Logging Smilies When You Should Log A Note

[Prairie Jeepin]

I have read often enough in numerous threads about folks logging, or relogging, a "find" on a cache they have already been given credit for. And in some bizarre cases -- even logging their own caches when they go to do maint'ce or something.

 

This is obviously considered an annoyance, even a "no-no" to most here. Probably 98%. I agree fully. This should not happen.

 

What I would like to suggest to TPTB is that the site cookies be used to identify a user and remove the smiley option from any caches they have previously logged as a "find". This would then effectively prevent relogging as a "find".

 

There must be a way to do this, though I am not a PC wiz and could not begin to explain how, I am positive it can be done. It would work much the same way cookies detect a user who has voted in a poll, and prevents them from re-voting in that same poll.

 

Something to think about.

 

PJ

 

EDIT: for my atrocious spelling

Edited October 6, 2004 by Prairie Jeepin

[+Stunod]

There are times that the cache hider encourages multiple logging of a cache. Your solution would eliminate this option.

[PatrickD]

Speaking as a web developer...

 

I don't think cookies would have anything to do with it. When someone goes to log a find, check to see if they've already got one. If so, don't allow another find to be logged. Database lookups, not cookies.

 

Of course, for those caches that allow multiple finds (for whatever reason) there would need to be some sort of flag set by the cache owner that either allows it or bans it.

Edited October 6, 2004 by PatrickD

[+LaPaglia]

I have read often enough in numerous threads about folks logging, or relogging, a "find" on a cache they have already been given credit for. And in some bizarre cases -- even logging their own caches when they go to do maint'ce or something.

 

This is obviously considered an annoyance, even a "no-no" to most here. Probably 98%. I agree fully. This should not happen.

 

What I would like to suggest to TPTB is that the site cookies be used to identify a user and remove the smiley option from any caches they have previously logged as a "find". This would then effectively prevent relogging as a "find".

 

There must be a way to do this, though I am not a PC wiz and could not begin to explain how, I am positive it can be done. It would work much the same way cookies detect a user who has voted in a poll, and prevents them from re-voting in that same poll.

 

Something to think about.

 

PJ

 

EDIT: for my atrocious spelling

Why do you care who logs what how many times????

Did I miss the election for the cache police?

 

Let eveyone play the game the way they want. if it fits in the current guidelines dont try to add your belief system to it.

 

Live and Let live.

[+The Puzzler]

Why do you care who logs what how many times????

Did I miss the election for the cache police?

 

Let eveyone play the game the way they want. if it fits in the current guidelines dont try to add your belief system to it.

 

Live and Let live.

I second that sentiment.

 

Why does it matter how many smilies any person logs on any particular cache including their own?

[+Shop99er]

I have read often enough in numerous threads about folks logging, or relogging, a "find" on a cache they have already been given credit for. And in some bizarre cases -- even logging their own caches when they go to do maint'ce or something.

 

This is obviously considered an annoyance, even a "no-no" to most here. Probably 98%. I agree fully. This should not happen.

 

Why do you care who logs what how many times????

Did I miss the election for the cache police?

 

Let eveyone play the game the way they want. if it fits in the current guidelines dont try to add your belief system to it.

 

Live and Let live.

I fully agree with Lapagalia.

 

If someone logs a second find on a cache, it's the cache owner's problem to go in and delete the second log.

 

I have one cache listed on the "other site", just to see if there's any traffic. Two players have logged finds, one of them twice. As soon as I saw the second find, I deleted it.

 

Unless I hide a cache and allow more than one find per customer in my description, I would do the same at GC. But those are my hides.

 

We don't need cache police, and we don't need extra rules and regulations. Let the owner decide what they are willing to allow on their caches.

[Prairie Jeepin]

OK folks, relax, I just posted a question and suggestion based on what I have been reading here from other posters who have raised this concern (who apparently all seem to be absent at the moment).

 

You don't need to go and get all snotty and activist on me for it.

 

Obviously the original post has been taken all wrong. You'd think I just bombed your house or something!!!!

 

Sheesh.

[+strikeforce1]

My answer is, for the first time you find it, you get a , after that you use post-a-note only, to place your logs.

