Jump to content

Find count number increases with duplicate log entries


methylgrace

Recommended Posts

I took a relative caching today showing him the sights which included particularly good geocaches (GC12WGA). I logged the find as "Found-It" to attach an image and gain my personal trackable mileage. This increased my "Found-It" count by one.

 

The system could have known that I already had logged this cache and should not have increased my find-count number.

 

When I changed my log to "Write Note", the count number decreased, as I expected, so this can be corrected. (However, my personal trackable does not count the miles, but that's another feature-request/bug fix.)

 

You can decide if this is a feature and the system is working as expected. Or perhaps it is a bug, since I could find my own caches multiple times to increase my statistics (but that would be boring and a waste of time).

 

Regards,

Methyl

Link to comment
You can decide if this is a feature and the system is working as expected.

System's working fine. :)

In your example, the correct log for "revisiting" a cache (introducing a friend, trading trackables, etc), is a Write Note.

 

Some Countries allow multiple finds for benchmarks on a special cache, since benchmarks outside the US aren't in the system.

- Though here in the US, benchmarks don't count as finds...

 

Another type is moving caches, which allow you to log 'em when you happen to find 'em.

They're found, then rehidden elsewhere by others.

Link to comment

Same. I refind caches a lot. It's actually common sense for it to do it.

It seems your 31 Finds count is based on 17 caches. It is not 'common' practice to log multiple "Found It" logs on the same cache. The advice that's been given before is to log a "Write Note" log when re-visiting a cache. The idea is that if you find a cache the 1st time, then you're not really 'finding' it the next time you visit it.

 

Caches that are legitimately logged as Found multiple times are things like recurring Events. For example, the same GC Code is used for an event that happens monthly or yearly and so cachers that attend the event log that Event cache (Attended=Found) each time they attend. Years ago, there were Locationless caches that also allowed for multiple Found It logs, but those caches no longer exist.

Link to comment

When I changed my log to "Write Note", the count number decreased, as I expected, so this can be corrected. (However, my personal trackable does not count the miles, but that's another feature-request/bug fix.)

When you log a "Write Note" log on a cache you've Re-Found, then you should be able to "Visit" your Trackable to that cache. When you visit the Trackable, then it will count the mileage for that cache.

 

You can decide if this is a feature and the system is working as expected. Or perhaps it is a bug, since I could find my own caches multiple times to increase my statistics (but that would be boring and a waste of time).

As others have mentioned, there are legitimate cases for logging a single GC Code multiple times. And you're correct, the option to do that can be used to inflate find counts. As with other things in this hobby, the find count can be skewed up or down depending on a cacher's 'find ethic'.

Link to comment

Same. I refind caches a lot. It's actually common sense for it to do it.

It seems your 31 Finds count is based on 17 caches. It is not 'common' practice to log multiple "Found It" logs on the same cache. The advice that's been given before is to log a "Write Note" log when re-visiting a cache. The idea is that if you find a cache the 1st time, then you're not really 'finding' it the next time you visit it.

 

Caches that are legitimately logged as Found multiple times are things like recurring Events. For example, the same GC Code is used for an event that happens monthly or yearly and so cachers that attend the event log that Event cache (Attended=Found) each time they attend. Years ago, there were Locationless caches that also allowed for multiple Found It logs, but those caches no longer exist.

 

What I meant for 'common sense' is that the system countsthe duplicate log

Link to comment

Same. I refind caches a lot. It's actually common sense for it to do it.

It seems your 31 Finds count is based on 17 caches. It is not 'common' practice to log multiple "Found It" logs on the same cache. The advice that's been given before is to log a "Write Note" log when re-visiting a cache. The idea is that if you find a cache the 1st time, then you're not really 'finding' it the next time you visit it.

 

Caches that are legitimately logged as Found multiple times are things like recurring Events. For example, the same GC Code is used for an event that happens monthly or yearly and so cachers that attend the event log that Event cache (Attended=Found) each time they attend. Years ago, there were Locationless caches that also allowed for multiple Found It logs, but those caches no longer exist.

