cezanne
-
Posts
6753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cezanne
-
-
The point of my post was that maybe the idea of having a pop-up message to confirm that a cacher really wants to log a duplicate find on a cache might be more complicated than TPTB's chosen route of just denying all duplicate 'Found It' logs.
As almost all accidental duplicate found it logs are sent within a short period of time, one could also block duplicate found it logs that are received within say 30 minutes or an hour.
-
I sometimes wonder if COs use NM instead of Disable because 'disable' gets the attention of a reviewer and sets the clock.
A reviewer might come along a month later and post a note asking if the cache will be fixed, which then sets the clock for archival.
I have not seen such a case. In those cases where I have seen NM used by cache owners it was due to minor issues where disabling the cache did not seem appropriate and quite often the NM log was posted by the cache owner because those who pointed out the problem did not want to do so (and only reported their observation by e-mail or in a log of a different type).
Some situations where an owner NM makes perfect sense, is helpful and harmless.
Someone mentions that he plans to bring a new pencil and that those who to visit the cache before are welcome to leave a pencil if it is convenient for them. Someone mentions that taking a new spoiler photo being more accurate to the changed level of vegetation is planned and that if someone happens to visit the cache and does not bother to take a spoiler photo their help would be appreiated.
As a cache owner who does not want to attract any attention to a cache I rather would not log anything at all and even less a NM - I would wait for other cachers to act.
-
...this sort of argument does not explain at all why cache owners cannot log any longer NM and DNF logs for their caches.
I have seen a couple examples of why some cache owners have logged such on their own caches, but they are unconvincing. For the life of me, I don't see the necessity. If I'm looking for my own cache and I can't find it, I either replace the cache on the spot if I have one (and then leave an "Owner Maintenance" log stating so), or if I don't have the means to replace the cache, I disable it (again, there's a log for that).
Necessary might not be the right term. Everything can be conveyed with notes.
If I wanted to write a DNF log for one of my caches, I would of course add a different log in addition too.
It would be just for a complete recording of the history.
If I happen to come across a cache that I have found previously and where I pass later again and know for sure that the cache is gone, I do write a DNF log too and not an NM log (or if I do not only a NM log) or a note or an e-mail to the cache owner.
Similarly, if one of my caches really needs maintenance, I am an adult who can remember things and can make a note of it somewhere, or if it's really that bad, I can disable the cache.
I have come across several cases where cachers wrote messages to the cache owners and told them that a cache needs maintenance and even more cases where such minor cases are mentioned in a normal log. There are many cachers out there who do not want to use NM logs.
(That's one such example
- the log is in German but you can read German.)
In quite a number of these cases writing a NM log made perfect sense and even more so if the cache owner asked the cachers that might visit the cache before him/her for some assistance (could be something minor like please send me
a photo of ....., or please add a pencil if you do not mind).
Of course the same message can be conveyed with notes as well but then why have NM logs at all? (Personally, I can do without them perfectly well and I would never have introduced them. Howeever if they are there, a restriction like the present one does not make sense.
Disabling a cache that needs maintenance or has gone missing also gives me incentive to get my butt back out there and fix or replace the cache before a reviewer gets involved, rather than just stringing people along with "Yeah, I'll get to it eventually" and trying to hide the cache's true state from the reviewer.
I do not think that a cache should be disabled if a pencil got moved out of the cache, a magnet has become weak, only three additional info sheets are available or whatever of that type.
If someone has a really convincing argument on why cache owners still need to be able to log DNFs and Needs Maintenance on their own caches, I'd be curious to see it.
Tell me a really convincing argument for having different log types at all. There is a workaround for nearly everything.
The real question is why to restrict cachers and impose on them rules for their workflow and preferences based on the individual preferences/points of views of others.
It's quite clear that some cachers like you come from the pragmatic/functional side which is not the real issue here.
At some point someone else might come along and argue that we do need the option to write multiple DNF logs and that one suffices and that further such logs could be done as note and that a single DNF log suffices to mark caches as attempted but not yet found. They could argue that multiple DNFs serve no further purpose and that if someone wants to express concern that a cache got lost, they could file a NM log.
