Hynz

I applaud everybody taking action against log cheeting and I try to hunt down suspicius online entries. But I must admit last time I wanted to check online logs with physical logs on one of my cache I gave up because I could not wrap my head around the inconsistent and out of chronological order of the signatures. Not to speak of often terrible handwriting. So I wonder what physical procedure do you use for making the comparision. Do you print out the photos of the logbook and the webpage and tick of on both sides? When using a true and big "logbook", do you photograph *always* *all* pages of the logbook?

Thanks for that information. I also would be interested what the NGS thnks about this decision. I wonder if the update of that last recovery note in the current datashet was made by the NGS because of the GC-Log alone or because the logger *additionally* made a report to the NGS.

I would be interested to know how much of that information (logs, photos) produced here were accually helpfull for the NGS. Have they been using this information somehow in the past? Have they been asked if they are interested in getting the database?

When visiting the US I enjoyed looking for some benchmarks and if they would be a thing in my home country I probably would be an active benchmarker. I have no idea about the necessary efford for GS to keep the database active but I somehow understand that benchmarking on the webpage is retired. But I'm strongly opposing that previous logs and pictures were about to become inaccessible

Out of couriosity: Does using a TOR Browser ideed reduce *security* issues with websites? Or do you use it as synonym for *privacy* issues?

I don't always follow my own principle, but to me location is the main point and the cache and container are secondary. So surely FPs should also be given based on location, even if the container isn't great. +1 As much as I dislike micros and as much as personal experience shows that statisticaly a micro delivers more offen a mundane experience than a small or regular, it is the experience *during* the hunt (which starts much earlier than immediately at GZ) which determines my enjoyment of a cache.

FWIW, a swift response of clicking that link is back again. Thanks.

Good luck with that In my experience GS do not interfere regarding TB-Logs.

And those logs are part of the geocaching history of the people who have interacted with the original trackables. So to spell it out crystal clear: Please Don't Do It!

What irks me more and more is the fact that when browsing often found caches especially in touristic areas that about 2/3rd of gallery photos are either photos of the logsheet (without the signature of the finder) or photos of the cache (often in the hands of the finder). The corresponding logtexts are short, generic and give rarely any hint about why such photo was attached. So my probably pesimistic interpretation of that is the following: Those finder rarely make a physical signature. They don't even consider that making a photo is only a stopgap which should be an exception. I belive they honestly think that's a fully accepted alternative way to mark their find. And owners of such caches rarely care about it. To the contrary they are happy and and best are appreciating finders who replace logsheets (certainly by just throwing away the old ones). More than an irk is it then for me when seldom found and remote caches (and god forbid my own caches ) are visited by cachers with that attitude.

I absolutly agree to what you have written. But looking to the development the trackable system has undergone in the last years (no so much actively by Groundspeak but simply by IMHO misuse of a significant number of users) I have no hope for any improvements. At least not in a direction I would like to see.......

Hierbei muss ich tatsächlich ein wenig wiedersprechen, zumindest was den Mutli angeht. Viele Locations sind ja schon "leider" vergeben und da noch irgendwo einen Multi zu legen, gestaltet sich da schon äußerst schwierig, da reicht es ja auch schon in einer Mittelgroßen Stadt zu leben meistens. Da sind Lab Caches ja eigentlich eine Interessante Alternative für, wenn man auch zumindest etwas aufzuzeigen hat. Verstehe ich nicht. Eine virtuelle Stage eines Multis hat genau die gleichen (naemlich fast gar keine) Einschraenkungen wie die fuer eine Lab-Station. Und wenn man zu den Labs noch einen physischen Bonus legen kann gibt es zu einem Multi de facto gar keinen Unterschied bezueglich der Schwierigkeit geeignete Stages und Platz fuer den Final zu finden.

Good. I know I'm flogging a dead horse but let me suggest exchanging "progress" to "contributions" in the message about deleting the account.

OK, apparently nobody is using this really useful feature. Hope it will sort out along upcoming forum updates but I would appreciate if a moderator could have a look into it.