 

What I meant for 'common sense' is that the system countsthe duplicate log

Weird isn't it? :lol:

The system, even though it warns you you've logged it as found already, still allows you to log those same caches over, and over, and over again...

- That is funny as heck !

Like someone would actually do it ... :laughing:

Link to comment

even though it warns you you've logged it as found already, ...

 

I don't think there's any warning that you've already logged a find when you go to re-log it.

That's odd, there's a huge smiley on every cache page that I've found, right above "Log a new visit" saying, "Found It !", and what day logged.

Would "even though it notifies you..." be a better description for you? :laughing:

Link to comment

[...] there's a huge smiley on every cache page that I've found, right above "Log a new visit" saying, "Found It !", and what day logged.[...]

 

That does not happen when logging via Api. :blink:

 

Hans

or when logging via field notes. :rolleyes:

 

I would take "it warns you you've logged it as found already" to mean that there's some sort of alert/message when you go to log it stating "hey you've already logged this, and now you're loggging it again". :huh:

Link to comment

[...] there's a huge smiley on every cache page that I've found, right above "Log a new visit" saying, "Found It !", and what day logged.[...]

 

That does not happen when logging via Api. :blink:

 

Hans

or when logging via field notes. :rolleyes:

Didn't see where anyone stated they used them, but yeah, that's true...

Link to comment

even though it warns you you've logged it as found already, ...

 

I don't think there's any warning that you've already logged a find when you go to re-log it.

That's odd, there's a huge smiley on every cache page that I've found, right above "Log a new visit" saying, "Found It !", and what day logged.

Would "even though it notifies you..." be a better description for you? :laughing:

 

I have suggested in the past that an actual warning would be a good feature to add. I suspect that a lot of duplicate logs are the result of someone unintentionally submitting an additional found it log often because it wasn't obvious that the submit button "took" or that they were just unaware that a Note log should be used for a subsequent visit to a cache. A simple "You have already logged this cache as Found. Are you sure you want to submit another Found It log for this cache?" with a "Confirm" and "Cancel" button would prevent a lot of duplicate logs. There *are* some cases where an second or more log on a cache is legitimate (e.g. reusing the same GC code for a periodic event) and a confirmation dialog would still allow those types of logs to be posted.

Link to comment

Same. I refind caches a lot. It's actually common sense for it to do it.

It seems your 31 Finds count is based on 17 caches. It is not 'common' practice to log multiple "Found It" logs on the same cache. The advice that's been given before is to log a "Write Note" log when re-visiting a cache. The idea is that if you find a cache the 1st time, then you're not really 'finding' it the next time you visit it.

 

Caches that are legitimately logged as Found multiple times are things like recurring Events. For example, the same GC Code is used for an event that happens monthly or yearly and so cachers that attend the event log that Event cache (Attended=Found) each time they attend. Years ago, there were Locationless caches that also allowed for multiple Found It logs, but those caches no longer exist.

 

What I meant for 'common sense' is that the system countsthe duplicate log

Weird isn't it? :lol:

The system, even though it warns you you've logged it as found already, still allows you to log those same caches over, and over, and over again...

- That is funny as heck !

Like someone would actually do it ... :laughing:

 

I don't get warned if I do that

Link to comment

I realize there are a few rare cases where duplicate logs might be appropriate. I have some from years ago when a monthly event went under the same GC code for a couple years.

 

Why not have a tab that the CO can activate that prevents more than one "found it log" from the same account to be entered on their cache?

Link to comment

I realize there are a few rare cases where duplicate logs might be appropriate. I have some from years ago when a monthly event went under the same GC code for a couple years.

 

Why not have a tab that the CO can activate that prevents more than one "found it log" from the same account to be entered on their cache?

Because multiple finds are allowed. The cache owner doesn't really have the authority to prevent it. If i want to find a cache I pass often that's OK

Link to comment

Just noticed a local cache that has 5 consecutive logs by the same cacher. The wording of each is unique so they were written and submitted as separate log entries. I would have deleted all duplicates if it was one of my caches.