 

I happen to visit several caches, for different reasons, to pick-up/ drop-off tb's , sometimes to help do maintenance, or to help tweek a part. Going past the first , isn't fair to the rest of the players. Especially, putting :) 's on your own page. Two Words on that, DO NOT do it! I could see my finds up almost 4 x's of what I really found, if I did that. It makes no scense to re-log finds with 's after the first. It called inflation!

 

I can't see an owner, wanting to allow everyone to put the 's on for every visit.

 

I agree, that if major changes are make to the legs or final, all should be able to re-log a only once, on the "new" setup. After that it's just post-a-note.

And for those owners, that allow many 's for one cacher, they aren't doing their job, either. That's just my $0.02 SF1

[+LaPaglia]

OK folks, relax, I just posted a question and suggestion based on what I have been reading here from other posters who have raised this concern (who apparently all seem to be absent at the moment).

 

You don't need to go and get all snotty and activist on me for it.

 

Obviously the original post has been taken all wrong. You'd think I just bombed your house or something!!!!

 

Sheesh.

You are the one calling on TPTB to intervene we just commented on what you said.

 

sorry no one jumped to support your ideal. No one got snotty they just didnt agree with you. is that snotty?

 

TPTB have enough to do right now without new un-needed rules. We dont need another rule. we dont need an cache police Leave those kids alone. All in all its just another brick in the wall.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Lapaglia

[rebapac]

There are two types of cachers. Those who play this game by the extablished rules, which are only guidelines, and those who don't. If someone logs two finds on the same cache, how is there any skin off your nose? By getting yourself all worked up about it just gives you and ulcer.

 

The rules are, essentially, uninforcable anyway. What I mean by that is, there is no monitary penilty to pay for an infraction of the rules. If someone could charge you a fine for logging one cache twice, there would be few players of the geocaching game. But, there aren't so, if a second log is deleted it can't be any big deal.

[Prairie Jeepin]

Typically it is those who have the most to lose, or are the perpetrators of such things, that will jump to prevent change or enforcement to enhance the whole.

 

We will see how this turns out. I'm not worried, I could care less if TPTB do anything about it. As stated, it was just a suggestion based on what I percieved to be a large proportion of "nay's" to this practice. And is IS just a game.

 

Perhaps I saw things incorrectly, but in the end, in my eyes -- it's cheating in a way. Cheating yourself and those who play with honour. Playing by whatever rules you feel you want to at any given time makes a farce of the whole game, no? Sure it's for fun, but should that be an excuse to pad yourselves with false accomplishments?

 

OK, I admit; I'm new here. I am seeing things with fresh eyes. Things that perhaps have been overlooked by those who have become emersed completely. As such I guess I have no say about rules, procedures, acceptable practices, or much less the honour of participants. So I shall digress and allow this thread to go where it will.

 

The truth will be in the posts -- not your views.....or mine.

[+LaPaglia]

The truth will be in the posts -- not your views.....or mine.

 

well at this point all the views disagree with you. so they would be the truth?

[+Divine]

Well, even by unpopular demand and with the risk of being called a cache police, I must say I agree on many points in PJ's posts. I know most people couldnt' care less if I found a non-maintained cache whose owner hasn't been around for two years and logged 78 smileys on that page. I still think it's wrong and shouldn't be supported by the site. Also the possibility of logging a find on your own caches should be eliminated.

[+Subterranean]

Congratulations, Lapaglia. You win. Go high-five yourself.

 

While you’re at it, see if CO_Admin is anywhere to be found. I think you need to be given one of these:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

[+Robespierre]

I'm not sure why people, mostly the OP, got defensive. You began a thread, and it led to discussion. I think, on some days, you might have hit a different crowd. But this time, you got discussion of the opposite position. You didn't get insulted, nor attacked.

 

I suppose what hurt is that term "Cache Police." Once that term is tossed out, it's kind of like saying, "Did you stop beating your wife yet?" So you got manipulated into being the bad guy by application of that term. Any old debaters out there? What's that called?

 

And, Oh, BTW, I would like, respectfully, to suggest that in your OP you missed an important thought: gc.com gets verbally attacked every day for how they handle all of the data, for refusing to "share" what they have built....what do you think would be the outcry if they were to start doing what you are suggesting? If Jeremy would become the dictator of geocaching, regulating, restricting, ...hey, how about blood tests for all new cachers? See, I think it would not lead to any place good. But, I don't intend any disrespect toward those who see it differently.

