Jump to content

Counting Caches


Old Bet

Recommended Posts

Not that anyone is keeping score, but here's a hypothetical question:

 

If you nail all of the stages of a multi, shouldn't you get credit for multiple finds?

 

The stages of a multi could have been established as several distinct caches. By folding them

into a multi, the hider enhances the challenge and heightens the reward. To get to the end, you have to find each cache in turn. But, in our geocaching world, they only count as one.

 

(This is an observation, not a complaint.)

Edited by The Old Bet Brigade
Link to comment

You gets what you signs up for.

 

In other words, you do a multi-cache with the understanding that it counts as 1.

 

There are caches where each individual cache gives you info for a final "mystery cache." But again, when you take on the cache that's what you've signed on to do.

 

My question as of late has been: If multi caches DID count as multiple finds, would they be more popular?

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

Bret

Link to comment

Touchy subject.

 

1) If multiple legs equated to multiple finds, how would you count the Picky Moose Cache?

 

2) Should level 4 caches count more than level 1? (either overall or terrain)

 

Should we displayour numbers as

100 (85/11/2/1/1) (0/3/12/35/70)

 

Decodes as:

100 finds: 85 regular, 11 multi, 2 mystery, 1 virtual/webcam, 1 event

Terrain 5=0, 4 & 4.5 = 3, 3 & 3.5 = 12, 2 & 2.5 = 35, 1 & 1.5 = 70

 

Just remeber. This isn't a football game with the kids from the next street. It's all about getting out of the house and away from the TV set.

Link to comment

I have hidden several and found numerous multis that had no container in which to put a log book, (i.e. - coords posted in plain sight or a sign containing part of the final location).

At its minimal requirements, this is what constitutes a cache.

Since you can't log it, I'm afraid you can't get credit for it.

Link to comment

No. If the owner wanted you to claim multiple finds he should have set it up as a series, not a multi.

 

Besides, stages of multis can be as close as mere feet away and don't necessarily have the ability to stand on their own as a cache.

 

Of course, logging multiple event caches on the event page is a generally accepted practice. These caches stand on their own and considering you did find it...

 

...but, now there is no "Found It" for event caches, so I don't know.

Link to comment

Since two canadian cents is slightly more than one american cent but less than two american cents, if you trade it at a currency counter and they only give you a penny, are you being short changed? :)

 

If you do one cache, you do one cache. That's pretty straightforeward.

If there's something special about that one cache, maybe sometimes the cache owner will want to give you the option to log more than once, but that is a choice of the owner.

 

One logbook=one cache.

 

If you're signing more than one log, then it's more than one cache. That's why stages of a multi don't have their own log books.........

Link to comment
No. If the owner wanted you to claim multiple finds he should have set it up as a series, not a multi.

 

Besides, stages of multis can be as close as mere feet away and don't necessarily have the ability to stand on their own as a cache.

You seem to have contradicted yourself there. It should be a series, but sometimes it can't?

But, in the end, if the cache owner says to count each leg of the multi as a find, and if you want to, go ahead and do it. If you don't want to, that's your choice.

As I, and others, have said before: The only opinions that matter are of the cache owner and the cache finder.

Link to comment
No.  If the owner wanted you to claim multiple finds he should have set it up as a series, not a multi.

 

Besides, stages of multis can be as close as mere feet away and don't necessarily have the ability to stand on their own as a cache.

You seem to have contradicted yourself there. It should be a series, but sometimes it can't?

But, in the end, if the cache owner says to count each leg of the multi as a find, and if you want to, go ahead and do it. If you don't want to, that's your choice.

As I, and others, have said before: The only opinions that matter are of the cache owner and the cache finder.

I don't see how that was contradictory at all.

 

Their point was that multis are defined as such because the legs cannot often stand alone as caches. As in, set one is 200 feet from set two. That's why they're multis.

 

Now, when you do a series of caches where each cache has it's own log book and is 528 away from the next in the series, each cache is listed separately and you can log one smilie for each one - because they were given their own GC numbers from the getgo.