I would want to have the option to file even 20 DNF logs for the same cache over time. For me it's about recording my experience in the way which seems best suitable to me.
-
I'm glad that this error will be prevented in the future. Just like with Needs Archived and Temporarily Disable logs, which you can't post when the listing is already archived or disabled.
There would have been easier and less invasive ways to achieve that - like being asked "Do you really want to submit a second found it log?".
Moreover, this sort of argument does not explain at all why cache owners cannot log any longer NM and DNF logs for their caches.
Was it meant to?
Most probably not but noone so far has provided any convincing argument for that sort of change.
Hardly a counter-argument to the point raised then. Irrlevant in fact. At least that explains why it didn't make sense.
It was not intended to be a counter argument. The counter argument was made in the first sentence if you want to use that term. This thread is about all changes to the logging process and so the second sentence is relevant to the thread too.
-
Moreover, this sort of argument does not explain at all why cache owners cannot log any longer NM and DNF logs for their caches.
For me, the most logical reason is database storage and resource allocation. The less information you have to store in the database the easier it is to maintain.
I'm confused. What changes for the database if the NM log is for example then posted by a second account?
Or if the cache owner posts a note saying that they could not find their own cache?
-
I'm glad that this error will be prevented in the future. Just like with Needs Archived and Temporarily Disable logs, which you can't post when the listing is already archived or disabled.
There would have been easier and less invasive ways to achieve that - like being asked "Do you really want to submit a second found it log?".
Moreover, this sort of argument does not explain at all why cache owners cannot log any longer NM and DNF logs for their caches.
Was it meant to?
Most probably not but noone so far has provided any convincing argument for that sort of change.
-
I'm glad that this error will be prevented in the future. Just like with Needs Archived and Temporarily Disable logs, which you can't post when the listing is already archived or disabled.
There would have been easier and less invasive ways to achieve that - like being asked "Do you really want to submit a second found it log?".
Moreover, this sort of argument does not explain at all why cache owners cannot log any longer NM and DNF logs for their caches.
-
But on what basis if they do not contain insults?
For virtuals and ECs you have ALRs but only for found it logs.
I think it's a lot easier to ask Groundspeak for approval to treat notes in the same way as found it logs on those to caches, and let the owner delete notes that haven't sent the correct answers, than to get them to add the exception they've said multiple times that they won't add.
I think both is something which won't happen.
-
Of course there is! Every cache owner can delete notes, just as he/she can delete found it logs.
But on what basis if they do not contain insults?
For virtuals and ECs you have ALRs but only for found it logs.
-
You bypassed my point. Notes can pile up as unverified, so why actually climb that mountain?
Sure, it's a slight bother proving your find. So is climbing the mountain. Pulling it off and proving it is where the FUN comes in.
You can still do all of those things perfectly well using notes in combination with exactly the same email mechanism you've always used.
The point is, how is one more FUN than the other?
The way I understand the difference is that right now only logs are allowed as find logs on the YOSM cache that fulfill the requirements. Everyone can write a note and they could e.g.
try to make fun of the tagging system and post 100 notes with tags to perturb the stats and the cache owner could do absolutely nothing about it. There are rules for found it logs but not for notes.
As to the fun question: I can only speak for myself. I have never logged a brass cap cache but what I do know is that I prefer by far if a long and challenging hiking cache is logged as find only by those who did the hike. Finding my log among the logs of people who have not done the hike would not change my personal experience but would add a bad taste for me. It's like presenting a booklet with control stamps collected along a long hike and getting a certificate as return to showing your booklet - it is not the same as if everyone who claims to have done the hike gets the booklet.
-
If we had the raw info/stats we could query to come out with variations on the data. And most of us could come up with stats that show anything we wanted them to show such as an actual increase of "active" cachers if we define "acive" in a way that the data favors.
The data (including the difference data) are from project-gc.com and they refer to cachers logging caches and the way the data is collected did not change.
What needs to be treated with caution is however the fact that the data from project-gc do not take into account late logs when making such comparisons.