[+LaPaglia]

Congratulations, Lapaglia. You win. Go high-five yourself.

 

While you’re at it, see if CO_Admin is anywhere to be found. I think you need to be given one of these:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Sorry, by the guideline you quoted Im in the clear, I quoted examples of why I feel the way that I do. This is in accordance with the guidelines. Its not a flame if you quote examples. CO Admin has nothing to do with this. I am allowed my personal opinions. That is why I have a personal account.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad,

This is what I did.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

 

O and By The Way, its CO Admin, not CO_Admin.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Lapaglia

[+BlueDeuce]

There are some legitimate caches that allow two finds, I would hate to see those go.

 

I would like to see 'Found it' removed as option for the owner of a cache. Otherwise someone will have to explain to me how logging a find on your own cache is ever acceptable.

 

Cache police? I have the option to remove another cachers find if I think they haven't found my cache or fulfilled all the requirements I have placed to be allowed to log my cache. Apparently gc.com felt this option is necessary for owners to manage logging. That's policing power in my book.

 

I would like to see gc.com feel that owners shouldn't have the ability to get a found count every time they post something on their cache page. It's not a legitimate find and it goes against the sense of community fair play.

 

Edit: Removed editorial comment.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+LaPaglia]

There are some legitimate caches that allow two finds, I would hate to see those go.

 

I would like to see 'Found it' removed as option for the owner of a cache. Otherwise someone will have to explain to me how logging a find on your own cache is ever acceptable.

 

Cache police? I have the option to remove another cachers find if I think they haven't found my cache or fulfilled all the requirements I have placed to be allowed to log my cache. Apparently gc.com felt this option is necessary for owners to manage logging. That's policing power in my book.

 

I would like to see gc.com feel that owners shouldn't have the ability to get a found count every time they post something on their cache page. It's not a legitimate find and it goes against the sense of community fair play.

 

Edit: Removed editorial comment.

How you handle your own caches is your right. My objection is when people want to force new rules on how other caches handle their caches and how they log finds to me that is an example of the cache police. GC.com has decided to allow each owner the right to administer their cache as they see fit. There is no need for new rules. There is no reason to bother ourselves and worry about how others do it. Simply because it does not agree with our own opinion of how a cache should be logged does not make it wrong. What is wrong, In my opinion. is those trying to make others conform to what they feel is correct. Its a game. Its not life or death. In my opinion people should not worry about how others play it. Heck the other guy might even be right.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think that logging your own cache is already against the rules and taking away the option isn't adding one.

 

I can appreciate that the number of people who do this is probably a small number and in the big scheme of life it's not an earth shattering issue, but if asked I'm going to tell you that it's wrong and it should be removed as an option. I'll change my position if someone can give me a legit reason for logging your own cache.

 

I think I'm pretty fair in my opinions about what people should or shouldn't be allowed to do. My line is drawn between what actions affect other people and what does not. For example, logging a tb without moving it is no big deal to me. Taking a bugs with the intent to not assist it and place it in a remote location is a big deal to me. One has adverse affects to the community, one does not.

 

Logging your own cache and increasing your found count, in my opinion, does affect the community and therefore I say remove the option.

[+SixDogTeam]

Just let the cache owners police their own cache logs.

[+Divine]

Just let the cache owners police their own cache logs.

There is a number of caches the owners of which haven't been around for years. Yet the caches can be frequently visited and the maintenance - if such is needed - is done by the finders. Yet there's no one to police the cache and the possible found-abusers. Why would I care if someone logged 78 finds on that page? In my opinion, it affects the whole community in negative way.

[+tanders]

I've been reading both the pros and cons of this issue and realized that there might be a few places where it would be considered ok for the cache owner to log their own find. Up here in Rochester, we have a cache that, every time it is found, gets moved to another location in Rochester with a small clue to help the next person find it. So, theoretically, the owner of the cache would not know the precise location of the cache once someone has moved it. Now, this brings up the question of whether or not it is ok for a single cache user to continuously return to the cache after it has been moved and log it as a find. That is not for me to decide, but I do think it is safe to say that a cache owner could legitimately log this as a find.