Link to comment
My $00.02 (Cdn) worth? Multiple waypoints = multiple smileys. One waypoint? One smiley!

But what is the exchange rate for Smileys? Two Smileys(CDN) = 1 Smiley(US)? :)

 

I've always looked at it as one cache name (page, GC#####, etc.) gives a max. of one smiley regardless of the number of waypoints required to get the log.

Link to comment
No.  If the owner wanted you to claim multiple finds he should have set it up as a series, not a multi.

 

Besides, stages of multis can be as close as mere feet away and don't necessarily have the ability to stand on their own as a cache.

You seem to have contradicted yourself there. It should be a series, but sometimes it can't?

But, in the end, if the cache owner says to count each leg of the multi as a find, and if you want to, go ahead and do it. If you don't want to, that's your choice.

As I, and others, have said before: The only opinions that matter are of the cache owner and the cache finder.

I can't find where I contradicted myself, but it might be just the way I'm reading it.

 

I do seem to recall a general guideline issued a while back about series and multis. It had to do with the total area covered by your stages. If the area was too small, they wanted you to fold it into a multi. If it was huge and non-linear, they wanted you to make it a series. (Something about the starting point being too far from the final because it screwed with TB milage.)

 

I could be wrong on this one.

 

About opinions about how the game is played, if everyone was on the same page things sure would be a lot of easier. Mainly, I don't want to have to defend my actions when some joker says, "but Richard let me do it!"

Link to comment
If you nail all of the stages of a multi, shouldn't you get credit for multiple finds?

NO

 

he stages of a multi could have been established as several distinct caches. By folding them

into a multi, the hider enhances the challenge and heightens the reward.

 

True, and the reward is in the hunt, so a multi cache is that much more rewarding. Why would you want the extra smileys unless you are a numbers hound?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
No.  If the owner wanted you to claim multiple finds he should have set it up as a series, not a multi.

 

Besides, stages of multis can be as close as mere feet away and don't necessarily have the ability to stand on their own as a cache.

You seem to have contradicted yourself there. It should be a series, but sometimes it can't?

But, in the end, if the cache owner says to count each leg of the multi as a find, and if you want to, go ahead and do it. If you don't want to, that's your choice.

As I, and others, have said before: The only opinions that matter are of the cache owner and the cache finder.

I can't find where I contradicted myself, but it might be just the way I'm reading it.

 

I do seem to recall a general guideline issued a while back about series and multis. It had to do with the total area covered by your stages. If the area was too small, they wanted you to fold it into a multi. If it was huge and non-linear, they wanted you to make it a series. (Something about the starting point being too far from the final because it screwed with TB milage.)

 

I could be wrong on this one.

 

About opinions about how the game is played, if everyone was on the same page things sure would be a lot of easier. Mainly, I don't want to have to defend my actions when some joker says, "but Richard let me do it!"

Let's try this again, then.

You said that if the owner wants you to claim multiple finds, he should set it up as a series.

Then you said that sometimes the stages of a multi can't stand by themselves, because they are too close.

So, How could the owner make that multi a series if the stages can't stand by themselves?

 

I'm not sure what actions you would be defending. Are you logging multicaches for each stage? If you do and the cache owner doesn't care, go ahead. If you are the cache owner and someone else does it on your cache it's your choice to accept it or not. You shouldn't let others tell you how to manage your cache. Stick up for your rights as the cache owner.

Link to comment

I'll match the pot with my 2 cents american. I submitted a multi based on cache's which were previously approved in our area. The first leg is listed as a multi, then the rest of the legs were individual pages. This allowed finders to log individual finds while knowing there was a theme involved.

 

Unfortunately for me, the approval guidlines are now looked at differently. They more closely match what's been described earlier in the thread. The approver states the intentions are one multi, one find.

 

I know now to list multiple individual requests. Some people are very interested in the numbers.