-
I'm missing the willingness to accept slight inconveniences as price of not destroying the enjoyment of others.
Absolutely priceless!
Most if not all of your posts amount to your lack of willingness to accept slight inconveniences! And that of 'many' geocachers who apparently would rather throw in the towel than accept them.
Talk about double standards
I guess you then misread my statements. I usually write either about my preferences or what I observe in the local community and not what I want the site to prescribe on others.
It's quite easy to make someone leave geocaching who is not any longer attached to it and who just keeps some caches for the enjoyment of others. There small things then can suffice to make yet another one leave.
Those who are still very attached to geocaching are rather in a position where one could hope that they are willing to accept compromises and also see the needs of others within the activity.
-
All of this back and forth, end of the day, nothing will change, just as what happened with the new map icons.
I did not have the slightest hope that GS will change something on the basis of this thread. Parts of the discussion might have an effect on the discussed special caches as maybe they could continue to exist with a sort of log tagging as has been suggested here.
What I found once again revealing is something which does not concern GS but cachers out there. When I read wishes like that all multiple logs should retroactively deleted (not that I believe that this will ever be implemented) just to allow some cachers e.g. to determine which event had the most participants makes me shudder and it is even worse if some of these requests come from people who are attached to statistics sites like project-gc and others as this might give them a higher priority at GS as they should have.
I'm missing the willingness to accept slight inconveniences as price of not destroying the enjoyment of others.
-
One key issue seems to be that GS does not have a way to educate cachers that enter caching via the apps and never use the website. This is something they should take care by redesigning the app and not by restricting those who have used the website for many, many years.
In which case I must have imagined or dreamt about those little educational videos that have been added to the app.
And the little popup reminders on certain log types - like the one which pops up on initiating a log on an EarthCache for example, reminding you to submit your answers to the CO - that must have been an hallucination
Does this happen for needs maintenance too? if so, why should it then be confusing if a cache owner can use this log type too?
-
> ...even though it was always considered "bad form".
No, it wasn't in those cases. It was even what has been suggested to do.
Not "in those cases". It's bad form according to the guidelines. They are universal, no exception to individual regions or communities.
Show me the spot where this has been said in the guidelines at the time when these caches have been published.
It has not been there and it has not been considered as bad form. It was part of the concept to log moving caches and recurring events multiple times. That's not the same as logging an event multiple times to log temporary caches that existed only on the day of the event. The latter has always been based on exploiting a loophole by some local communities while the former was a whole different story.
-
One key issue seems to be that GS does not have a way to educate cachers that enter caching via the apps and never use the website. This is something they should take care by redesigning the app and not by restricting those who have used the website for many, many years.
Some of whom have used the website for many, many years without contributing a single bean to its upkeep and development yet somehow still feel empowered to dictate precisely how that website should operate
If you mean me, I do not dictate anything. I'm not affected by the changes they are implementing now but I feel with those who are affected and I do not share the opinion that there are more benefits than losses.
-
The YOSM site records the activities of all involved, not only of cachers who happen to include something into their profile.
You don't need to include anything in your profile, but you need to include the YSM number in your log (just like you need to include the FTF-tag in your log). The YOSM site works exactly like the FTF parsing does:
What I wrote was in reply to NYPaddleCacher who suggested that alternative could be used to tagging logs.
Right now the YOSM system only looks at found it logs. If notes are used too, tagging would be required to distinguish between notes that describe a visit and other notes.
I was only elaborating on what niraD suggested regarding an automated way to keep track of YOSM visits. The point is that even though GS doesn't keep track of and display FTFs that those that enjoy the FTF game work around it using whatever method works best, and somehow that hasn't seemed to ruin the FTF game for those that play it. That would all be moot if the CO decides to archive the YOSM cache.
I understood what you said as saying that there are alternatives to niraD's suggestion which do not require a systematic tagging on the side of the loggers. There are cachers who collect their FTFs in different manners and do not make use of the project-gc tagging. For the YOSM it would be important that everyone tags their logs.
