Jump to content

Removing/suppressing All Logs


J.A.R.S.
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

This came up in a letterboxing forum I participate in.

Background information: You can't log a message on the letterboxing.org and the atlasquest.com sites. The sites allow finders to flag the letterbox as found or attempted, but you can't expound on your box-searching experience.

 

I commented on how, as a finder and a hider of geocaches (and letterboxes), I really like the logging feature on gc.com and wish that it were possible to do so on the LB databases. However there are a number of LB hiders that do not want finders to log a comment and would be very unhappy if the sites adopted this feature. Many of those hiders that feel strongly against logs also don't like the flag feature and have disabled it on their box clues, i.e. finders can't flag their box as found or attempted - flagging is an option the LB hider has control over.

 

It got me thinking....I don't recall anything in the forums from geocache hiders that didn't like the logging feature. Has anyone asked that they be allowed to disable the ability for finders to log a comment? Just contemplating the difference in attitudes between letterbox hiders (especially those that have been hiding since 1998) and geocache hiders and whether disabling the logging feature has been discussed. You can Markwell me if it has. Not that I ever want to see the logging feature disabled because I really like it. Just curious.

 

R of J.A.R.S.

Link to comment

It comes up quite a bit.

 

Some goecachers would make it so only the cache owner could see their log. Others won't log online at all because they are against stats, are computer illiterate, cache with a partner who does all the logging, are paranoid about being on the 'grid' and so on.

 

Locally it's about 40% who don't log online. That's based on a cache that is a good vertical hike to get too.

 

The irony here is that I think it's the online logging and listing that let geocaching take off like it has. It's easy for people to find a cache to hunt and owners get feedback that their caches are being hunted and place more.

 

The thing about the logging feature is that you don't have to use it so it harms nobody to exist. Though as you have seen that doesn't mean there isn't controversy and opinions.

Link to comment

I don't think its has been discussed here. I just don't think it would be popular. Personally I think online logs are a big part of why geocaching has far surpassed letterboxing in popularity even though letterboxing had a slight head start of more than 125 years.

 

The logs promote a sense of community and shared experiences that you don't get with letterboxing. The nearly instant feedback also encourages people to hide more geocaches. I know I'd be less likely to hide caches if I didn't know people were out there finding them and enjoying them. Its probably why, while I both letterbox and geocache, I've hidden nearly 150 geocaches and have yet to hide a letterbox.

Link to comment

It comes up quite a bit.

 

Some goecachers would make it so only the cache owner could see their log. Others won't log online at all because they are against stats, are computer illiterate, cache with a partner who does all the logging, are paranoid about being on the 'grid' and so on.

 

Locally it's about 40% who don't log online. That's based on a cache that is a good vertical hike to get too.

 

The irony here is that I think it's the online logging and listing that let geocaching take off like it has. It's easy for people to find a cache to hunt and owners get feedback that their caches are being hunted and place more.

 

The thing about the logging feature is that you don't have to use it so it harms nobody to exist. Though as you have seen that doesn't mean there isn't controversy and opinions.

 

Sadly, it's also online logging that's turned a hobby/sport into a contest, where people compare the size of their virtual anatomy as a measurement of worth. More and more, I've come to sympathize with that 40% and will very likely join them.

Link to comment
Sadly, it's also online logging that's turned a hobby/sport into a contest, where people compare the size of their virtual anatomy as a measurement of worth. More and more, I've come to sympathize with that 40% and will very likely join them.

 

 

Only for those who choose to let it. Personally I don't give a cat's patootie about my numbers or those of others, but online logging is important to me. I figure if the cache owner spends the time, money and effort to hide a cache for me to find, the least I can do is log online to tell him that I found it and enjoyed myself.

 

If others choose to make it a contest that's their business. More power to them.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

:laughing:

 

I disagree. The online log doesn't make it a contest, the fact that the number of finds is posted does. The online log merely gives feedback to the owner and amusement for other readers.

 

Yeah, I should have been more clear- the presence of the online log and the numbering of how many you've found creates a sense of competition that cheapens the whole experience, especially in the context of some of the other threads where people are going at it hammer and tongs over finds/DNFs/FTF, and so on.

 

It's all so juvenile and maybe I'm overreacting, but I find it distasteful to watch adults carry on like my six year old son, even if it's only on a forum.

 

Personally, I want to have fun, and I'm reasonably certain I'll be able to do that without logging finds online. :lol:

Link to comment

:laughing:

 

I disagree. The online log doesn't make it a contest, the fact that the number of finds is posted does. The online log merely gives feedback to the owner and amusement for other readers.