Me, too. I always reach out to the cacher to give them the chance to choose their preferred log. If'n I don't hear back, I pick my own favorite.

Link to comment

I realize there are a few rare cases where duplicate logs might be appropriate. I have some from years ago when a monthly event went under the same GC code for a couple years.

 

Why not have a tab that the CO can activate that prevents more than one "found it log" from the same account to be entered on their cache?

Because multiple finds are allowed. The cache owner doesn't really have the authority to prevent it. If i want to find a cache I pass often that's OK

What makes you think that?

 

Duplicate finds are not the norm. If I put on my cache page that someone can log twice if they satisfy some condition, that's fine. If I haven't, I'd ask anyone who revisits my cache to leave a note for subsequent visits. If they refuse, I reserve the right to delete the duplicates, and I suspect that Groundspeak would back me up on appeal.

 

I suspect one of the reasons that duplicate finds are still allowed is to accommodate those events out there that have temporary caches and end up having, say, 30 attendees but 600 attended logs. Personally, I disagree with that approach, but that's another topic for another time. (And also, as I'm fully aware, it's not really my business; as it's an accepted practice in some areas, it's a Groundspeak issue and not a hzoi issue.)

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

I realize there are a few rare cases where duplicate logs might be appropriate. I have some from years ago when a monthly event went under the same GC code for a couple years.

 

Why not have a tab that the CO can activate that prevents more than one "found it log" from the same account to be entered on their cache?

Because multiple finds are allowed. The cache owner doesn't really have the authority to prevent it. If i want to find a cache I pass often that's OK

 

You could "find it" all you want but I'd argue that a subsequent found log is a "bogus log", and thus a CO would be allowed to delete it, because you didn't really find it (since, after the first time you know exactly where it was).

 

I suspect that most duplicate logs are unintentional and the result of someone submitting a Found It log, and for some reason not seeing a response. They assume the log "didn't take" so they submit another one. If someone doesn't see a response indicating that the found log was submitted, that may be because "something" went wrong while constructing the response or sending it back to the browser or app. That would happen *after* the database updated to count the cache as found.

 

I have suggested that having a pop-up confirmation screen which says something "You have already submitted a Found It log for this cache. Are you sure you want to submit another one? [cancel] [submit]"

 

That would at least eliminate duplicates for those that don't want them but not prevent a duplicate log for the very few cases when it would be legitimate.

 

Link to comment

(interior quote removed)

Because multiple finds are allowed. The cache owner doesn't really have the authority to prevent it. If i want to find a cache I pass often that's OK

Here's some info in the Help Center on logging, "Found It Use if you found a geocache and physically signed the log sheet (one time only)."

And here, in Logging Etiquette, "Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find."

 

I'm reasonably confident that a cache owner does have the authority to prevent more than one "found it' from the same account. Many won't bother, but I'd expect HQ to back any who do.

Link to comment

And ifnthat person appealed to GC that log wpuld be reinstated ans locked

 

I would hope they wouldn't as this is exactly why so many are number orientated. Logging multiple founds should not increase the found number.

 

Maybe that's why stats generated by GSAK say " xxxxx has yyyy Finds on yyyy unique Geocaches", logging caches multiple times would show "xxxxx has (yyyy+z) Finds on yyyy unique Geocaches" meaning the cacher still has yyyy founds and not yyyy+z (that's only the number of logs)

 

Who knows, some may even use multiple logs to fill their 366 days grid when they have a cache very close by (or log their own frontyard cache) :ph34r:

Link to comment

And ifnthat person appealed to GC that log wpuld be reinstated ans locked

I seriously doubt that. But let's try it. You go find one of my caches and log multiple finds on it, and I'll delete one of your logs. Then you can appeal the deletion and we'll see who's right.

