Way To Learn Who Has Viewed Your Cache Listing?

July 13, 2005

Hi all,

I was an event the other night when I someone told me "Hey, I'm surprised you didn't go find my new cache, you were first to view it."

I didn't think to ask...but how did he know I viewed it? Is there some HTML code I can put in the short or long description that emails me or tracks the login of just who's been looking at my caches on gc.com?

Thanks,

Mr. Wisearse.

2.2k · July 13, 2005

It was obviously a "Memeber's Only" Cache.

MO caches have a link for the cache owner which shows them the audit log.

The audit log is a list of who has viewed your MO cache, when and how many times. The audit log is only available on MO caches.

July 13, 2005

Thanks!

All my caches are MO caches, but I can't seem to find this audit log you speak of, the log which allows me to see who's viewed my cache.

Sorry, I must have my head up my.... Any tips where to find it?

Thanks,

Mr. Wisearse.

[edit: Doh! Sorry, I don't think I've done a MO cache, come to think of it, guess I should start changing mine....]

Edited July 13, 2005 by Mr. & Mrs. Wisearse

2.2k · July 13, 2005

The audit log link can be found in the top left corner of the page just underneath the cache title.

2.2k · July 13, 2005

I just viewed your newest cache which is a MO. My name should appear in the audit log.

July 13, 2005

Sure enough, there is WH! Thanks a ton for the tip, we just went back and changed a few of our caches to MO. Heck, they should all be if you ask me. Kudos to the good folk running gc.com.

Cheers,

Mr. Wisearse.

July 13, 2005

What's the possibility of the audit log being made available to Premiums/Charters on all caches, member-only or not? This would be another incentive for non-members to consider joining. I really like the audit log on my MO puzzle caches to see who is working on them, but after FTF or so I open the cache up to everyone and really miss the audit log.

I guess it seems kind of arbitrary to have the audit log be keyed only to MO caches.

9.4k · July 13, 2005

I guess it seems kind of arbitrary to have the audit log be keyed only to MO caches.

You have to be logged in for a "view" to be tied to your listing. And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

July 13, 2005

Sure enough, there is WH! Thanks a ton for the tip, we just went back and changed a few of our caches to MO. Heck, they should all be if you ask me. Kudos to the good folk running gc.com.

Cheers,

Mr. Wisearse.

As far as I know, non-MO caches have audit logs, too, and you can always view the audit logs by switching the caches temporarily to MO status. That is to say, you just switch them to MO, look at the audit log and then switch them back to non-MO.

July 13, 2005

I just tried this with one of my caches that has 3 people watching it. My audit log only shows me.

Last Visit First Visit User #Times

7/12/2005 10:57 PM 7/12/2005 NomadVW 1

Server local time is 7/12/2005 10:57 PM

2.2k · July 13, 2005

As far as I know, non-MO caches have audit logs, too, and you can always view the audit logs by switching the caches temporarily to MO status. That is to say, you just switch them to MO, look at the audit log and then switch them back to non-MO.

The audit log only shows who has visited your cache page while it is in MO status.

Anyone who views your cache page while it is off MO, will not be recorded.

2.6k · July 13, 2005

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

By "available" do you mean available to view? If a lot of people take you up on that, aren't you running the risk that someone checking out GC for the first time will think there aren't many caches in his area? I know one of my first "gee whiz" moments with geocaching was plugging in my zip code and being amazed at how many caches there were close by. The fact that there was one just down the street somehow made the impetus to join more urgent.

July 13, 2005

...all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

Even that would IMHO be a cool feature!

There are a lot of people out who browse listings online (even in parallel to downloading them offline in a PQ). I guess most of them will be registered members who are logged in to make use of the available features (like filter out/indicate your founds).

Best regards,

HoPri

July 13, 2005

The audit log only shows who has visited your cache page while it is in MO status.

Anyone who views your cache page while it is off MO, will not be recorded.

OK, then I was misinformed, sorry about that. Don't blame me though, I read this here in the forums...

July 13, 2005

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

And why do you think that information is useless?

9.4k · July 13, 2005

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

By "available" do you mean available to view?

The owner of this listing has made this page viewable to logged in users only. Login or create a new account.

9.4k · July 13, 2005

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

And why do you think that information is useless?

Oh give it a rest as77.