 

Yeah, I should have been more clear- the presence of the online log and the numbering of how many you've found creates a sense of competition that cheapens the whole experience, especially in the context of some of the other threads where people are going at it hammer and tongs over finds/DNFs/FTF, and so on.

 

It's all so juvenile and maybe I'm overreacting, but I find it distasteful to watch adults carry on like my six year old son, even if it's only on a forum.

 

Personally, I want to have fun, and I'm reasonably certain I'll be able to do that without logging finds online. :lol:

 

I think you're paying way too much attention to the tiny minority of geocachers who visit the forums. The forums are not geocaching. Its silly to let what goes on here color your perception of the sport. The truth is that without the online logs, I doubt this sport would have taken off the way it did, I also doubt a lot of owners would be placing caches for us to find, without the prompt feedback they get from the logs.

Link to comment

...It's all so juvenile and maybe I'm overreacting, but I find it distasteful to watch adults carry on like my six year old son, even if it's only on a forum....

I'm with you. I laugh every time someone posts something like 'I was talking to the # two cacher and...'. Whatever.

 

I don't think that it's a log issue, however. Its a numbers thing that only affects 'those people'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The problem with the argument that anything (logs, find counts, etc...) makes geocaching into a contest, is that in order for it be a contest you must have someone to compete against.

 

If someone is looking at my find count and saying "Ha, I beat him by two finds this weekend" then more power to them. If they wish to compete with me so be it. It only effects me if I chose to compete back.

 

I do find looking at someone else's list of finds interesting. Not in that I want to compete with them, but in that they may have some insight into certain things that I'm not aware of yet.

 

If you feel that someone is competing with you and you don't like it, then the best option would probably be to log your finds as notes. That way your finds aren't reflected and noone can compete with you, but the hider can still get your experienced feedback.

 

As for the letterboxes, I can't quite think of a reason why you wouldn't want someone to log it, unless you feel that an online log doesn't do it justice without the stamp.

 

I've yet to hide either a geocache or a letterbox, but plan on doing some hybrids in the realtively near futuer and listing them on both GC.com and LB.com. I know that I would certainly appreciate any feedback from either source.

Link to comment

 

I think you're paying way too much attention to the tiny minority of geocachers who visit the forums. The forums are not geocaching. Its silly to let what goes on here color your perception of the sport. The truth is that without the online logs, I doubt this sport would have taken off the way it did, I also doubt a lot of owners would be placing caches for us to find, without the prompt feedback they get from the logs.

 

Meh, maybe. I'm in it to have fun, though. I didn't say I wouldn't ever log anything on the site again. I might log a note or a SBA/NM log. And certainly, I'd do something for TBs.

 

And maybe it is a minority, but boy are they annoying. It's like being in a big room with a lot of people. 90% can be totally cool, but 10% in the corner making a ruckus and spoiling everyone's fun just makes me want to leave the party. :laughing:

Link to comment

It comes up quite a bit.

 

Some goecachers would make it so only the cache owner could see their log. Others won't log online at all because they are against stats, are computer illiterate, cache with a partner who does all the logging, are paranoid about being on the 'grid' and so on.

 

Locally it's about 40% who don't log online. That's based on a cache that is a good vertical hike to get too.

 

The irony here is that I think it's the online logging and listing that let geocaching take off like it has. It's easy for people to find a cache to hunt and owners get feedback that their caches are being hunted and place more.

 

The thing about the logging feature is that you don't have to use it so it harms nobody to exist. Though as you have seen that doesn't mean there isn't controversy and opinions.

 

Sadly, it's also online logging that's turned a hobby/sport into a contest, where people compare the size of their virtual anatomy as a measurement of worth. More and more, I've come to sympathize with that 40% and will very likely join them.

 

Frankly, the competition is limited to a very small number of people. The folks I associate with could hardly care about the worth of a person based on numbers. It's the character that defines a person. It's what that person does that defines their character. Competition only becomes a problem with it becomes a personal problem to the person not involved.

Link to comment

As for the letterboxes, I can't quite think of a reason why you wouldn't want someone to log it, unless you feel that an online log doesn't do it justice without the stamp.

 

From what I understand, those that are not in favor of logs on the LB sites, feel there are too many spoilers in the gc logs.

And they don't want to have to keep an eye on their letterbox page to check for spoilers. Some even feel that flagging an 'attempt' or 'find' is a type of spoiler and have disabled this feature on their LB pages.

Link to comment

...Yeah, I should have been more clear- the presence of the online log and the numbering of how many you've found creates a sense of competition that cheapens the whole experience, especially in the context of some of the other threads where people are going at it hammer and tongs over finds/DNFs/FTF, and so on....

 

Strangly the anti-compettive streak I've seen in some people involves paying more attention to the numbers than the people who do competet. I've never truly understood why the people who just want to cache don't just cache, but it takes all kinds to populate the world.

