Jump to content

Find Counts


ciarmer

Recommended Posts

I had a very simple caching day today. I had five finds, no DNF's.

Using "Live" view, I clicked a cache and brought up cache details. I then clicked "Log this cache". I used the "find count" as part of my log. I did not turn on "Send Log Now". At the end of the day, I had 5 pending Geocache Logs (representing five finds). I then posted each log one at a time (no way to post them all at the same time). They were all posted as field notes on GC.com.

I started the day with X finds. The first find for today was given a find number of X+1. Unfortunately, each of the other finds was also given the same find number (X+1). No increment took place in any of today's finds except for the first.

I understand that it is difficult to keep track of finds as there are so many ways finds can be recorded. But what I've described is the easiest and probably one of the most straightforward method of logging. Would the result have been any different if I had posted each field note as I went along rather than have them accumulate until the end of the day?

Or would the results have been different if I posted these field notes as logs immediately as they were found?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I am using 2.0.

I did note that if I read my logs into GSAK using a GSAK note and "publish" logs from within GSAK, the find counts for each find are correct. (I believe GSAK interprets the find count variable and assigns a new value in this case). But the direct uploading of field notes from Cachly generates incorrect counts for every field note after the first for the example I described.

Let me know if I can help in tracking down the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not tried it for published logs.  I can try to do it on published logs tonight but then I'll need to delete those logs as I don't have any unlogged finds right now. 

As I mentioned, published logs from GSAK which originate from the Cachly GSAK note work fine. But I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tested this and here's what I've found:

1. If I record finds and upload as logs, the Find Count increment works. However, the increment is based on the order in which the cache is uploaded for logging rather than the order in which the cache was found. (In other words, if I log 3 finds and save them in Cachly then upload them individually but make a mistake and upload them backwards, then the counter is incremented with each log and the order is backwards).

2. If I record the finds and upload them as field notes, the first upload has a find count which is one greater than it was prior to the upload but each subsequent field note upload has the same find count as the first upload.

So, the answer to your question is the absence of a found count increment seems to be limited to those logs that are uploaded as field notes. But while the find count is incremented for each find if the finds are immediately posted as logs, the order of the finds is the order of the upload rather than the actual find order.

Hope that makes sense. Let me know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Nic. Thanks. On the positive side, the use of the GSAK note coupled with using GSAK's "Publish" capability works flawlessly.

The GSAK "Publish" capability puts the finds in the correct order (also allowing you to change the order or insert other activity between the finds - it actually orders the logs with a number like 200, 210, 220, 230, etc. which provides loads of flexibility). So I can leisurely turn my draft logs into final logs and then upload them (bulk upload) whenever I'm happy with the content and formatting and the find counts and formatting work flawlessly. The ability of Cachly to provide the GSAK file is key to this.

For anyone not using GSAK, it becomes a problem. I know that Cachly is not designed to be a replacement for Geosphere (again, I'm one of the refugees). I never had an issue with the Geosphere find count. I have no idea how that program handled it; I can only attest to the fact that it works, offline, online, field notes, live logs, etc. Of course, as time goes on, the fact that the find count works makes no difference if the rest of the app is collapsing around you! I'm just mentioning it because other refugees who don't find the GSAK path or don't use GSAK, may have a problem with it if you decide to remove the find count keyword.

I hope you don't mind, but as a refugee, I will probably be asking about things that I've grown accustomed to using Geosphere when I don't find a similar capability within Cachly. I hope you don't take those questions as critical commentary; rather as positive queries meant to potentially improve Cachly. From everything I've seen so far, Cachly is wonderful. The developer of Geosphere seemed to place great emphasis on offline data and GSAK integration - so that's where most of my future questions will probably center. Again, none of it will be or should be interpreted as critical criticism. I hope you understand.

Thanks for your patience! I can't wait until my next outing with Cachly. Just need the temperature to go up a bit!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ciarmer said:

I'm just mentioning it because other refugees who don't find the GSAK path or don't use GSAK, may have a problem with it if you decide to remove the find count keyword.

Don't worry. I won't remove it. :)

7 minutes ago, ciarmer said:

I hope you don't mind, but as a refugee, I will probably be asking about things that I've grown accustomed to using Geosphere when I don't find a similar capability within Cachly. I hope you don't take those questions as critical commentary; rather as positive queries meant to potentially improve Cachly. From everything I've seen so far, Cachly is wonderful. The developer of Geosphere seemed to place great emphasis on offline data and GSAK integration - so that's where most of my future questions will probably center. Again, none of it will be or should be interpreted as critical criticism. I hope you understand.

Not a problem. Keep it coming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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...