Link to comment

When the Columbus Crazies hit the road, we keep two day counts. One is the number of finds. This is log books and virtual emails only. The other number is how many stages we've done. Last weekend in Ann Arbor we did 30-some caches (logged) and a few over 40 stages with 6 multi caches in there. For our own explanation of why we're in pain and agony from the 12 miles of hiking, the 40 seems like a better number. When we're explaining it to loved ones (or in my case, potentials) when they're trying to come up with reasons why we're 1) insane, 2) addicted, 3) off our rockers, or 4) stupid, we use the little number. They just don't need the reinforcement. :unsure:

 

And really, who cares about your find count? You'll never have more than everyone else unless you're one of the people who care less about the number found than the number left to find. Isn't that the critical consideration anyway? My COG tag pic is a reverse Stats image with an approximation of how many caches I haven't found and haven't place along with my count of DNFs, Notes and SBAs. Those are the real stats.

Link to comment

Here are my 0.02 EUR (that's more than 0.02 US$ :P ):

 

If you nail all of the stages of a multi, shouldn't you get credit for multiple finds?
No - you get the honor of finding a cache which took a little bit longer. That's it

 

Here in Germany some nightcaches take you more than 2 nights and you only get one "find". If you don't like it go out there and do some powercaching (finding as much caches as you can regardless if they are interesting in any way)

Link to comment
So, How could the owner make that multi a series if the stages can't stand by themselves?

He can't. So, why would any one want to consider finding each stage of a multi as a separate find? If it can't stand on its own why should it count?

 

BTW, this has nothing to do with the proximity rule. There can be other reasons a stage can't stand on its own as a cache.

 

That's why multis, in general, shouldn't be viewed as being able to log each stage separately. To prevent the guidelines from becoming as convoluted as the US tax code, a cut and dry "no multiple finds on non-event caches" is generally accepted. We've even tried to adopt the policy of if you are reinstating a cache but have moved it enough to be a different hunt then archive the old page and create a new one so folks won't feel bad about logging it again.

Link to comment
So, How could the owner make that multi a series if the stages can't stand by themselves?

He can't. So, why would any one want to consider finding each stage of a multi as a separate find? If it can't stand on its own why should it count?

 

BTW, this has nothing to do with the proximity rule. There can be other reasons a stage can't stand on its own as a cache.

 

That's why multis, in general, shouldn't be viewed as being able to log each stage separately. To prevent the guidelines from becoming as convoluted as the US tax code, a cut and dry "no multiple finds on non-event caches" is generally accepted. We've even tried to adopt the policy of if you are reinstating a cache but have moved it enough to be a different hunt then archive the old page and create a new one so folks won't feel bad about logging it again.

You're the one who said he should set it up as a series. Go back to your earlier post.

You also just said "multis, in general". I'm saying that there can be exceptions to the "one log for a multi" guideline, and you just seemed to agree. Unless you have some strange, esoteric use for the term "in general".

But here's a possibility:

A small park with a lot of possible hiding places for a microcache. Each of which is cleverly hidden and could be rated as a 4 difficulty. There is not enough room for the "distance rule" to allow several caches, but the cache owner feels that if any searchers who put forth more effort for each stage than someone looking for a parking lot cache would, they should get credit for their efforts.

Once again, though, it's what the cache owner and the finder want to do. If you search for such a cache and just want to log once, that's your choice.

You also seem to want more rigid rules in this game. I am in total disagreement with that. By the way, who's this "we" that you are talking about?

And, why should event caches be the exception to the non-multiple log rule? There's only one cache page, you should just log it once, or so some believe. I'm staying out of that discussion.

 

Please, if you are going to quote me, use the whole quote. Not just the last line of my post. The way that you presented it ignores the facts of what you had said earlier. Or are you doing that intentionally?

Edited by RichardMoore
Link to comment
If you nail all of the stages of a multi, shouldn't you get credit for multiple finds?

NO
The stages of a multi could have been established as several distinct caches. By folding them into a multi, the hider enhances the challenge and heightens the reward.