 

There are a few who want their "due" and they want the recognigition, fame and cache groopies that they think come with it. Those people would be like that if all we had were books with the pages stamped. Personally I ignore them. That's harder when they decide who has all the blessings to bestow and they want their due form you directly. That's not competition, it's closer to psychosis.

Link to comment

I like seeing the numbers. I'm not in competition with anyone else, but if I can't find a cache and I see someone else has logged a DNF also, and they have 1095 finds, I feel better that maybe the cache is gone. If someone logs a DNF and has 5 finds, I think maybe I might have missed something and need to go back. I have only been doing this a few months but I am finding it to be a pet peeve of mine that I search for a non-existant cache that hasn't been found for months. At least I know that if experienced eyes haven't been able to find it, it probably isn't there anymore.

Link to comment

As the owner of caches, I appreciate the on-line logs because: (1) I invested a good deal of time locating the caches and I enjoy receiving the e-mail with the log that lets me know that someone enjoyed the hike/walk to the cache or the hide location. I know that I could go to the cache to read the logs in the logbook, but I like receiving the log close to the actual hunt date; and (2) they helps me monitor the maintenance of the cache. I am not concerned about spoilers in logs, because I think the folks who don’t want to risk seeing a spoiler in a log know not to read the logs until after the hunt.

 

As a hunter, I like the on-line logs because: (1) I have become more selective in the types of caches I hunt and the feedback from others helps me select caches that I am more likely to enjoy; (2) I also find the logs useful when they note that the coordinates may be off or that prior hunters also had difficulty getting a strong signal, because it lets me know that I need to expand the search area etc.; (3) I like to draft my logs in the comfort of my house rather than in the field.

Link to comment

There have been a number of issues being tossed about that I feel miss the mark. Some of these issues are interlocking. As you can see from the below post, it's not so simple.

 

Letterboxing growth v. geocaching growth:

For one thing, Groundspeak is a business. Their attention is on the bottom line first and the health of the hobby second. The more people they can get interested in geocaching the more likely they will become paying members and purchase merchandise. As long as something is not completely detrimental to the hobby and doesn't involve too much effort on TPTB, then anything goes.

 

Placing a geocache, as has been shown many times over and over, is trivial compared to a letterbox. Used to be that in order to list a letterbox on letterboxing.org you had to email the clues to the admin. It was not a self-help site like geocaching. That, in itself, hampered activity.

 

Next, compare what is involved in placing the actual cache versus a letterbox. How fast would geocaching grow if every cache had a relatively unique stamp, much less it be expected to have a hand-carved custom stamp?

 

Combine it being easier to both list and place a geocache, geocaching will "win" in growth.

 

Logging online versus playing with gadgets:

Really, which one do you think has more of a draw? If logging where such a draw more folks would do it and there would be more than a few words written on the majority of the cache logs.

 

The community aspect:

Considering only a tiny precentage of cachers come to the forums--heck, some don't even know there are forums--and the forums is a major part of community building, I don't think "community" has much to do with growth. Remember the folks that are going to respond to this are into the community aspect. Those who are not will be grossly under-represented.

 

Logging as feedback:

Yes, there is the allure of the immediate feedback, but I take issue that everyone needs it or even wants it. There are two forms of feedback every owner gets; the online log and notification. Yes, I like feedback. Do I feel cheated that someone doesn't log online? Nope. That's their business and I don't mind one bit. I don't place caches for self gratification.

 

The value of logs:

Many logs are nothing but "TNLN" and provide nothing beyond that some claims to have found the cache. The text portion of the log could be suppressed completely and you wouldn't lose a thing.

 

Competition only affects those in it:

This is completely wrong. A trend I've seen is competition affects everyone. The race to be "First" requires an ever increasing supply of caches to hunt. These are gleefully called, "gifts." Most of the time--in fact, I've not seen the first exception--these "gifts" are placed with little thought or imagination and exist only to increment the find count. Some of these "gift givers" just can't fathom why their gifts are not accepted. "Don't you want a smilie?" Anyone see the problem with that statment?

 

Lest anyone get the wrong impression that I'm anti-micro as some "gift givers" would have you believe, I'm not anti-micro. I'm anti-lame, anti-thoughtless, anti-no-imagination, which, BTW, is not a size at all.

 

You can't filter on lame. You can filter on "micro," but then you will miss out on some really great micros where the owners understood why the micro size exists and used it appropriately.

 

How competition affects the rest of us is that it creates chaffe that you have to sort through. It is little more than noise that you can't easily filter out.