-
What some folks find 'innocuous', others may find 'annoying' or 'frustrating'. Who are you to denigrate those who do? Personally, I find many things bothersome that others do not...and there are things that bother others that I don't really take issue with.
If we abolish everything in geocaching that annoys someone, nothing will remain. If I lived in the UK, I would not have chosen to log multiple finds for the brass cap cache but I feel that taking away the option to log multiple finds for this cache and similar ones is plain wrong and is not compensated by what is won which is mainly on the bookkeeping and formal level in my opinion and I never thought the inspiring part of geocaching to be about that level.
I don't imagine they take system-wide changes lightly, so I have to assume the issue became big enough to make them move on it.
I'm not so sure. For example, when it comes to not confusing newer cachers, I rather think what would be needed is a system that enforces a certain form of education for cache owners. I'm not a fan of asking for a certain number of finds before someone can hide a cache. However putting restrictions on the usage of NM logs for cache owners, is something which should not be motivated by the wish not to confuse new community members. They could have a compulsory quiz about the meanings of log types that everyone needs to pass before being allowed to hide a cache. And then owner written NM logs are usually something which will typically not come up at the very beginning of a cache either so that gives newer members a quite long time to learn.
One key issue seems to be that GS does not have a way to educate cachers that enter caching via the apps and never use the website. This is something they should take care by redesigning the app and not by restricting those who have used the website for many, many years.
-
Clearly "innocuous" is quite subjective. All the concerns such as accidental multi-logging, drama induced by COs deleting duplicate logs and the cacher not realizing, people using the multi-log ability to increase their numbers, yadda yadda. They may be innocuous to you, but they were raised as legitimate examples of problems that are being addressed by limiting to one find per cache.
Recurring events for example happened with the full knowledge of Groundspeak including multiple logs - the same happened for moving caches. It's not about loopholes in these cases - it's about restricting flexibility that Groundspeak once allowed
...even though it was always considered "bad form".
No, it wasn't in those cases. It was even what has been suggested to do.
Thus, it seems the drawbacks from this new rule being programmatically enforced are far outweighed by the benefits (despite resolving issues you may feel are 'innocuous').
I do not agree at all.
Okay. You're wrong though.
I do not think that this something anyone can be right or wrong about. It's subjective.
-
Clearly "innocuous" is quite subjective. All the concerns such as accidental multi-logging, drama induced by COs deleting duplicate logs and the cacher not realizing, people using the multi-log ability to increase their numbers, yadda yadda. They may be innocuous to you, but they were raised as legitimate examples of problems that are being addressed by limiting to one find per cache.
Recurring events for example happened with the full knowledge of Groundspeak including multiple logs - the same happened for moving caches. It's not about loopholes in these cases - it's about restricting flexibility that Groundspeak once allowed.
The guidance that can meanwhile found in the help centre has never been part of the guidelines. Until a few years ago the guidelines were concise and available as a single file. It was clear what was part of the guidelines and what not. Now they use to add many help center articles and this does not seem to happen in a very coordinated manner. Often the help center articles respond to questions or concerns that have often been raised, but they are not really guidelines. This by the way also holds for the famous briansnat quote about location - if it were a guidelines, Groundspeak could not go on publishing power trails.
Thus, it seems the drawbacks from this new rule being programmatically enforced are far outweighed by the benefits (despite resolving issues you may feel are 'innocuous').
I do not agree at all. Accidentical multi-logging and these type of things are not a real problem for me apart from the fact that a more reliable data connection and the question "Do you really wish to post a second log?" would be able to handle these issues just as well. For me already the loss to the UK community is higher than whatever the benefits of the change could be and I ignore there the changes like no NM logs for cache owners.
-
The YOSM site records the activities of all involved, not only of cachers who happen to include something into their profile.
You don't need to include anything in your profile, but you need to include the YSM number in your log (just like you need to include the FTF-tag in your log). The YOSM site works exactly like the FTF parsing does:
What I wrote was in reply to NYPaddleCacher who suggested that alternative could be used to tagging logs.
Right now the YOSM system only looks at found it logs. If notes are used too, tagging would be required to distinguish between notes that describe a visit and other notes.