Thanks for continuing tweeking the list output. Compared to the first incarnation there are certainly improvements visible. So please don't stop. Since malicious tongues might argue improvements are easily possible only because of the abysmal baseline so just to visualize the difference of the old and currently new search list. The pictures are adapted to show the true screen real estate: 9 resulting caches taking 1015x734 pixel and even presents the date of my own find in an (certainly only IMHO) clean and compact view. 9 resulting caches taking 1831x893 pixel (219%, more than the doubble area). On my 27 inch monitor I need to go almost fullscreen with my browser to get the last column (and no way to eventually just scroll horizontal to see it). I get it that nowadays web developer are somehow forced to use certain tools which are a bit unflexible but provide the possibility to produce nice outputs quickly and maybe even without much programming skills. But is the new list layout really the best what Groundspeak can do? Or are there really a significant number of people out there (even within the developers) who seriously consider the second picture as an "enhanced" version of the first?

May I - in all humbleness - ask you if you are even *aware* that half of your caches have been archived because you apparently have refused doing maintainance

Is there a known issue with the "Following Areas" function on the forum? Since a couple of days it takes "ages" for me to get the list after clicking on the link.

FWIW I just followed a link from my RSS-feed of the Geocaching-Blog to a new article in german https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2022/07/auffrischung-der-geocaching-etikette-tipps-fur-cache-finder/ which further linked to an 2019 article also in german https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/06/geocaching-etikette-201-finden-und-loggen/ It seems this articles were german only at least I couldn't find the corresponding english articles (the blog website is terrible IMHO) Beside a major gripe I find the 2019 article extremly well written and I wished knowledge of this text would be a requirement for everybody before heading out finding caches. But now to the on-topic gripe in that article: Translate:

Sorry but I can't resist answering this question: A virtual stage for a Multi

^this It's appalling that just a couple of weeks after enabling this setting by GS how many users make use of that.

Acctually, no, this is not what the OP wanted. He wanted to see within a list of caches if eventually there is a TB in one or another cache on that list. I'm also missing this information in the new lists which was nicely shown in the old list together with other usefull information eg if a NM flag is set for a cache or on which date I eventually had already found that cache All this is missing in the new list layout.

Interesting, thanks for that information. I think nobody here knows about the quantity of such deletion request from the past. I assume it was rather low. So I'm suprised that it seems necessary to reduce staff time for it but regardless of the numbers from the past it's obvious that this numbers will increase now because it's possible to do it without any hassle for the user. I imagine new users trying out geocaching, writing some logs and after finding out that they no longer enjoy the hobby decide to quit and since the button exist they (and maybe even longer paritipating members) will click it assuming that's even the prefered action in that situation. Could you please add some text to make it clear that this is the least prefered option for the community of participants and should only be choosen in exeptional cases. I see (to my disappointment) that the possibility to hide the found caches and the gallery is already used to an extent that is noteworthy. I wished also on that settings page it is made clear that (while possible to eventually comply with certain privacy laws) hiding this information are not the prefered settings in a community driven hobby/game.

I don't want to believe that this is a necessary measure to comply with privacy laws but IANAL. It reads as if the logs are completely removed without any remains. Please, please leave at least the date and the logtype together with an "deleted_user" visible in the log history of all caches. Every user should have the right to delete certain, specific information she or he no longer wants to be accessible on the internet. But I disagree that deleting a big number of logs written with the explicit intention to be published and to be seen for all, just with the click of a button is in order.

My first random pick of one of your caches. Well.... <SCNR>

Thanks for looking into the issue. I was talking about the "Latest activity on your hides" which is the first shown page after clicking on "Cache owner dashboard" under the "Play" menu option on top. I see only one(!) log from 21st of August 2021 on my cache GC88Z1B I don't see any logs with a later date especially two DNF logs from March 2022 I was surprised not to see. But like barefootjeff I just figured that this August 2021 log was written as late as of 9th of April 2022 So I guess it will also vanish soon from that page since apparently only logs written within a couple of recent weeks are shown there. I wished in case of few logs they would not be removed so quickly and also that own logs are shown but it's not a pressing issue to me.