 

Owner options:

From the comments made in other posts in this thread it seems as though most folks don't want to allow the owner to suppress logs. Yet, it is commonly heard that it's the owner's cache and he can delete the logs at will. What, no middle ground?

 

So, what harm would allowing the owner some options? Why demand that an owner not be able to suppress logs? It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

 

Prior discussions:

As for it never coming up, it has--just a little different angle. I've mentioned moderating logs and suppressing just the text of a log. This would absolutely help with spoilers in logs. If you're not a puzzle cache owner you might not understand, but we've worked hard on our caches and don't want spoilers in our logs. I've even written about allowing caches to not increment a find count.

 

Spoiler problem:

The owner of a cache can not prevent spoilers. Sure he can delete a log, but he can't stop a notification going out on a watchlist. Getting a spoiler is easy. Put a cache on your watchlist and wait. Want to send out a spoiler? No problem. Just write it in your log. Everyone on the watchlist will get it. The cache owner can't stop it.

 

This is a serious flaw in the system.

 

The ability to moderate caches will fix this. It should be on a cache-by-cache basis as there are plenty of caches out there that a complete walk-through spoiler wouldn't matter. But puzzles are easily ruined by one spoiler. Moderation is easy. Simply suppress the log until the owner approves the posting.

 

Moderation can be linked to "text suppression." This is where the log, though posted, doesn't show the text portion of the log. The time, date, who found it, and the log type is shown, just not the text.

 

The two above can be linked in multiple ways. Allow the log to post, but suppress the text until the owner approves; and don't show anything until the owner approves and he can suppress the text on a log-by-log basis are but two such options.

 

I would add the option of restricting the ability to watch a cache. Again, this can be multi-tiered; no watching, no text logs in the mail, or no details at all, only that it was logged.

 

Suppressing the increment of the find count:

One poster in this thread asked why he should hunt my cache if he couldn't get a smilie for it. My thinking is, "if you gotta ask then maybe you shouldn't."

 

I place caches for the enjoyment of folks to hunt the cache, not to increment their find count. In fact, I'd rather they not hunt it if that's the only reason they're going to hunt it. When it becomes more about the find count than actually caching, then just don't hunt my caches.

 

One way to reduce the "numbers hounds" hunting a cache is remove the only real reward they get and that's the smilie. If the option were available, I'd turn off the ability to increment find counts on all of our caches.

 

Yes, I know these folks will not hunt the harder caches. In fact, they are so worried about "smilie per hour" ratios, they won't even hunt a 15 minute beginner multi a 6 year old can do which walks you around a nice park highlighting the bronze statues--little unexpected treasures which is what got, and keep us, interested in the hobby.

 

Conclusion:

Yes, the interest is there. Only you'll never see it as the ROI for Groundspeak is not there even if it would do the hobby a great deal of good.

Link to comment

There have been a number of issues being tossed about that I feel miss the mark. Some of these issues are interlocking. As you can see from the below post, it's not so simple.

 

...Conclusion:

Yes, the interest is there. Only you'll never see it as the ROI for Groundspeak is not there even if it would do the hobby a great deal of good.

I apologize, CR. I couldn't make it through your entire post. I really, really tried.

 

Was there anything in there besides your normal rant that Jeremy doesn't do what you want him to? :)

 

BTW, I didn't 'get' your Return on Investment argument. In the past, we've seen enhancements that people wanted, but that didn't really line Groundspeak's pockets directly. What we haven't seen is enhancements that few have wanted that had no ROI for Groundspeak. That is as it should be.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I, as a reletively new cacher (4 months) enjoy the logs very much. I think it is nice to get the online logs from my caches. It tells me if I have hidden a good one or one that may need to be updated and helps me when working on new caches. I have hidden ones from park and grabs and their purpose was that, so that people could cache during lunch, to complex puzzle cache that is getting rave reviews and many DNF's. The logs have inspired me to go hide more caches to get new logs and to try and make a challenging one for the "old Timers" or people with alot of finds.

The find count I believe is helpful in that If aperson with a high count gets DNF, I know immediatly there may be a problem or that I have done a good job on my cache hide.

 

On spoilers in the logs I would like to see an option as the cache owner where I can go in and encrypt portions of someones log if it may be giving clues. This will not stop someone from getting the clue, but it will make them work harder for it and you don't have to delete someone's log. I think the encrypt option should be added and that would take care of alot of clue problems.

Link to comment

I like seeing the newer logs of my past finds, because some of them have been real boogers and I want to see if I am the only dummy out there!

If I have a cache placed (which so far I have not YET gotten one out) I want to be able to see the logs and have power to edit/delete if need be to keep the "clues" to a minimum (in other words, no obvious information please...) but it would be fun to see what other people have to say about my cache.