 

Secondly, we sometimes have event caches up in this area. At one such event, two traditional caches were put out for only the weekend of the cache. As such, people who went to the event cache, could then log two more finds to the same event cache; provided they explictly stated which cache they were posting a find for.

 

All in all though, does any of it really matter? We each have our own ways of "playing the game" with differing opinions of what should count and not count. I for one have a pet peeve about member accounts that actually consist of an entire family and they post a find regardless of whether the entire family was there or not. Does it really matter to me though? No. As long as there are still new and interesting places to go caching, the logging habits of others should not affect me.

[+LaPaglia]

While generally frowned upon there is no guideline that prevents a person from logging a find on their own account. At this point it is not against the "rules"

 

And again I have to ask, why does it matter. it is a game, People will play it the way they want to. If someone wants to inflate their find count how does this matter to me. It is not about the numbers. It is about each person having fun. If someone NEEDS the numbers so bad they have to manufactured the finds its no big deal it in no way diminishes your finds or the way you play the game.

 

In my opinion we should not worry how our brother and sister cachers play the game. If they double log a cache you own that effects you and you can and do have the right to delete the additional finds on caches you own. If you do not own the cache then it matters not. We are not our brothers keeper when it comes to finds logged on caches that are not ours.

 

Live and let live. Let them logs as they want. You know that your counts a re true and accurate. we do not have to police others to do the same just because we feel it is wrong. Its just a game. Not a competition. There is nothing to win so it matters not.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Lapaglia

[+Divine]

it is a game, People will play it the way they want to. If someone wants to inflate their find count how does this matter to me. It is not about the numbers. It is about each person having fun. If someone NEEDS the numbers so bad they have to manufactured the finds its no big deal it in no way diminishes your finds or the way you play the game.

 

In my opinion we should not worry how our brother and sister cachers play the game. If they double log a cache you own that effects you and you can and do have the right to delete the additional finds on caches you own. If you do not own the cache then it matters not. We are not our brothers keeper when it comes to finds logged on caches that are not ours.

 

Live and let live. Let them logs as they want. You know that your counts a re true and accurate. we do not have to police others to do the same just because we feel it is wrong. Its just a game. Not a competition. There is nothing to win so it matters not.

So, if I decided to play the game in my own way so that I start doing several out-of-body-visits to your caches while meditating on my jump-to-conclusions-mat, which results to 78 found-logs to each of them, that'd be ok with you?

[+BlueDeuce]

While generally frowned upon there is no guideline that prevents a person from logging a find on their own account. At this point it is not against the "rules"

 

And again I have to ask, why does it matter. it is a game, People will play it the way they want to. If someone wants to inflate their find count how does this matter to me. It is not about the numbers. It is about each person having fun. If someone NEEDS the numbers so bad they have to manufactured the finds its no big deal it in no way diminishes your finds or the way you play the game.

 

In my opinion we should not worry how our brother and sister cachers play the game. If they double log a cache you own that effects you and you can and do have the right to delete the additional finds on caches you own. If you do not own the cache then it matters not. We are not our brothers keeper when it comes to finds logged on caches that are not ours.

 

Live and let live. Let them logs as they want. You know that your counts a re true and accurate. we do not have to police others to do the same just because we feel it is wrong. Its just a game. Not a competition. There is nothing to win so it matters not.

I can apprecaite that and I am certainly not recommending that their counts need to be fixed. But if you ask me if the option should be removed, I'd say yes.

 

Give me a bit, I need to do some research on what is technically permitted and what is rule/guildline permitted.

[+CompuCash]

Well, I guess I'll jump in here with some comments -

 

I agree in part with both sides.

 

First, OP is correct - there HAVE been a lot of posts and agreements with same against multiple logs and logging your own caches as a find. Unfortunately he hit a day/time that none of these people seem to be around.

 

Second, we don't need cache police and a whole lot more (even 1) rules if we can avoid them. I don't think OP got flamed but he didn't get much help either.

 

We as cache owners have the 'badge' in our own 'delete-button' hands.

 

Now, having successfully (I hope) straddled this fence (HA!), there are good points on both sides.