July 13, 2005

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

And why do you think that information is useless?

Oh give it a rest as77.

We heard the customer-friendly company CEO again.

2.2k · July 13, 2005

WARNING!!

The Surgeon General has determined that mouthing off to Jeremy could be hazardous to your forum posting priviledges.

9.4k · July 13, 2005

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

And why do you think that information is useless?

Oh give it a rest as77.

We heard the customer-friendly company CEO again.

You probably missed that topic where I said I subscribe to the idea of firing my worst customers.

July 13, 2005

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

That would be acceptable. You can't log who you can't identify. I would think most people stay logged in via cookie for the sake of convenience. After all, this isn't PayPal. :blink:

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

Sounds like that will kill two birds with one stone. I like it.

Thanks for the timely reponses, Jeremy.

1.9k · July 14, 2005

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

that would be cool. I'd like that idea better than having MOC. I hope this comes someday soon.

6.8k · July 14, 2005

I guess it seems kind of arbitrary to have the audit log be keyed only to MO caches.

You have to be logged in for a "view" to be tied to your listing. And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

Since cache listings can be viewed without being forced to create an account and log in, all the audit log would do is show listings that are viewed by logged in users.

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

In this way you will, however, kind of force cachers who do not feel comfortable with that to open up additional sort of sock puppet accounts just to avoid that other cachers get into possession of sensitive data like who has viewed which cache and at which time.

(This data can be made available whereever the owner of the audit log wishes and for whatever purpose, also for evil ones.)

I feel that the combination of alias+exact time when a cache has been looked at is already too much to offer to individual users. I am aware of the fact that MOCs already offer such spying methods, but fortunately there almost no MOCs in my area.

Cezanne

July 14, 2005

You have to be logged in for a "view" to be tied to your listing. And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

The purpose of the audit list is defeated because the list is incomplete.

2.2k · July 14, 2005

When Im bored, Ill sit down and open and close a MOC a bunch of times just to make the owner wonder why I looked at their cache page 150 times.

1.2k · July 14, 2005

When Im bored, Ill sit down and open and close a MOC a bunch of times just to make the owner wonder why I looked at their cache page 150 times.

Try that as a reviewer. I open a MO cache with my CO Admin account one time to show someone something, It was a random choice. I had an email the next wanting to know what I was doing look at their cache sine I lived a 1000 miles away.

I loved that email

July 14, 2005

I do plan to add the ability for cache owners to make their caches available only to logged in users. In this case audit logs would make sense.

I don't quite seem to get the point in audit logs:

Is this some strange way of hidden LE activity or whats the purpose of this data being available at least to cache owners and GC.com?

I wouldn't want to see my internet activities and RL-movements being available to persons that are not legally bound to keep the same confidence in data treatment as my internet provider has to.

BS/2

July 14, 2005

And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

Sorry, but no! Not "folks", but just premium members can do so.

By limiting the access to caches to those who are willing to unveil their internet activity, you'd sort of give up your first commandment ("Everyone will be allowed to see the cache description without being a paying member").

This sounds like a dangerous development to me.

BS/2

9.1k · July 14, 2005

You have to be logged in for a "view" to be tied to your listing. And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

The purpose of the audit list is defeated because the list is incomplete.

Right, so why have *any* of these audit features? They're misleading.

I am about to get on the road to attend an event cache. Using three pocket query files and third party mapping and waypoint management software, I've constructed a linear route to my destination, plus a 500-cache circle around the location of the event, and loaded nearly 1000 waypoints onto my GPS receivers. If I felt like it, I could rack up 100 finds over the next four days.

I have opened a grand total of *two* cache pages in order to prepare for this trip: the event cache page, and one multicache along the way which I've heard great things about. And, the only ones that I'll ever open will be the caches that I actually search for. Usually the first and only time that I open a cache page is when I log my find. Afterwards, if I liked the cache a lot or if I DNF'd it, the page will go onto one of my bookmark lists. I'll then read e-mail notices for future logs, and again never visit the cache page.

2k · July 14, 2005

I don't quite seem to get the point in audit logs:

BS/2

This does seems a little strange.

I wasn't aware that viewing a MOC listing would identify me to the cache owner.

