smiley count is irrelevant it seems like it shouldn’t matter how many finds are logged for a single cache – it would be up to me and the people who find it.

 

I’m sincerely not trying to flame you, I’m just having a hard time reconciling your position that extra find count doesn't matter, with Groundspeak keeping a record of total finds and your statement that people enjoying adding to their smiley count.

[lowracer]

If, as you say, there’s no reason “for having the biggest smiley count” it suggests the count’s meaningless.  If it has no meaning it’s not clear to me why the count is kept.

Bingo. You got it. The count is meaningless to anyone but the cacher who owns his/her own count. So why not have fun with it? If you don't want to post four smileys, no one's forcing you to. I had a guy come out this morning who only wanted one smiley. He put "the rock that rolls" on his head and took the picture. It's his choice. BTW, he could log another find on the "rock" (a wildly popular local moving/travelling cache), because that is the convention here, or he may only post a note, again, his choice (edit/update: just got notification that he only posted a note). We have another cacher here in austin who only "posts a note" even though he found it. He's found over 500 caches but his smiley count always shows zero. My little brother caches a lot but has also a zero score because he never posts finds online, ever. I don't think he even has an account on this site. At the other end of the scale I know a cacher here in Austin who logs a smiley if he can see the container, or if anyone in his search party finds it, even though he himself never got within a quarter mile of it, never laid a hand on it or signed the log. So what are you going to do, call the geocaching police?

 

Getting back on topic, I just think there are too many reasons not to limit the number of smileys posted to any one cache page. It's part of the game for some caches to log more than once.

Edited September 18, 2004 by lowracer

[+Jamie Z]

Degrade the integrity? Please. Give me a break.

Point taken.

 

My thought is that when someone places a cache, you should get a smiley for finding it. Not a smiley for finding it while wearing a goofy hat, or multiple finds for finding portions of the same cache.

 

Caching is fun, yes. Each one of my logs represents at least some enjoyment. I wouldn't log multiple finds because a cache is super-fun. A cache is a find. Want multiple finds? Log multiple caches.

 

Jamie

[lowracer]

My thought is that when someone places a cache, you should get a smiley for finding it. Not a smiley for finding it while wearing a goofy hat, or multiple finds for finding portions of the same cache.

Personally, when I'm out finding, I play by my own strict rules. If I don't put my hand on the logbook and sign it myself (or if I'm caching with a group, if someone signs for the group). So I know that my find count is an accurate count of how many logbooks I have signed (plus a few virties and locationless). I can only compare my score to myself. It's a personal benchmark. I can in no way compare it to others because they aren't playing by the same rules. I have debated whether to play multicaches by michigan rules. My jury's still out on that one.

 

Now as for hides, I like to be a little creative and offer a bit of an incentive by offering a few extra smilies now and then for those who like to collect smilies. Especially if they have to do something really outrageous like wear mylar and tinfoil hats.

[+Thot]

If, as you say, there’s no reason “for having the biggest smiley count” it suggests the count’s meaningless.  If it has no meaning it’s not clear to me why the count is kept.

It's part of the game for some caches to log more than once.

But, said the other way ‘round, if the count doesn't matter why would it matter if it is limited to one per cache. It seems like it's only because the count does matter that people want to log a cache more than one time. If it didn't matter they wouldn't care whether they could log multiple finds for one cache or not.

 

I think I’m having trouble explaining my confusion.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Thot

[+Thot]

While new Moving Caches are not accepted, there are existing ones still out there. It's common for moving caches to be logged by the same person many times, even by the cache owner.

Clearly a exception would have to be made for moving caches.

[lowracer]

if the count doesn't matter why would it matter if it is limited to one per cache.

The count doesn't matter, as a comparison between cachers. So why restrict it? Someone wants to log four smileys or none at all, who cares? Someone enjoys logging four smileys for wearing mylar and a tinfoil hat, man I want to give them all that kind of enjoyment they can get. If I do, does your car turn up missing? Does your arm break? Think about it. If I spend all weekend logging fake finds and rack up 2000 smileys on my count, will you cry about it? Will it mean anything at all? Who will care? There's absolutely no competition here.

 

When this game is all over, you can take your smiley count to the bank, and whether you have one smiley or one thousand, they'll give you the exact same amount for it. Nothing.

