Refresh Me On This One, Folks

[+TruFinds]

I am thinking that it is unethical on part of the cacher (and also the cache owner) to permit someone to 2nd log a cache they have visited before just to drop off a TB. These people have visited and logged a cache once before on their initial discovery (find #1), and then realized they have a TB that needed deposited, so they went back to the previously discovered & logged cache to dend it on its way (find #2 for the same cache).

 

Refresh me - this IS unethical, correct? Should I say something (this hasn't happened to my own caches, but I see other's), especially when someone posts/boasts that they have done so in their log? I doubt the cache owner would do anything. Can these people be reported to TPTB? This is irritating, as we live in an area of poor cache density, and I have actually WORKED for my few finds. I don't think that since it's a low density area should be reason for them to get away with it. **Thanks for letting me vent** My apologies if double logging is OK (but I don't think so...).

[+Q2XL]

In my opinion...someone dropping a bug in a cache that they already logged as a find should do it by posting a note...not logging another find. This is common in my region.

 

If I was the cache owner I would delete one of the duplicate posts.

 

If I wasn't the cache owner, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. If someone wants to artifically inflate their "numbers" then let them cheat themselves.

 

My 2 cents.

[+leatherman]

I remember, sometime ago, someone mentioned that multiple finds on the same listing didn't add up. I hope this is true. I see new hiders posting multiple finds to their own caches instead of notes. I saw a veteran cacher do this too.

[+SeventhSon]

... and I have actually WORKED for my few finds.

If you consider it work, you're doing it wrong.

 

Most frown on double find logs. I've seen it around here, but not on my own caches. Just sit back and enjoy your own ride and you will have a lot more fun

[+Riddlers]

Generally a nice e-mail for the cache owner will enlighten a newbie on the correct proceedure for a second log on a cache. A note is the correct way to go for additional logs on the same cache, whether it is a maintance note by the owner or a dropped TB later on.

[+TruFinds]

Thanks, folks. Just what I thought.

 

Just wondering if I had gone nuts or not - seeing a LOT of this activity in our area lately, and was wondering if I had missed some insane new rule change.

[+CYBret]

Nope, the rules on claiming a find are still the same.

 

Ummmm...where are those rules, anyway?

 

Bret

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

yep if they are in any of your caches just delete the one that didn't have the bug I have also seen owners who "find" their caches

[+Pork King]

I remember, sometime ago, someone mentioned that multiple finds on the same listing didn't add up. I hope this is true. I see new hiders posting multiple finds to their own caches instead of notes. I saw a veteran cacher do this too.

They do. I noticed this last night as I was posting. I was getting ready to log in my 350th find, but my profile page said I already had 350, instead of the 349 I thought I had. i went back to check, and I had accidentilly double-logged a cache. After deleting one of the logs, my count went back down to 349. As far as folks double logging and logging their own caches as found...Well, some folks just can't help the way they'se raised. It's plumb uncouth.

[+mama upe]

test

[+IVxIV]

yep if they are in any of your caches just delete the one that didn't have the bug I have also seen owners who "find" their caches

R U kidding?? Someone can hide a cache, then go "find" their OWN CACHE later and claim it as a found? ROFL!!

[+Ed & Julie]

yep if they are in any of your caches just delete the one that didn't have the bug I have also seen owners who "find" their caches

R U kidding?? Someone can hide a cache, then go "find" their OWN CACHE later and claim it as a found? ROFL!!

Yup...it happens.

 

I know a husband and wife team who share the same account. One will hide the cache, the other will find it...at least that's wha they say

 

Ed

[+Greymane]

I wasn't sure how this worked and I had seen it done before, so when I hid my first cache, I logged it as a find (later) as well. Didn't want it to be a FTF, so I waited until it was found. I guess the rationalization was that I took the effort to find a good hiding spot, so that counted. In hindsight, I see that is a poor view.

[+Markwell]

The system doesn't dis-allow (sorry for the double negative) logging a cache twice or logging a cache that you own as a find.

 

Jeremy's historical response has always been "I don't care what people do with their find count". If however, you search on a person's account, they may show 250 caches found. If one of the caches they have found TWICE or if one of their finds is a Locationless cache, if you click the link to show the cache's they've found, the totals won't add up (Locationless Caches don't show up in that search for some odd reason, and if someone found one cache twice or three times, it will only show up once in the list).

 

The general consensus is that you should only log a find on a traditional non-moving cache once as a find (all the rest are notes) and that you shouldn't log a cache you own as a find. No where are these spelled out (see blue text above). This is just what cachers have agreed as being "fair and correct."

[+Markwell]

I wasn't sure how this worked and I had seen it done before, so when I hid my first cache, I logged it as a find (later) as well. Didn't want it to be a FTF, so I waited until it was found. I guess the rationalization was that I took the effort to find a good hiding spot, so that counted. In hindsight, I see that is a poor view.

You do realize that you have the ability to go back and delete your erroneous find...

[+Eswau]

We have a cache around here that was listed pre-benchmark days that you had to find a benchmark to claim a find. We still have people that claim the cache everytime they find a benchmark. I believe the term is "double dipping"

 

E

[+tiki-4]

Double dipping is fine if there is a cache near a benchmark, though.....