 

I think the closest to you is Texas Canyon Rest Area: I-10 Rocks! -- one of my favorites. Though while you're in the area, you could also get my other earthcache down in Bisbee, and we could try two experiments in order to confirm results.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
...Maybe that's why stats generated by GSAK say " xxxxx has yyyy Finds on yyyy unique Geocaches", logging caches multiple times would show "xxxxx has (yyyy+z) Finds on yyyy unique Geocaches" meaning the cacher still has yyyy founds and not yyyy+z (that's only the number of logs)

 

Who knows, some may even use multiple logs to fill their 366 days grid when they have a cache very close by (or log their own frontyard cache) :ph34r:

+1

I really miss that on this site's profile pages.

The reason it was removed may have fit by the monthly events some hold, but I'd bet if there was a push to remove it, it was numbers/stats folks whining about being called fibbers. :)

Link to comment
The reason it was removed may have fit by the monthly events some hold, but I'd bet if there was a push to remove it, it was numbers/stats folks whining about being called fibbers. :)
Or was it the regular geocachers getting tired of being called cheaters by the numbers/stats folks, who didn't like people logging any GC code multiple times, no matter what the reason?

 

Or was it the volunteer reviewers and lackeys getting tired of dealing with squabbling children geocachers?

Link to comment

And ifnthat person appealed to GC that log wpuld be reinstated ans locked

 

The ultimate power trail.

 

Call a couple of geocacher friends and form an adhoc team. Grab a couple of containers from home and write the team on the log sheet.

 

One cache sits down in front of a caches and swaps containers in and out as fast as they can. Another team member counts the swaps and the third rests. Every 15 minutes, change roles.

 

Go home after 6 hours and everyone logs 5000 caches in a day..

 

The rules don't prevent it, so it must be okay.

 

 

Link to comment

And ifnthat person appealed to GC that log wpuld be reinstated ans locked

I seriously doubt that. But let's try it. You go find one of my caches and log multiple finds on it, and I'll delete one of your logs. Then you can appeal the deletion and we'll see who's right.

 

I think the closest to you is Texas Canyon Rest Area: I-10 Rocks! -- one of my favorites. Though while you're in the area, you could also get my other earthcache down in Bisbee, and we could try two experiments in order to confirm results.

 

There a number of reasons not to do that.

 

1. This issue has been addressed many times and the GC policy is if I find a cache and sign the log that is a find. If I choose to find it multiple times thatis ok with them so your lack of knowledge of policy doesn't warrant me driving 130 miles.

 

2. It''s an earthcache there is no container or log to sign. So not a valid example.

Link to comment

And ifnthat person appealed to GC that log wpuld be reinstated ans locked

I seriously doubt that. But let's try it. You go find one of my caches and log multiple finds on it, and I'll delete one of your logs. Then you can appeal the deletion and we'll see who's right.

 

I think the closest to you is Texas Canyon Rest Area: I-10 Rocks! -- one of my favorites. Though while you're in the area, you could also get my other earthcache down in Bisbee, and we could try two experiments in order to confirm results.

 

There a number of reasons not to do that.

 

1. This issue has been addressed many times and the GC policy is if I find a cache and sign the log that is a find. If I choose to find it multiple times thatis ok with them so your lack of knowledge of policy doesn't warrant me driving 130 miles.

 

2. It''s an earthcache there is no container or log to sign. So not a valid example.

 

Let's split that up a little, because I think you're making a leap of faith here.

 

[T]he GC policy is if I find a cache and sign the log that is a find.

 

I agree.

 

If I choose to find [a cache] multiple times thatis ok with [Groundspeak.]

 

Please cite your source.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

1. This issue has been addressed many times and the GC policy is if I find a cache and sign the log that is a find. If I choose to find it multiple times thatis ok with them so your lack of knowledge of policy doesn't warrant me driving 130 miles.

I'm not sure why they would have the following in their Help Center article: 4.4. Logging Etiquette if their "policy" allows multiple finds to be logged on a cache.

 

Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find.
Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

 

Yes, thank you for illustrating my point: you, the cache owner, have specifically granted permission in that cache's description for people to do so.