-
That's one way finds on a YOSM cache could be counted. For the FTF game, others will create a bookmark list of their FTFs. Others will create a spreadsheet or other type of files on their computer which contains a list of FTFs. Some just edit their profile page and add the GC code for each FTF they get.
Somehow, despite the fact that GS doesn't count FTFs and publish the number of FTFs one has on the site, a lot of people continue to enjoy that side game.
While I do not care about the FTFs of another cacher, I do see extra benefit from what a site like YOSM offers. There you can look at maps for every cacher who logged the cache at least once and you can then have a look at the associated logs which is handy for example when one knows that cacher A has a similar preference than oneself - then looking at the brass caps they visited and the logs they wrote is an interesting thing to do for some cachers.
The YOSM site records the activities of all involved, not only of cachers who happen to include something into their profile.
The suggestion made by NiraD would allow to continue with the way the site works while the alternatives you suggest only would only be of personal use.
-
I don't see why ice-skating shouldn't be allowed. And hiking is no problem, you just make an event at either the starting point or at the destination, and mention in the description that people can join the hike before/after the event. Problem solved.
This does not change the fact that what ends up as the geocaching.com event is the dull part of standing around while the interesting part can happen but is not part of the official event.
All these 1/1 events out there clearly demonstrate that.
It goes without saying that whatever activities can take place before or after a gc.com event. What counts when it comes to the rules at this site is what this allows and that brings me back to what I see at the centre of this thread.
There has been much more flexibility in the earlier years and so much more rigidity entered in recent years most of which I regard as a loss regardless of whether it concerns me personally or not. I do not think that the collateral damage caused by most of these changes (including the one we discuss about in this thread) is worth when compared to what might be won.
-
I'm all for events lasting more than the minimum half-hour, having activities more than just meeting at a parking lot and people staying for the entire duration. None of that is hindered by using event listings as they are meant to be used; one per actual event. Reusing a listing doesn't add anything apart from confusion.
I do not regard a monthly event at the same inn at the same time as a geocaching event in its own right. As I said the role of the geocaching listing for me was just to alert the local community that there is a regular meeting. Personally I would prefer to count event attendance not as a geocaching find anyhow.
As the activities are regarded, the event guidelines outrule most almost all interesting types of activities as part of the official event which will in most cases end up as something boring.
Then simply just don't log events. Problem solved.
Not really because it's still interesting to see which events one attended although one does not want them to be mixed with geocaching finds.
I chose to log the recurring events that existed in my area only once as attended and do not have logged a single cache more than once a find however.
I'm a big fan of nice virtuals too but again I'd like to see them as something separate.
What kind of activities does the guidelines outrule? I've been to a lot of events with fun and interesting activities.
Everything moving - like a hike, ice-skating etc
The official event is just sitting around. Whatever else takes place if at all can happen before or after the event which is not what I regard as a good idea for an outdoor hobby. I have been at events I enjoyed very much but they took place years ago before the rules have been tightened.
Is Geocaching Dead?
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by cezanne
Perspectives are quite different indeed. I'm fully satisfied with 5-10 finders even for a whole year.
Is such a cache placement common in your area? In mine it is not.
Would a reviewer right now be allowed to reject a cache with a bad container? I do not think so.
Maybe it's just my area, but it appears to me that new cachers nowadays rather use better containers than beginners more than 10 years ago as many buy containers at geocaching shops.
Of course there is the occasional cache placed by a beginner, often children, with an unsuitable container but often those are later exchanged based on feedback.
Powertrails and bad locations seem a larger issue to me.
I guess such a rule would much more hurt longer hiking caches and remote caches.
I do maintenance when it seems appropriate and would not be willing to visit all my caches once a year regardless of whether it is necessary or not.
Why do normal logs and NM logs not suffice? Those who do not care will not use the rating system. Moreover, I would not know how to use a 1-5 scale reasonably too.
It seems more important to me to motivate cachers to hide new good caches and to maintain the existing ones. Too many rules rather have a demotivating effect in my experience.