If trying to get a large total of finds from my area is considered competitioin, so be it. There are several people caching around here that I never see posting in these forums. One of them went to school with my hubby, who now is being the "boy-dog peeing on the pole" in trying to find anything this guy has hidden. He (not hubby) started doing this after my cousin and I did, and he has 4x as many finds as we do. So we have a personal goal to try to catch up to him if at all possible. Another lady here has some really cool hides. She is quite ingenious, and I would like to try to find all of hers too. But as far as getting a higher number than someone, I don't think of it is a race.

Link to comment
The find count I believe is helpful in that If aperson with a high count gets DNF, I know immediatly there may be a problem or that I have done a good job on my cache hide.

 

Don't count on high find counts to mean they can find a cache or not. We've had a team of 4 digit finders DNF on a cache that some barely into 3 digits have gotten on the first try. Sometimes, those in a rut or expect a cache to be a certain way will not find a cache as easily as someone with a fresh prespective.

 

That being said, you can get the same thing by simply having a symbol indicating a cacher has found less than 100 caches or more than 100 caches. You could probably drop that to 50 and still get fairly accurate results.

Link to comment

There have been a number of issues being tossed about that I feel miss the mark. Some of these issues are interlocking. As you can see from the below post, it's not so simple.

 

...Conclusion:

Yes, the interest is there. Only you'll never see it as the ROI for Groundspeak is not there even if it would do the hobby a great deal of good.

I apologize, CR. I couldn't make it through your entire post. I really, really tried.

 

Was there anything in there besides your normal rant that Jeremy doesn't do what you want him to? :)

 

BTW, I didn't 'get' your Return on Investment argument. In the past, we've seen enhancements that people wanted, but that didn't really line Groundspeak's pockets directly. What we haven't seen is enhancements that few have wanted that had no ROI for Groundspeak. That is as it should be.

 

We've also seen features that had a great deal of interest denied by Groundspeak because they felt it wasn't good for the sport. A comprensive statistics page for one.

 

Don't count on high find counts to mean they can find a cache or not. We've had a team of 4 digit finders DNF on a cache that some barely into 3 digits have gotten on the first try. Sometimes, those in a rut or expect a cache to be a certain way will not find a cache as easily as someone with a fresh prespective.

 

True, also a lot of the major numbers hounds won't search more than 5 or 10 minutes before they move on to the next one. If they devote too much time to one cache, they won't reach their quota for the day.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I'm both a GCer & LBer, and got into both activities around the same time.

 

Personally I find the lack of logs on LBNA a major pain, and am a little annoyed that there seems to be such an 'anti-log' attitude amoung many LBers.

 

Like a few others have alluted to, this is what I see as the value of logs.

 

When GCing, I now print out a recent copy of the cache page, with the last 5 logs. Checking the logs lets me know if this cache is still active, and if it is if others have found it recently or not and what, if any problems they had that might help me find them. Give hints? I think most GCers try to avoid being too explicit in what they log (I know I do). There is a difference between being challenging and being frustrated. And some info can help a challenging cache from not being frustrating, while still being challenging.

 

One thing I've found very frustrating with LBing of late is not know in advance if a LB is still active. Many people don't even bother to log on-line that they've found a LB. Unlike with GC, if someone found a LB 3 or 4 days ago, I might not know. I know I've looked for LBs that only had 2-3 finds logged on-line, but find a couple of dozen stamps in their log book when I found it. Then I go out looking for a box with little foreknowledge that its still active. I've also been good about giving feedback to the placers of LBs of my problems finding their box, and been frustrated with some of their responses. The best (worse) was the response about a LB I tried to find in a local park that 'maybe it drifted away in the tide'. This from a landlocked park! And this person has not updated the cache clues to indicate that it may be missing.

 

MB

Link to comment

...

Owner options:

From the comments made in other posts in this thread it seems as though most folks don't want to allow the owner to suppress logs. Yet, it is commonly heard that it's the owner's cache and he can delete the logs at will. What, no middle ground?

 

So, what harm would allowing the owner some options? Why demand that an owner not be able to suppress logs? It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

...

When you say 'suppress' what are you referring to?

The opening post seems to say there are letterboxers who deny anything be attached. My limited letterboxing experience is that without any idea of who's been looking, and when you may well be on a wildgoose chase. You can try emailing the owner, maybe they'll respond, maybe not. If they respond it might be something like "yea people have been saying they couldn't find it the last two months, we think its missing :) ".

I hadn't noticed the change letterboxing.org until this thread, and I think its a good step. I hope the people that have choosen to turn this off are always quick to reply to emails and edit the box descriptions since they're blocking out any change of info passing from one seeker to another. Yes I know using logs to tell if a box/cache is there is not an absolute, some people don't log online, some give up 'quickly', maybe some lie? But until I develop ESP it is the best tool I can find.