 

You may log a find for this cache as many times as you like as long as it has been moved by someone else since the last time you logged the cache.

 

I see you have, or had, 324 other cache hides. I took a look at a couple and saw that they did not have similar disclaimers, nor did they appear to have duplicate finds by the same cacher. It would seem, then, that (1) you don't expect people to log multiple finds on your other caches and (2) the people that find your caches also don't expect to be entitled to do so without your permission.

Link to comment

1. This issue has been addressed many times and the GC policy is if I find a cache and sign the log that is a find. If I choose to find it multiple times thatis ok with them so your lack of knowledge of policy doesn't warrant me driving 130 miles.

I'm not sure why they would have the following in their Help Center article: 4.4. Logging Etiquette if their "policy" allows multiple finds to be logged on a cache.

 

Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find.

My preference would be that they change it so its a rule rather than Etiquette, and that the website doesn't permit multiple logs apart from a select list that currently allows that. In addition grandfathering the allowed to log multiple times condition so that no new caches permit multiple logs.

 

This would be consistent with past policy, and it would tidy up an anomily for new users that are the ones who usually fall foul of this. Note that the vast majority of the time the newer user doesn't even notice they have done this its usually an app that logs multiple times by mistake.

Link to comment

My preference would be that they change it so its a rule rather than Etiquette, and that the website doesn't permit multiple logs apart from a select list that currently allows that. In addition grandfathering the allowed to log multiple times condition so that no new caches permit multiple logs.

 

This would be consistent with past policy, and it would tidy up an anomily for new users that are the ones who usually fall foul of this. Note that the vast majority of the time the newer user doesn't even notice they have done this its usually an app that logs multiple times by mistake.

 

My nine duplicate logs are from early days. There were mystery caches where the objectives changed, some on a monthly basis. They were fun (like the Locationless caches) but archived when Groundspeak changed things about. One duplicate was on a moving cache.

I've had a few duplicate logs on my caches, from App users whe didn't realize that they had logged twice. (Actually, I had one cache logged nine times! The cacher asked why I was deleting her logs. I explained, and she said she didn't realize that she had logged nine time. It did not show on her app.)

So, I agree with your suggestion! Grandfather existing ones, and do not permit duplicate logs on others!

Link to comment

If I choose to find [a cache] multiple times thatis ok with [Groundspeak.]

 

Please cite your source.

 

Still waiting.

 

I would cite as a source every cache listed on Geocaching.com. The very fact that the site allows one to log a cache multiple times is (IMO) evidence that GS are happy with it as it would be a trivial code change to disallow it - ergo they must be OK with it.

 

Case closed (???).

Link to comment

If I choose to find [a cache] multiple times thatis ok with [Groundspeak.]

 

Please cite your source.

 

Still waiting.

 

I would cite as a source every cache listed on Geocaching.com. The very fact that the site allows one to log a cache multiple times is (IMO) evidence that GS are happy with it as it would be a trivial code change to disallow it - ergo they must be OK with it.

 

Case closed (???).

Groundspeak list caches in places that have no permissions this is specifically against their rules. Thus the existance of a listing that has a particular behaviour doesn't speak one way or the other to the rules. It most certainly isn't a citation of a rule.

Link to comment

If I choose to find [a cache] multiple times thatis ok with [Groundspeak.]

 

Please cite your source.

 

Still waiting.

 

I would cite as a source every cache listed on Geocaching.com. The very fact that the site allows one to log a cache multiple times is (IMO) evidence that GS are happy with it as it would be a trivial code change to disallow it - ergo they must be OK with it.

 

Case closed (???).

 

Not really. Here's the post I was waiting for Walt's Hunting to answer. We know it is possible to post multiple finds. The question is, if you log multiple finds on my cache and I only want to allow one and delete your subsequent found it logs, with whom will Groundspeak side on appeal, the multiple logger or the cache owner? Walt's Hunting claims they would side with the multiple logger, and I'm still waiting on a source to back that up.

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...