 

Philosophically - hey its just a game -- to BOTH sides. But some people take their games, caching, and especially their competitions very seriously.

 

Having said this and read these posts, I can now see why Jermey refuses to put stats on this web site. It only feeds the race for smilies which is NOT the purpose of this game or this site. It is bad enought now without stats.

 

Geez I can see it now - having to do anyting just to get one more find to get into the top 10 - or 50 or whatever. When does it stop? And at what length do they go to get those smilies?

 

Thanks for listening -

 

Edited October 6, 2004 by CompuCash

[rebapac]

Shakespear said it 500 years ago when he wrote, "to thine own self be true." Your log book is a record of your finds and you will always know the truth about whether or not all of the entries are TRUE finds.

 

The option has to remain or we have no choice. Each of us can choose to use the option or not, but it is our right to choose. Then we each have to reconcile the choice only to ourselves.

 

To thine own self be true.

[thorin]

That'd only work if you never cleared your cookies and/or moved to different systems. Personally I use gc.com from at least 5 different systems regularily.

 

Thorin

Edited October 6, 2004 by thorin

[+BlueDeuce]

Shakespear said it 500 years ago when he wrote, "to thine own self be true."  Your log book is a record of your finds and you will always know the truth about whether or not  all of the entries are TRUE finds.

 

The option has to remain or we have no choice.  Each of us can choose to use the option or not, but it is our right to choose.  Then we each have to reconcile the choice only to ourselves. 

 

To thine own self be true.

oh good, sentiment. I knew we were forgetting something.

 

Actually it was said by a character in a play passing platitudes off as insight. Polonius was hardly someone to emulate. Shakespeare was not philosophizing nor was he being attempting to be original. Actually just the opposite.

 

'To thy own self be true' is not quite the golden rule, but I get your point.

 

Edit: It's not often you see Shakespeare flame postings, do you?

Edited October 6, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+BlueDeuce]

Ok, unless I completely missed it, there is no written rule that cache owners have the ‘right’ to delete logs, or even place requirements on the ability log cache find. (i.e. Cacher has to CITO to be allowed a found.). Nonetheless these options are allowed and cachers are supported by this site to undertake these procedures.

 

That said, I do not buy into the ‘Don’t add another rule’ as the primary deciding factor to manage this game. The question is: are there current practices that have a negative impact to the whole of geocaching? Then gc.com has to decide the extent of the impact to determine whether or not a change is needed. Logging your own cache is considered bad form, (Per the FAQ in Getting Started) but obviously the impact to the geocaching community is low. I personally couldn’t tell you how many times it has occurred.

 

However, who’s going to say that logging your own cache is okay, that people should be allowed to do it? Is anyone going to complain that they can’t log their own cache?

 

Are we really making this a rule that by removing the option? Will gc.com have post new requirements to educate cachers on proper logging? Doubtful.

 

I get that my position isn’t going to change anything. Gc.com isn’t going to read my post and say” Oh we didn’t think of that let me go fix it”, the abuse is going to have to reach a point that the impacts are widespread.

 

My point is that while it may okay that it happens because the impact is small, it’s still not ok to do it. I’m not going to lobby for change, but when asked, I’m going to support removing the option.

[+The Puzzler]

So, if I decided to play the game in my own way so that I start doing several out-of-body-visits to your caches while meditating on my jump-to-conclusions-mat, which results to 78 found-logs to each of them, that'd be ok with you?

Ah, such Divine insight.

 

Actually, if it were my cache, I don't know what I'd do. If all the smily logs cluttered the cache page without contributing to it in a possitive way, I might delete them. But, for the principal of not logging multiple finds, I would not. I don't want to take ownership or responsibility for your divinity/insanity. That's your problem/blessing, not mine.

 

On a more constructive note: It appears to me that what we have are two very seperate issues. 1) People want to geocache for their own fun and enjoyment. 2) Some people also want to add comparitive statistics to the game to allow them to compare their personal performance with that of others.

 

I don't think a single Geocaching sight can do both well because any added rules take away from the freedom of the game/sport. But, having carefully controled statistical comparisons with others is a fun attribute to many activities, including this one, and meaningful statistics require rules.