 

So to clear up the confusion, ask yourself: Why limit it? What are the reasons for limiting it? Start there. If you find yourself arguing that we need some kind of uniform rules for logging smileys, then you're bringing up the the whole question of enforcement. And who will enforce it? And how are you going to make sure that everyone enforces it equally? And then when the geocaching police force has been established, when everyone's score is comparable to everyone else's, who is going to award the prize for first place?

[+geojeeper74]

Does logging multiple finds on the same cache increase your find count?

[+Prime Suspect]

Feature Suggestion

 

I have a suggestion for the “future features” list. 

 

From what I’ve read it isn’t considered Kosher to return to a previous find and log it as a find a second time (or a third or . . .).  I’ve seen cases of this recently while reviewing logs.  If it’s true that this is not permitted why not make it impossible for a cacher to log the same find twice.  I’ve read the same thing about logging your own cache as a find, so while you’re at it you could make that impossible too.

 

If I’m wrong and these practices are acceptable ignore this suggestion.

It's always been GC's policy that, within obvious limits, cache owners can make the rules about what constitutes a find, and how that find can be logged. If a cache owner says you, in addition to signing the log, you have to email back a codeword to log the find, so be it. Their cache, their rules. I have an (easily) encrypted cache, and I only accept find logs that are posted in the same code. My rule.

 

Why do you want to take that control out of the hands of the cache owners?

Edited September 18, 2004 by Prime Suspect

[+Thot]

If a cache owner says you, in addition to signing the log, you have to email back a codeword to log the find, so be it. Their cache, their rules. I have an (easily) encrypted cache, and I only accept find logs that are posted in the same code. My rule.

 

Why do you want to take that control out of the hands of the cache owners?

I’m sorry, I didn’t follow how that relates to counting the same find multiple times?

[+Prime Suspect]

If a cache owner says you, in addition to signing the log, you have to email back a codeword to log the find, so be it. Their cache, their rules. I have an (easily) encrypted cache, and I only accept find logs that are posted in the same code. My rule.

 

Why do you want to take that control out of the hands of the cache owners?

Im sorry, I didnt follow how that relates to counting the same find multiple times?

Well, it doesn't when you leave out the most pertinent statement in the text you quote. To repeat:

It's always been GC's policy that, within obvious limits, cache owners can make the rules about what constitutes a find, and how that find can be logged.

[+Renegade Knight]

I think a feature to prevent an owner from logging his own cache as a find is good, but:

 

-I know of several caches where you get another smiley for finding the nearby (unlisted) Bonus cache. This is very common here in Austin.

-Some event caches have temporarily hidden caches just for the event and those typically get logged on the cache page as additional smileys.

-Those who play by "Michigan Rules" will claim one smiley for each leg of a multicache.

-My webcam cache In The Future, We'll All Wear Mylar Jumpsuits (GCKE4G) allows up to four smileys depending on how many of the outrageous criteria for this cache are met.

 

I think rather than just forcing us into "everyone gets one smiley," leave it up to the cache owner. Give us a drop-down menu on the cache edit page that allows the cache owner to set the maximum number of smileys permitted for that cache. It can default to one.

Every last one of those examples can be done a different way under Thots rules. The only reason they are done the way they are done now is because that's a creative way to use the existing rules.

 

Creativity won't go away. I can devise an alternate method for everything but your webcam. That one has me scratching my head as it 's a creative cache that capatalizes on the present system with no obviouse counterpart.

[+DeViDe]

geojeeper74 Posted on Sep 18 2004, 01:47 PM

  Does logging multiple finds on the same cache increase your find count? 

 

Yes I went and tried it and my count increased. Then I went back and deleted the second log and my count went back.

[+KC0GRN]

I actually don't see the current system as a problem. Seriously if someone wants to revisit a cache and count it as a find, and in the process fudge their numbers, let em. It's just a game, and those who play it honestly will know how many finds they truely have.

 

As mentioned sometimes there's Event temp caches that I've spent a good deal of time and effort to locate, and every one of them I count as a very legitimate find. If you start to impose restrictions on logging finds to a cache, eventually someone will complain that they couldn't log a rehide or whatnot.

 

Best idea is to leave it as is, and if someone wants to boast they have a thousand finds while only visiting 500 caches, let em, far as I see it they're only cheating themselves.