Link to comment
We've also seen features that had a great deal of interest denied by Groundspeak because they felt it wasn't good for the sport. A comprensive statistics page for one.

 

I find it ironic that a comprehensive stats page wouldn't be good for the sport while leaving the one measure active that is possibly the worst.

 

Folks are going to turn a hobby into competition no matter what you do. They will use whatever measure they have available. The best you can do is attempt to steer it in a way that is healthy. We're not seeing that here.

Link to comment
...you may well be on a wildgoose chase.

 

Actually, this is an element that I enjoy. I'm not looking for a slum-dunk. A hunt is not wasted if I don't find the cache. A good cache hunt is still a good cache hunt regardless of whether I find it or not.

 

Regardless, this is not what I was refering to above.

 

A fully fleshed out system would allow everything from no logs at all to all logs get posted immediately. However, when I used the term "suppressed" above, I mean the text portion of the log is not viewed. It would be as if the person logging didn't write anything in the dialog box when they logged it. You'd still have the feedback of the log-type, date, time, etc. but that's it.

 

This would be extremely useful is regulating spoilers.

Link to comment

The community aspect:

Considering only a tiny precentage of cachers come to the forums--heck, some don't even know there are forums--and the forums is a major part of community building, I don't think "community" has much to do with growth. Remember the folks that are going to respond to this are into the community aspect. Those who are not will be grossly under-represented.

 

I do think this is a neat aspect of the online logging. While I realize VERY few of my local cachers come into the forums, I've met more than one cacher where one of us has said something like, "oh yeah, I saw your log on XXX cache, I saw the same ducks at the pond as you" or "which way did you go in for XYZ cache when you saw the deer?".

 

One aspect of the logs for me is a way to learn about some of these faceless people before we meet and I really like reading through caches that I've found previously to see what others think or to decide whether that new cache is a must-see or yet one more "hide count increasing" spot.

Link to comment

...True, also a lot of the major numbers hounds won't search more than 5 or 10 minutes before they move on to the next one. If they devote too much time to one cache, they won't reach their quota for the day.

 

My find count is medium high and in my case and those who cache with me seem to act the same. We don't spend to long on an urban cache but if we had to work long and hard by some means to get to the cache then we spend a lot longer looking before we give up. If it was a long hike, we won't be back there are other cache days in other locations to be had. If it's urban we can come back any time and will as the new ideas of where to look pop up.

Link to comment

There have been a number of issues being tossed about that I feel miss the mark. Some of these issues are interlocking. As you can see from the below post, it's not so simple....

 

It will take a bit to answer your post. Lets say though that I agree it's not so simple because our perspective on the same issues is different.

 

Edit:

 

I had a nice counterpost ready to go but I'm just going to leave the long one and skip to the short version.

 

Logs in any form are an important part of geocaching. The community aspects can't be overlooked. They are there and in more forms and ways than it would first seem. I've never met more than a handful of cachers on the trail. I've met one heck of a lot of cachers, and know a lot more through their logs and posts. CR is a cacher I would enjoy meeting. I don't want anyone to have editorial control of my logs in any more direct of a fashion than exists now. On the rare occasion someone has asked me to modify my log, I have done so. The last spoiler I was asked to remove was on a DNF. Go figure.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

This is morphing into a thread that might be better in the "Web Site" section. Anyway - I too would really appreciate a feature to "moderate" posts. Maybe TPTB could make it one of the "Members Only" features (I don't mean on Members Only caches but a function available only to cache owners who are "members") so as to provide more "added value" for the (IMHO very reasonable) subscription fees. If the cache owner didn't want to be bothered they should be able to turn it on and off as well.

 

It would be very frustrating to put in a lot of effort on, say, a puzzle cache and have someone spoil it by posting too much of a spoiler. While almost everyone around my home turf seems to be really careful not to spoil the fun that way there is always the possibility of an accident happening such as did happen on my Listen for the Numbers. Fortunately the person who goofed quickly realised their error and edited the log themselves but not before the "watch"ers had received the unedited log and at least one (who was honest enough to admit it - and I know he would have solved the puzzle eventually on his own anyway) used that info to solve it. :)

Link to comment
...you may well be on a wildgoose chase.

 

Actually, this is an element that I enjoy. I'm not looking for a slum-dunk. A hunt is not wasted if I don't find the cache. A good cache hunt is still a good cache hunt regardless of whether I find it or not.

 

Regardless, this is not what I was refering to above.