 

Since Geocaching.com is really the central worldwide clearinghouse for geocaches, it is probably wise that Geocaching.com keep the rules to a minimum to permit maximum flexibility and breadth in the sport. However, there are other sites GPSgames.org or whatnot, that do things differently with a different focus.

 

Maybe people that want to keep rigorous statistics and tightly defined rules need to consider using a different web site with tighter restrictions so that statistical control can be attemted without spoiling the activity for others that want more freedom to play the way they want to, independent of any excess community rules.

 

A geocaching.com independent web site would allow controlers to limit caches that count to hides that allow tight statistical control (no multi-caches? puzzle caches? traveling caches? or whatever) while leaving all the fun weird stuff here at geocaching.com for the rest of us (and maybe even you) to play at.

[+BlueDeuce]

"any added rules take away from the freedom of the game/sport. "

 

See, that's what I don't get. What exactly is being taken away by being restricted from finding your own cache. Freedom to do what?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There are times that the cache hider encourages multiple logging of a cache. Your solution would eliminate this option.

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

[AJK]

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

Two caches in the locality up here (New England) have two cache boxes associated with one listing - yes, to some degree this pushes the boundary of cache types, but they are both excellent caches, and there are two legitimate smilies for one listing.

 

There are some (though limited) reasons for having multiple finds. People should just police themselves, much as though we don't like the feeling that someone else is cheating.

[+Gorak]

There are times that the cache hider encourages multiple logging of a cache.  Your solution would eliminate this option.

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

What about the many grandfathered moving caches that encourage finders to log them multiple times? Or regular caches that have been relocated to a new, nearby hiding spot by the cache owner to resolve one problem or another with the original hiding spot?

[+Planet]

I just think it's silly to say you found something twice, Couldn't have been too hard the second time around. But I started one of those OTHER threads, and got lambasted for it. Sorry, I just feel like second time around should be a note, not everyone knows it. Sometimes there ARE good reasons for that second smiley. Mostly they just DON'T KNOW. There was a time I should have logged a smiley on my own cache, it took me 1/2 an hour to find it! But I didn't.

[GeoWorms]

There are times that the cache hider encourages multiple logging of a cache.  Your solution would eliminate this option.

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

We've had local caches go missing and then the owner replaces it with a different cache. Since it's a new box with new swag and a new log, the owner will tell people to re-visit it and log it as a find again.

 

You can argue that since it's a new box, new log it should be a new listing, but our reviwers are busy enough, without asking them to re-approve a placement they've already approved (assuming, of course, that it's not a 'grandfathered' cache that wouldn't meet criteria now...)

 

Also, some event caches are logged multiple times for multiple temporary caches hidden just for the event.

[+Planet]

There are times that the cache hider encourages multiple logging of a cache.  Your solution would eliminate this option.

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

We've had local caches go missing and then the owner replaces it with a different cache. Since it's a new box with new swag and a new log, the owner will tell people to re-visit it and log it as a find again.

 

You can argue that since it's a new box, new log it should be a new listing, but our reviwers are busy enough, without asking them to re-approve a placement they've already approved (assuming, of course, that it's not a 'grandfathered' cache that wouldn't meet criteria now...)

 

Also, some event caches are logged multiple times for multiple temporary caches hidden just for the event.

Like I said, sometimes there's a good reason for the second smiley.

[+Nazgul]

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

There are cases where the original cache container is moved to a new location nearby, sometimes in a new container and different type of hide. It is, in effect, a totally new cache under the same listing. In a few of those cases, I have emailed the owner and asked if it was acceptable to log an additional find based on the changes they have made. In other cases, the owner upddates the cache description and volunteers this information, saying that it's been totally revised so feel free to re-visit and log another find if you wish. It's up to the owner's discretion, and I think it's appropriate under those circumstances.

[+Divine]

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

Two caches in the locality up here (New England) have two cache boxes associated with one listing - yes, to some degree this pushes the boundary of cache types, but they are both excellent caches, and there are two legitimate smilies for one listing.

I know many cache boxes here (Finland) that are associated with each other, but they are either multi caches (one smiley) or they have their own listings (two or more smileys - one for each listing).

 

We've had local caches go missing and then the owner replaces it with a different cache. Since it's a new box with new swag and a new log, the owner will tell people to re-visit it and log it as a find again.

Same listing and basically the same cache, I'd log it only one. I once replaced a stolen cache box with a new one 30 cm higher from the original hideout. You won't get a new smiley for just coming back to the same coordinates to check 'where did he place it this time'.

 

Also, some event caches are logged multiple times for multiple temporary caches hidden just for the event.

I guess they're temporary smileys as well?

[thorin]

Ok, unless I completely missed it, there is no written rule that cache owners have the ‘right’ to delete logs, or even place requirements on the ability log cache find.

Cache Maintenance

...

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It's not their "right" it's their "reponsibility" and they agree to it upon listing a cache. Plus if it wasn't the cache owner's "right" to delete logs then gc.com wouldn't have given them that ability and would have mandated that cache owners contact gc.com staff to have logs removed.

 

Thorin

Edited October 6, 2004 by thorin

[+Markwell]

Examples of when I believe it's OK to multiple log a cache:

 

Example 1 - Bonus Cache

Cachiversary 1: Forget-Me-Nots First cache is a standard box in the woods. That's all that's required. I didn't want to set up a separate virtual for finding the smiling rock, as GPS signals are useless in the location, and it's too close to parking, blah, blah, blah. So I set up a "Bonus" cache - "log the find here if you choose to."

 

Example 2 - Event Temps

We've done it in the past at Chicago events where we've set up temporary caches just for the events. Never approved, never listed, didn't bother the reviewers with them. We've allowed those temp caches to be logged multiple times on the event cache page. I personally don't do that any more, but I did in the past.

 

Example 3 - Moving Caches

While they are no longer approved under the current guidelines, there are still moving caches out there. When a cache has moved from one position to another, I think it's OK for someone to log it as found in its new position.

 

But the biggest issue is why does it matter. Jeremy himself said back in October of 2002 (wow - it took me a while to find that one)...

 

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here.

[+BlueDeuce]

Ok, unless I completely missed it, there is no written rule that cache owners have the ‘right’ to delete logs, or even place requirements on the ability log cache find.

Cache Maintenance

...

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It's not their "right" it's their "reponsibility" and they agree to it upon listing a cache. Plus if it wasn't the cache owner's "right" to delete logs then gc.com wouldn't have given them that ability and would have mandated that cache owners contact gc.com staff to have logs removed.

 

Thorin

Thank you. I will concede that point.

 

Now, what about logging a bogus find on your own cache?

[CoyoteRed]

It has long appeared to me that some folks' attitude of live and let live stems from the fact there is little that can be done to correct a problem. "I can't see a way to fix the problem so it mustn't be a problem."

 

There is always a way to fix a problem once the core issue is identified. Getting the fix implemented is another issue.

 

Many people feel that find counts should reflect the number of cache hunts successfully completed. The problem is the site counts not the cache hunts completed, but Found It logs entered into the system. The two numbers don't always correspond.

 

A simple design fix would be to change the way cache counts are calculated. The design fix is simple. The implementation at this point is complex.

 

If I were designing a system with what I know right now, I'd change first how logs are categorized and then how find counts are calculated.

 

I'd make logs be only one type, but with several attributes. While some attributes are mutually exclusive, some are not. These would include Found It, DNF, Archive, Needs Maintenance, and more. No attributes would be like a regular note. If you find a completely trashed cache and the land manager wants you to remove it, then you can post a note with Found It and Archive attributes. No attributes would be selected by default.

 

Second, I'd create a field called Multiple Logs on the cache page. Normally, this is 1 which means it can be counted as a find only once. The higher the number the more finds a person can claim. Usually this would be the same as the number of additional caches one could claim. For unlimited finds, this number would be 0. When a person's find count is calculated it will count only a single find unless the Multiple Logs attribute is set higher and then it would count however many Found It logs are there up to the maximum.

 

This would automatically help ensure the find count is more accurate by eliminating multiple logging when it is not appropriate. One less thing for the cachepolice to worry about and just all around fewer headaches.

 

This is all academic, though, as you would probably never see this implemented on this site.

[+BlueDeuce]

There's no good reason for logging two finds on one cache. Why have the option?

There are cases where the original cache container is moved to a new location nearby, sometimes in a new container and different type of hide. It is, in effect, a totally new cache under the same listing. In a few of those cases, I have emailed the owner and asked if it was acceptable to log an additional find based on the changes they have made. In other cases, the owner upddates the cache description and volunteers this information, saying that it's been totally revised so feel free to re-visit and log another find if you wish. It's up to the owner's discretion, and I think it's appropriate under those circumstances.

Sounds fair to me.

 

What happens when this cache owner allows it and that one doesn't. Seems to me the cache owner is making the rules, hmmm? eh. hmmm? eh? eh?

[thorin]

Now, what about logging a bogus find on your own cache?

Definately bogus.

 

Thorin

[+The Puzzler]

Maybe we need to ask a different question.

 

What would be the advantage to the geocaching community of restricting multiple smilies on a given cache or restricting owners logging their own cache?

 

No whiny answers like "It's just not fair". I would like to see some real reasons.

 

Many disadvantages have been listed in several of the previous posts.

 

If multiple loging is eliminated to "improve statistical vigor" is the next step to require some kind of digital verification that each log is legitimate and that no body is logging caches they didn't visit? Without abundant restrictions on cache types, and caching rules, cache statistics will NEVER be verifiably accurate.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't know if it's about 100% accuracy. I think it's more about being closer to the truth.

 

The find count is like asking someone, "so how many have you found?" Right now, it's like, "well, my count is 236 minus the several times I logged a Found It on my own cache and the few times I logged the same cache--so some of those don't really count..."

 

See what I mean? Folks like myself just really want to know if we are going to see a find count, we just want to be closer to the truth.

 

Otherwise, let's just get rid of it.

[+BlueDeuce]

Maybe we need to ask a different question.

 

What would be the advantage to the geocaching community of restricting multiple smilies on a given cache or restricting owners logging their own cache?

 

No whiny answers like "It's just not fair".  I would like to see some real reasons.

 

Many disadvantages have been listed in several of the previous posts.

 

If multiple loging is eliminated to "improve statistical vigor" is the next step to require some kind of digital verification that each log is legitimate and that no body is logging caches they didn't visit?  Without abundant restrictions on cache types, and caching rules, cache statistics will NEVER be verifiably accurate.

It’s precisely about fairness as well as being reasonable.

 

For the most part, the control of finding someone’s cache is in the hands of the owner. People can log finds because (true example) ’They made it to the trailhead but didn’t have time to search for the cache, they knew that the owner really just wanted them to see the area’ or ‘ I couldn’t find the cache but I know where it should have been.’

 

Gc.com has seen fit to put responsibility in the hands of the owner to quality control postings that are bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Where's the quality control of the owner? Will gc.com address owners that make logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements - on their own cache, (time after time)?

 

Edit: spellcheck needs to consider context.

 

To clarify: There are some legitimate caches that allow two finds, I would hate to see those go. That is not my issue here.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+The Puzzler]

The find count is like asking someone, "so how many have you found?"  Right now, it's like, "well, my count is 236 minus the several times I logged a Found It on my own cache and the few times I logged the same cache--so some of those don't really count..."

And if you talked to the cacher face-to-face, you would expect them to be more honest? I doubt it.

 

People that exagerate, exagerate using a wide range of media. Right now, it is more like asking another cacher how many finds they have. With the restictions being discussed here, it would be more like asking the IRS how much money someone makes instead of just asking them themselves.

 

This is a hobby, a recreational activity, an excuse to go goof off out of doors. Why, why, why make it more structured and restricted? Life isn't fair!! Quit trying to spoil all good things by trying to restrict the options and spoil the fun in an attempt to achieve an undesirable impossibility.

 

I would have no objection to having TPTB implement a toggle on the cache pages so that cache owners could restrict multiple logs. But please, please, please don't try to get these sorts of restrictions implemented globally.

 

As for owners logging their own caches. Who cares? Maybe they feel that they spent a long time finding the perfect spot and thus deserve a find. Heck, why not have our own caches count as finds to give us another bonus for going to the work of hiding a cache. Maybe John Doe wants to keep track of how many times he's visited a cache instead of how many times he's found one for the first time. Isn't that his business and not the business of the rest of us.