True, and the reward is in the hunt, so a multi cache is that much more rewarding. Why would you want the extra smileys unless you are a numbers hound?

What Brian said, with one added thought. I, (and the rest of Team CHB) are unashamed numbers hounds(actually we prefer numbers 'hos :P .) That doesn't mean we want to log extra smily's for multis, nor does it mean we even avoid them, unless we are out on a numbers only run. Then we might exclude some that clearly express in the cache page that there are more than 2-3 stages. A few weeks back we tackled both of the western NC 5/5 multi's on the same day. Both caches have-let's just say more than just two stages :lol: . It was well worth the satisfaction of completing those challenging caches, and the reward is in the memories created during that day. Not once was there any discussion of deserving or logging extra/bonus smileys. That wasn't the intent of the cache owners when they created the hides.

Link to comment
Please, if you are going to quote me, use the whole quote.

Dag gum, Richard, now you're telling me how to post. :P The quote is there only for reference. No need to be redundant.

 

Yes, I said he should have set it up as a series.

 

Okay, for those who might have an hard time understanding logic or English--I'll even type slowly for you:

 

If someone wants to put out some caches and wants each to count as a separate find, the caches should be listed on seperate cache pages. If the caches can't be listed as seperate caches then he must list it as a multi and lose the multiple find log option.

 

The "we" is the people who had established this before I even showed up and I happen to stand with them because I understand the logic behind it.

 

You also seem to want more rigid rules in this game.
Yes, I do want more rigid rules to this game. This whole thread is evidence that lax rules cause contention and confusion. But don't assume this means I want the rule book to be 3" thick. I want a few, simple, concise rules. Yes, I mean rules. Rules that are meant to have a firm line drawn with little wiggle room. You know, like "if there is a logbook you must leave your mark to claim the find." Excuses be damned. No "well, I saw the cache, so I'm claiming it." or "I forgot my pen so I couldn't sign in, but I'm claiming it anyway."

 

Yes, I would follow the rules even if I didn't agree with it. This is evidenced by the fact I follow the ClayJar Cache Rating System even though I think it wrong. It's the defacto standard, so I follow it. Why? Because that is what is expected.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
If someone wants to put out some caches and wants each to count as a separate find, the caches should be listed on seperate cache pages.  If the caches can't be listed as seperate caches then he must list it as a multi and lose the multiple find log option.

 

I can't seem to find this in the guidelines.

Can you post a link to the appropriate page?

 

As for the Clayjar system, it is a suggestion, nothing more. If it was a requirement of gc.com, why would you have to go to another site to get the rating?

Edited by RichardMoore
Link to comment
If someone wants to put out some caches and wants each to count as a separate find, the caches should be listed on separate cache pages.  If the caches can't be listed as separate caches then he must list it as a multi and lose the multiple find log option.

 

I can't seem to find this in the guidelines.

Can you post a link to the appropriate page?

Thank you. You've precisely illustrated one of my points.

 

But, if you had been following the forums as closely as I have for the past two years you would've seen, read, and maybe even been part of, the conversations about precisely this.

 

Plus, because it isn't spelled out where a newbie can find it, subjects such as this has to be rehashed over and over in the forums. Regulars to the forums see this time and again. "What is adequate permission? What is a find? Can I do this? Can I do that? Why not?" and on, and on, and on.

 

As for the Clayjar system, it is a suggestion, nothing more.  If it was a requirement of gc.com, why would you have to go to another site to get the rating?
Maybe Jeremy didn't feel like duplicating effort, stepping on toes, or taking on the hassle of yet another project. It is a community tool, not a gc.com tool.

 

Precisely because it is a suggestion and the only widely used version it's what should be used so the rating have any meaning. If everyone followed the same standard you'd know what 1/1 meant and have a pretty good idea what to expect on a 2.5/4.5 hunt. Everyone following the same gives more meaning to those numbers.