 

A fully fleshed out system would allow everything from no logs at all to all logs get posted immediately. However, when I used the term "suppressed" above, I mean the text portion of the log is not viewed. It would be as if the person logging didn't write anything in the dialog box when they logged it. You'd still have the feedback of the log-type, date, time, etc. but that's it.

 

This would be extremely useful is regulating spoilers.

I can understand what your saying, but feel differently. To me looking for a cache noone has looked for in 6months is fun, but looking for one ten people have attempted and DNF several times over the past 6 months isn't. I think this is also why benchmarking isn't that interesting to me, looking for something noones found in decades to decide it was paved under during road construction 20 years ago just doesn't do it for me. Its true a hunt just to hunt is fun, and so is just hiking, biking, fishing etc. But if I'm looking for a box I'd like some idea if its there or not. I know its not what you mean by suppress, but YES as you asked eariler, I don't want the owner to be able to default restrict logs to 'none'.

Link to comment

...looking for one ten people have attempted and DNF several times over the past 6 months isn't....

 

You know, it's funny you mention that. I enjoy the same thing, however I also enjoy a finding a cache after a long string of DNFs. The last one had stumped cacher after cacher to the point everyone was sure it was gone. Since it was a remote cache and I knew the hider was one of those people gifted in the art of the hide, I figured it was there and planned a day around it. We found it and it took a lot of time. Either way of caching though takes online logs to see what’s going on.

 

Of course the next day I'm sure that we participated in a hedonistic orgy of local lame caches just to get our numbers back up.

Link to comment

You know, it's funny you mention that. I enjoy the same thing, however I also enjoy a finding a cache after a long string of DNFs. The last one had stumped cacher after cacher to the point everyone was sure it was gone. Since it was a remote cache and I knew the hider was one of those people gifted in the art of the hide, I figured it was there and planned a day around it. We found it and it took a lot of time. Either way of caching though takes online logs to see what’s going on.

 

Of course the next day I'm sure that we participated in a hedonistic orgy of local lame caches just to get our numbers back up.

Well then I guess not having any logs wouldn't affect you :laughing:

Link to comment

 

Logs in any form are an important part of geocaching. The community aspects can't be overlooked. They are there and in more forms and ways than it would first seem. I've never met more than a handful of cachers on the trail. I've met one heck of a lot of cachers, and know a lot more through their logs and posts. CR is a cacher I would enjoy meeting. I don't want anyone to have editorial control of my logs in any more direct of a fashion than exists now. On the rare occasion someone has asked me to modify my log, I have done so. The last spoiler I was asked to remove was on a DNF. Go figure.

 

This sums it up very nicely for me.

Link to comment
I don't want anyone to have editorial control of my logs in any more direct of a fashion than exists now.

 

No one is saying they would have any editorial control over your logs. There would be no editing involved at all. What we are talking about is allowing the cache to display or not display logs without affecting your logging.

 

Today, the only three options is let the log stand, encrypt (it which is a joke), or delete it.

 

Of course, if you let the log stand it could contain anything. Anything from a nice note to a walk-through spoiler. (Not to mention verbal attacks.) Encrypting a log does nothing to get rid of a spoiler. In fact, encrypting something almost begs for people to decrypt and read.

 

The only alternative is to delete the log. If you delete a log it is pretty much gone unless you've bookmarked it. There are no links to it anywhere, not even on the writers profile page.

 

Sure, you can ask the writer to edit the log, but what if he refuses?

 

Then, there is the issue of watchlist notifications.

 

The way the system is set up the cache owner has very little control over what folks can say about his cache. Spoilers can be distributed ruining a hunt and the owner has absolutely no recourse.

 

I've already outlined one way a person could spoil it for a bunch of caches. It's only by shear grace that it hasn't happened. No one probably thought anyone would create a Pirate's Game or steal caches for fun, either, but it happens. Here, the person could be anywhere in the world and spoil a cache.

 

What we're talking about in this thread is allowing the cache owner a bit more control. Just a few steps between letting the log stand and deleting it.

 

I don't see the first problem with that.

 

I guess it comes down to who you think has more "rights" over the hunt and the cache page, the cache owner or someone not nearly as invested.

 

Me, I think it a no brainer.

Link to comment
I don't want anyone to have editorial control of my logs in any more direct of a fashion than exists now.

 

No one is saying they would have any editorial control over your logs. There would be no editing involved at all. What we are talking about is allowing the cache to display or not display logs without affecting your logging.

 

... < very long blah >

You actually would be editing the posts, By removing them from everyone's view, you are, in effect, deleting them. Sure, the finder still gets credit for the find, but that's not hardly the point.

Link to comment
You can't log a message on the letterboxing.org and the atlasquest.com sites. The sites allow finders to flag the letterbox as found or attempted, but you can't expound on your box-searching experience.
An activity called LETTERboxing that does not allow you to write? Should be renamed to STAMPboxing.

Are you allowed to write in/on something in the physical box, other then stamping it?

Link to comment
You can't log a message on the letterboxing.org and the atlasquest.com sites. The sites allow finders to flag the letterbox as found or attempted, but you can't expound on your box-searching experience.
An activity called LETTERboxing that does not allow you to write? Should be renamed to STAMPboxing.

Are you allowed to write in/on something in the physical box, other then stamping it?

 

The term's been around for a very long time.

Link to comment

Ok, totally new to caching, but I like the logs for all the reasons listed above. When I cache with my kids, it is for their enjoyment so I want to find caches that I am sure they will be able to find. Seeing recent finds as well as words like easy, piece of cake, etc. I feel confident that my kids will have a chance to find it.

 

Yes, they also have DNF's so they get that they can't always win, but I definitely want the majority to be the positive for them. So for that I thank those caches CR lists as lame.

 

As a matter of fact, today I went looking for a cache where a previous finder said they say wild boars on the trip. I took my kids, and armed with this information they were both in the car when that big black ugly thing started walking towards me on the path. The kids would have been with me otherwise. I know, weird example, but I run much faster without a child on each hip :D

Link to comment

...Today, the only three options is let the log stand, encrypt (it which is a joke), or delete it.

 

Of course, if you let the log stand it could contain anything. Anything from a nice note to a walk-through spoiler. (Not to mention verbal attacks.) Encrypting a log does nothing to get rid of a spoiler. In fact, encrypting something almost begs for people to decrypt and read.

...Sure, you can ask the writer to edit the log, but what if he refuses?

 

...I guess it comes down to who you think has more "rights" over the hunt and the cache page, the cache owner or someone not nearly as invested....

 

The encryption is great if you have a clue (aka a spoiler) and someone else posted a spoiler. Encrypt. Done. Now the prospective cache finder and log writer has to click the same button as before to read the clue and the spoiler. This ain't broke.

 

Watchlist notifications. Valid point. Watch a cache you are having trouble with to get a spoiler and if you have world enough and time to wait...you might get lucky. Not efficent but it could work for all of the 6 or 8 people watching the average cache, most of whom already found it.

 

To borrow your own words, I'm invested in my log, my finds, my no finds. Not you. You are invested in your cache. Not me. We both want to protect our investment. I do not grant you editorial license to decide who may or may not read my log. Nor do I grant you control of my overall stats, and caches. You as a cache owner decide on your cache if I met your logging requirement or not. That's yes or no for most logs. A few may require a tweak "please change the spoiler, or sorry you didn't sign the log book" for those few your tools, encrypt, email, and log deletion work.

 

If you reverse this and make it so that I as a finder con control who sees your cache you would think it's ludicrous and you would be right. It’s fair to watch out for the work you have put into your cache and the delete works for that when there is no cooperation. I have to comply or my log is gone. What I don’t want is to have fully complied and find out that my log is a non find log, or it’s a members only log, or it’s a only your account can see it log or that it’s something other than what I intended it to be.

 

I also think it's a no brainer.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
You can't log a message on the letterboxing.org and the atlasquest.com sites. The sites allow finders to flag the letterbox as found or attempted, but you can't expound on your box-searching experience.
An activity called LETTERboxing that does not allow you to write? Should be renamed to STAMPboxing.

Are you allowed to write in/on something in the physical box, other then stamping it?

 

Yes. There's a physical log in the box. From my experience many letterboxers stamp and leave their trail name.

Link to comment
... This ain't broke.

 

...

 

I also think it's a no brainer.

 

ROT13 is not much of way to hide a spoiler. It is nothing more that something to help someone from accidently seeing something they don't want to see. If you want to see it, one click and you're reading.

 

Why do you think there are (were) so many admonishments on virts to not post the answers in the logs even if encrypted? It's because ROT13 does not prevent someone who wants to read something from doing so.

 

Your analogy of someone limiting who can see my cache page would be like me telling Groundspeak what they can show on their site. That analogy doesn't fly.

 

But, as for limiting view of the cache page, it's already done. It's called the review process. In order for you to get one of your caches published on this site, it is moderated no different than what I'm talking about. Groundspeak gets to limit what caches they show on their site. Why can't a cache owner get to limit what logs are shown on their cache page?

 

That's all I'm saying.

Link to comment

I guess it comes down to who you think has more "rights" over the hunt and the cache page, the cache owner or someone not nearly as invested.

 

Me, I think it a no brainer.

 

There seems to be a greater feeling of ownership and rights over letterboxes and their clue pages as compared to geocache ownership. Perhaps it's because of the stamp.

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...