Duplicate Reports

[ArtMan]

With a lag of up to 30 days between the filing of a recovery report and the appearance of that report on a published datasheet, I wonder if there is a problem with multiple reports.

 

Example: You file your recovery report two weeks ago. I file mine today, after verifying that the latest datasheet (pulled from the database today) does not have any recent recovery reports, since yours hasn't shown up yet.

 

Assuming my report is a simple "found in good condition" and doesn't add anything new, will both reports be published, or will mine be rejected or ignored because it is less than a year after your report?

 

-Art-

 

[correcting typo]

Edited March 30, 2005 by ArtMan

[holograph]

I tried submitting a report for a station that had been reported within a year. I didn't do it on purpose -- I hadn't looked at the current NGS datasheet, only the one available at the Geocaching.com site, and hadn't seen the more recent report. The NGS system refused to accept my report because the station had already had a recovery reported within the year.

 

I don't know what would happen if two reports were made in the same month, before the datasheet had been updated.

[evenfall]

Artman and Holograph,

 

What you are bringing into question is simply happenstance. There is no way either person could have known what the other had been working on, or planned to do, and so this could technically seem to happen. I am not sure it could be called a problem, and even if it were I cannot see how it could be avoided. What we do a month before or after the fact cannot really affect our plans because we cannot know what is pending in the database until it is revealed. (but if you know of an improved mind reading method, please share!) We could not avoid it if we wanted to. However, it does make light of the fact that the NGS database is the best source for updated data, and it is worth our time to look there before we assume anything. It is safe to say that the Geocaching database is becoming quite outdated by now.

 

In any case, all the submissions on the mark entry page are not completely automated. They do look this way to us, but in reality are looked at with human eyes. When you fill out the form for mark recovery and submit it, it is basically databased in a pending file, so that it can be reviewed to see that things like more than one recovery per year and verbiage as such are appropriate to the data before adding to the existing datasheet. The first one in is likely the first one on, and if the second submission has nothing new to add, it will likely be omitted.

 

This work is what may seem like it has a Lag time from the outside looking in, but in reality is but one of many functions the staff at NGS have to perform in addition to this. I think it is just the way their workload runs. It is safe, very safe to say that nobody in their office is sitting around staring at empty inboxes waiting to pounce on the next job to do.

 

If a lot of what we send them requires how many hours of research and documentation on our parts to justify the correction of a possible or actual error, It is worth noting that even with all they may have at their disposal, they too must take the time to figure it out, as verify what we feel we had found. I know for a fact that I have given them well more than one days worth of man hours of work to do. How about anyone else? And so, we see how it is.

 

Since we know that Deb Brown and Cheryl Malone are 2 of the primary people at NGS that we commonly deal with, is it worth remembering that we keep those folks pretty busy along with all the other people in the country who need their help as well. There are not as many people working in there as we may think, and they all have primary tasks to accomplish as well as the rest of what comes in. Some of those clients may actually need NGS assistance or data for survey reasons and that would certainly bump up to the head of the line in most cases.

 

When we see the way the inner workings turn, it works pretty well, and as Geocachers, we have actually seen then change some of the ways they handle things on their end as based on our suggestions and ideas. It will be fun to watch and see how things continue to evolve, as I know that NGS has more in the works as based on Geocacher input, and throughput.

 

Rob

[+PFF]

The NGS system refused to accept my report because the station had already had a recovery reported within the year.

 

That's a curious situation. I've reported several within a year of the last recovery and the system has taken them. Perhaps it is because I was contributing an updated description, etc.

 

Anyone else experience this?

 

-Paul-

[evenfall]

Paul, Not so curious really. Debbie Brown reads all submissions before they are added, If you had something to add and it was less that a year, and if it was a valuable bit of info, She will see no harm in adding it, but she isn't going to clog a PID with 7 found its just because it was easy for someone to find and often does.

 

The rule of no more than one per year is just a way of asking people to use good judgment more than anything else. Certainly if we can improve a description, she will add it.

 

Rob

[+PFF]

Good point, Rob. That means Deb will "rubber stamp" this one, even though it has been less than a year.

 

And I'm gonna give the guys at NCGS a hard time about it. [grin]

 

-Paul-

[+Harry Dolphin]

I guess we'll find out soon. In addition to chasing Black Dog Trackers in Manhattan (he said that he was going to mark those recovered, so I didn't), I seem to have followed after kc2ixe in MacNeill Park in Queens. He logged one that I also logged, though I logged a few more in that park. We'll wait and see what Deb Brown does about those.

[kc2ixe]

I guess we'll find out soon. In addition to chasing Black Dog Trackers in Manhattan (he said that he was going to mark those recovered, so I didn't), I seem to have followed after kc2ixe in MacNeill Park in Queens. He logged one that I also logged, though I logged a few more in that park. We'll wait and see what Deb Brown does about those.

Harry,

Saw you were after me. I did get Deb to Destroy KU3824. I was busy doing something else in the park ("surveying" the area for the 1/2 Marathon - where are we going to put the radio operators), and just brought some data sheets with me. I was going to do the rest marathon day - glad you saved me the work

 

I got the one on the side of Scaggs Walsh, and one on the side of "chilton paints", but a bunch of the tidal marks were either "not found" (but not searched for very hard) and one should be under a 40ft Connex

[+Harry Dolphin]

kc2ixe,

We were in the park looking for a cache. My caching partner lives in Guttenberg, and we were working at clearing his 10-mile list. Ten-Mile List from Hudson County, NJ, includes most of NYC. We bring along datasheets where ever we go. We enjoyed the concentration in MacNeil Park. Doing it this way, we've found three benchmarks on Ward's Island, a lot in Manhattan, and other places. But we don't do an intense search in most cache areas. I am trying to do a complete search in my home area: Northwest Jersey, as well as Hudson County, NJ, and Manhattan. Other than that, it's hit and miss.

[kc2ixe]

kc2ixe,

We were in the park looking for a cache.

Roger on the cache. If you look, I've NEVER done a cache!! You did well on the park BTW - I didn't find the remote mark. There is another member here who has messed up 2 or 3 of the marks in the park - Called KU3824 "found" - yeah right, did YOU see any mansion in the park Also called KU3822 a spike. Sigh

 

For some odd reason, finding a cache just does NOT interest me, but I've always found benchmarks facinating, even as a kid