 

If there wasn't the ClayJar system or something similar, the ratings would be just about meaningless. No one would have an idea what another person's meaning of "hard" is or what is meant by "easy."

 

This can be illustrated by the definition of "traditional." It's pretty tightly defined. You hunt a traditional and you expect to find the cache right at the spot your GPS says--within acceptable error. If "traditional" was just a vague definition, you wouldn't know what to expect.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Just offering this cache as an example of a modified multi where each stage counts as a "Find" or "Smiley Face".

 

Hybrid Multi 1 Alpha

 

Hybrid Multi 1 Bravo

 

Hybrid Multi 1 Charlie

 

Hybrid Multi 1 Delta

 

Although the end cache has been archived you can see the logic. All finds in this hybrid multi count as finds. Just thought I would offer this cache as an example. Thanks!!

Link to comment
But, if you had been following the forums as closely as I have for the past two years you would've seen, read, and maybe even been part of, the conversations about precisely this.

 

Plus, because it isn't spelled out where a newbie can find it, subjects such as this has to be rehashed over and over in the forums. Regulars to the forums see this time and again. "What is adequate permission? What is a find? Can I do this? Can I do that? Why not?" and on, and on, and on.

So you are saying that it's not in the guidelines?

That you made it up?

 

If it's not in the guidelines, it's just an opinion.

Or if it is in the guidelines, why won't you tell me where?

Link to comment
So you are saying that it's not in the guidelines?

That you made it up?

 

If it's not in the guidelines, it's just an opinion.

Or if it is in the guidelines, why won't you tell me where?

You know what, Richard. Now you're just being an ***, pure and simple.

 

I guess it's just a game to you. Good laugh at my expense. Ha. Ha. :P I'm done playing.

 

Psst! Trading kindly--the thought, not the mantra--is widely accepted as proper decorum, but damned if I can find it written in the guidelines. But I guess that's just my "opinion."

 

Considering you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion, I'm done with you.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Not that anyone is keeping score, but here's a hypothetical question:

 

If you nail all of the stages of a multi, shouldn't you get credit for multiple finds?

 

The stages of a multi could have been established as several distinct caches. By folding them into a multi, the hider enhances the challenge and heightens the reward. To get to the end, you have to find each cache in turn. But, in our geocaching world, they only count as one.

 

(This is an observation, not a complaint.)

It is up to the cache owner to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable on a cache they are responsible to maintain.

 

For the most part your local community will dictate what is acceptable and what is not. In some areas it is acceptable to log multiple finds on a multi or an event cache. In others it is highly frowned upon. As for a community standard that is embraced by the majority of cachers, I don't believe there is one.

 

I have my opinions on this but I will keep them to myself :P

Link to comment
I thought the current guidelines for multis required the .1 mile rule for each stage. :P

Stages within a multicache don't need to be .1 away from one another. They ought to be far enough apart so that there isn't confusion, like stumbling across stage 4 accidentally when you are looking for stage 3 that's 50 feet away.

 

Here is a post in the FAQ topic where I explain the workings of the proximity/cache saturation guideline. I hope that this is helpful.

Link to comment

Here's a Multi-cache where you can log up to 4 smileys for the cache, if you meet certain requirements:

 

Panic FACTOR

 

If you don't meet certain requirements along the way, you could actually sign the logbook and still not be entitled to post a smiley!

 

Until someone publishes the exchange rate, how many smileys equals how many dollars when the game is over, the whole discussion of how many smileys you get to claim for anything is pointless. Different people play by different rules, and always will, there's no way to enforce otherwise.

Link to comment

How fast do you suppose I would be crucified if I proclaim that 1 year is long enough between finds and it's alright to log additional "Find It" logs? It would be hard to remember exactly where it was, wouldn't it? It's in essence finding it all over again. ...especially those, oh so, rememberable ones. :P

 

Acceptable? Enforcable?

 

What if no one but a few did it? What if most of us did it? Who would right, those who multi-logged or those who didn't?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...