Jeremy has responded to other requests to track users ("who is watching my cache"? "can I get notified of all cache logs for a certain user") by [correctly, I think] saying this was too much like stalking and an invasion of privacy.

Why is this different?

2.2k · July 14, 2005

That's a very good question.

Why allow us access to the audit log on MOC's and not allow us to see whos watching our cache?

July 14, 2005

You have to be logged in for a "view" to be tied to your listing. And as others have pointed out, folks can use pocket queries to get them without showing up on an audit log anyway.

The purpose of the audit list is defeated because the list is incomplete.

Right, so why have *any* of these audit features? They're misleading.

Because of the way these features are currently implemented, I must agree with you. But I think a lot of people would prefer seeing the audit list upgraded to include the usernames of those downloading MOC information via PQ.

As I understand it, MOCs, and especially their audit list, were touted as a security feature (and a primary selling point) when Charter Memberships were introduced. No doubt they provided that security until PQs were introduced. Apparently, when PQs were introduced, people noticed rather quickly that they could circumvent MOC audit lists by running PQs.

I don't know if it has ever been explained in the forums, but the issue has existed for so long that it would appear to have been either deliberate or too difficult to fix. Either way, the value of MOCs (and especially the value of their audit list) list has been negated by PQs.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Yankees Win!

2.2k · July 14, 2005

When I run a PQ, I typically download the 500 nearest caches to wherever I am going that day. Once at the area, I then decide which caches I will seek based mostly upon their proximity to my location at the time.

If my name appears on the audit log for a MOC because it happened to be one of the 500 included in my PQ, it does not mean that I intended to seek it, or even looked at it. I just happen to download it.

9.4k · July 14, 2005

Why allow us access to the audit log on MOC's and not allow us to see whos watching our cache?

Users didn't want it.

July 14, 2005

Only a little off topic maybe...when I go to check the newest caches hidden on my "state page" there is no indication that one of the new caches is or isn't a MOC. I'm a member, so not seeing a MOC isn't an issue. But if I click on the cache link and go to the page and find it is a MOC, now I will show up on the audit log - even if I don't want to. I never even knew it was a MOC. Could those be identifed on the "state pages?"

2k · July 14, 2005

Why allow us access to the audit log on MOC's and not allow us to see whos watching our cache?

Users didn't want it.

Did users really want to be tracked every time they access a MOC? I don't remember ever saying I did, but I've only been around 2.5 years.

Maybe if you'd make a log entry every time a PQ retrieved the cache the MOC owners would be so drowned in data that it wouldn't make any difference.

20.7k · July 14, 2005

Here's my problem with audut logs:

Two long-time cachers get in a snit. They tell their buddies about it, so its out there, but they both go on with their lives.

An easy way to check out a small areas new caches is to pull up a cache that you had found in the specific area and then pull up a list of the nearest caches to it. One of the two cachers on occasion uses the others caches for this purpose. A few of those caches go missing.

Audit logs are pulled, pitchforks are sharpened, and torches are lit. Why would a cacher pull up a cache that he has already found (sometimes on several occasions) if he was not up to no good? He must have stolen the caches because of the snit, right? Wrong.

9.4k · July 14, 2005

Did users really want to be tracked every time they access a MOC? I don't remember ever saying I did, but I've only been around 2.5 years.

I didn't ask.

Maybe if you'd make a log entry every time a PQ retrieved the cache the MOC owners would be so drowned in data that it wouldn't make any difference.

Yes. Hilarious.

July 14, 2005

Did users really want to be tracked every time they access a MOC?

I didn't ask.

Sadly, you also didn't ask/notify those who purchased Charter Memberships specifically because they wanted the highly-touted security provided by the MOC audit list before you negated the value of the feature. My guess is, a lot of those early Charter Members felt defrauded. But I didn't ask.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Yankees Win!

20.7k · July 14, 2005

I forgive you, Jeremy.

July 19, 2005

While knowing who was looking at what may be entertaining,

I hope management has given more important things higher priority.

Finding QUALITY caches along a highway is very time consuming and a feature

that should have first priority.

Edited July 19, 2005 by jimmyreno

July 19, 2005

Wow, some of you apparently live in really High-Drama regions. I think I would sooner not "play the game" rather than be subjected to such politics.

Sad.

Way To Learn Who Has Viewed Your Cache Listing?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment