Should Found It Logs Be Allowed After A Listing Has Been Archived?

[+Glenn]

I can understand the need to post date found logs on archived cache listing but what about making found it logs dated after the owner has archived the cache?

 

For example this cache was just talked about in a thread in the geocaching topics forum.

 

Maybe I'm just not getting this whole archive thing. So how about having two kinds of archiving. One for the wishy-washy people who archive their listing but still can't deside if they really ment to archvie it and a true archive for those who know they don't want any new logs dated after the date the listing is archived.

[+BlueDeuce]

Your example is exactly why archived caches should be allowed to be logged.

 

In some cases people might fake logs, and in others the owner probably shouldn't have archived it. So what do you do?

 

You let the dirty fakers live with their own conduct and if the cache listing starts getting abused beyond gc.com tolerance, it gets locked down.

[+Yellow ants]

I can understand the need to post date found logs on archived cache listing but what about making found it logs dated after the owner has archived the cache?

 

Cache teams split up, kids grow up and get their own account. That's just two legitimate reasons for wanting to re-log your back catalogue under another username. Disallowing logs on archived caches are a bad idea for that reason.

[+Miragee]

I found an Archived cache while searching a nearby area for a different cache, which, it was later determined, had gone missing. It was nice to get a smiley for all our efforts, since the cache and its log were still there and we signed the log.

 

On another occasion, the owner Archived a muggled cache and requested that the next finders retrieve the remains. We did that, and logged smileys on that recently-Archived cache.

 

If the cache is still there, as the one you reference obviously is, anyone who finds it should be able to log a find. However, if the cache has been removed, the listing should probably be locked after a certain period of time to prevent abuse by people logging long-archived caches that have long-absent owners.

 

JMHO . . .

[+IV_Warrior]

 

If the cache is still there, as the one you reference obviously is, anyone who finds it should be able to log a find. However, if the cache has been removed, the listing should probably be locked after a certain period of time to prevent abuse by people logging long-archived caches that have long-absent owners.

 

JMHO . . .

 

I agree, lets set that time at 100 years after the cache is archived. Why spoil things for people with legitimate reasons for logging archived caches just because a few may choose to cheat? Let them pump their chests over their high find counts, their locals will know they just have self-esteem issues and won't have any respect for the person's numbers....

 

Honestly, I think there's a lot more cheating going on with ACTIVE caches than with archived ones. With them, there's the chance the cheaters are wasting the time of other caches, at least with archived caches, hopefully nobody is running out to search for them.

[+welch]

Maybe I'm just not getting this whole archive thing. So how about having two kinds of archiving. One for the wishy-washy people who archive their listing but still can't deside if they really ment to archvie it and a true archive for those who know they don't want any new logs dated after the date the listing is archived.

Making archives non loggable would be ok if (notice I say IF):

1. When a cache is archived it truly isn't there. It shouldn't but, but it happens .

Maybe the owner cound't find it either and archived it but the cache was really there, or maybe the owner is missing and others can't find it and its gets archived by a well meaning reviewer, or maybe the owner archives it themselves but doesn't actually get it picked up before someone else goes looking .

Then of course, you still want to allow for logging dates before it was archived for people that have decided to change user names, or are spliting off a team/family/couple account, or those people that get a hands on intro and back log caches they found before they had an account. I suppose might also run across people that have accounts but are just slowly as heck logging their vists so weeks or months might pass before they around to logging online.

[+BlueDeuce]

Maybe I'm just not getting this whole archive thing. So how about having two kinds of archiving. One for the wishy-washy people who archive their listing but still can't deside if they really ment to archvie it and a true archive for those who know they don't want any new logs dated after the date the listing is archived.

Making archives non loggable would be ok if (notice I say IF):

1. When a cache is archived it truly isn't there. It shouldn't but, but it happens .

Maybe the owner cound't find it either and archived it but the cache was really there, or maybe the owner is missing and others can't find it and its gets archived by a well meaning reviewer, or maybe the owner archives it themselves but doesn't actually get it picked up before someone else goes looking .

Then of course, you still want to allow for logging dates before it was archived for people that have decided to change user names, or are spliting off a team/family/couple account, or those people that get a hands on intro and back log caches they found before they had an account. I suppose might also run across people that have accounts but are just slowly as heck logging their vists so weeks or months might pass before they around to logging online.

 

Well said.

[+Glenn]

I can understand the need to post date found logs on archived cache listing but what about making found it logs dated after the owner has archived the cache?

 

Cache teams split up, kids grow up and get their own account. That's just two legitimate reasons for wanting to re-log your back catalogue under another username. Disallowing logs on archived caches are a bad idea for that reason.

Next time read what you are quoting.

I am talking about not allow found it logs dated AFTER the date the listing was archived. The situations you are conserned with will still be allowed.

[+IV_Warrior]

I can understand the need to post date found logs on archived cache listing but what about making found it logs dated after the owner has archived the cache?

 

Cache teams split up, kids grow up and get their own account. That's just two legitimate reasons for wanting to re-log your back catalogue under another username. Disallowing logs on archived caches are a bad idea for that reason.

Next time read what you are quoting.

I am talking about not allow found it logs dated AFTER the date the listing was archived. The situations you are conserned with will still be allowed.

Ok, so you lock it so you can't list the found date as after the date the cache was archived. This prevents legitimate logs where the cache was still there from being logged with the proper date. It does nothing to stop the cheaters, as they'll just backdate the log.

[+Glenn]

I found an Archived cache while searching a nearby area for a different cache, which, it was later determined, had gone missing. It was nice to get a smiley for all our efforts, since the cache and its log were still there and we signed the log.

 

On another occasion, the owner Archived a muggled cache and requested that the next finders retrieve the remains. We did that, and logged smileys on that recently-Archived cache.

 

If the cache is still there, as the one you reference obviously is, anyone who finds it should be able to log a find. However, if the cache has been removed, the listing should probably be locked after a certain period of time to prevent abuse by people logging long-archived caches that have long-absent owners.

 

JMHO . . .

That is what I am saying only instead of a period of time the owner should be able to turn the no new logs option on.

[+Glenn]

Maybe I'm just not getting this whole archive thing. So how about having two kinds of archiving. One for the wishy-washy people who archive their listing but still can't deside if they really ment to archvie it and a true archive for those who know they don't want any new logs dated after the date the listing is archived.

Making archives non loggable would be ok if (notice I say IF):

1. When a cache is archived it truly isn't there. It shouldn't but, but it happens .

Maybe the owner cound't find it either and archived it but the cache was really there, or maybe the owner is missing and others can't find it and its gets archived by a well meaning reviewer, or maybe the owner archives it themselves but doesn't actually get it picked up before someone else goes looking .

Then of course, you still want to allow for logging dates before it was archived for people that have decided to change user names, or are spliting off a team/family/couple account, or those people that get a hands on intro and back log caches they found before they had an account. I suppose might also run across people that have accounts but are just slowly as heck logging their vists so weeks or months might pass before they around to logging online.

I'm looking at this from the owners point of view. If I walk in to the woods, pick up my cache, and walk out with it I am 100% sure that no one should log any future finds on my cache. Why shouldn't I, the cache owner, also have the option to block future found logs on the cache page when I archive the listing?

[+The Leprechauns]

If someone logs a find on your archived cache under circumstances where you don't want to allow the log, delete the log. In rare cases where the logging becomes abusive (such as repeat logs from a person trying to annoy you), contact your friendly volunteer cache reviewer or Geocaching.com, and the page can be locked.

[+Glenn]

I can understand the need to post date found logs on archived cache listing but what about making found it logs dated after the owner has archived the cache?

 

Cache teams split up, kids grow up and get their own account. That's just two legitimate reasons for wanting to re-log your back catalogue under another username. Disallowing logs on archived caches are a bad idea for that reason.

Next time read what you are quoting.

I am talking about not allow found it logs dated AFTER the date the listing was archived. The situations you are conserned with will still be allowed.

Ok, so you lock it so you can't list the found date as after the date the cache was archived. This prevents legitimate logs where the cache was still there from being logged with the proper date. It does nothing to stop the cheaters, as they'll just backdate the log.

Cheaters will always find a way to cheat. I'm not worried about that.

As the cache owner I am expected to maintain the cache and the cache listing. As far as I know this expectation to maintain the cache listing doesn't go away once the cache is removed and cache page has been archived. I believe that giving cache owners the option to block logs from being made on an archived cache listing would be a great tool to have for maintaining archived listings. Since it would be an option I could, if I wanted, allow logs on any or all of my archived caches. What this would do is move the option to log an archived cache from the cache finder to the cache owner. This way the cache owner can be preemptive instead of being forced to be reactive.

[+Glenn]

If someone logs a find on your archived cache under circumstances where you don't want to allow the log, delete the log. In rare cases where the logging becomes abusive (such as repeat logs from a person trying to annoy you), contact your friendly volunteer cache reviewer or Geocaching.com, and the page can be locked.

I don't want to lock ALL new logs on my archived cache. I still want to allow back logs to be made so that situations where cache teams split up, children get their own account, or someone made a new account and is moving their old finds to their new account can all still happen. I also would like to be able to block someone from logging a find on the archived cache page of a cache that I know I have removed. Maybe I'm being naive in my thinking that computers should help make our lives easier. This option would be something that would help make an archived cache owners life a little easier.

[+MtnGoat50]

I like that it's possible to log archived caches. I've found 3 that I can think of. The most recent one was in my GPSr and showed up as the nearest. I found it with no trouble and only noticed it was archived when I went to log it. It had been reported missing and the owner couldn't find it so he archived it. There was some construction going on nearby, my guess is that a muggle grabbed it and kept it for a while and then put it back.

One time I was searching for a spot to hide a cache. I found a great spot but there was already an ammo can there. I signed the log and made a note of the cache name. When I went to log it, I saw it was archived. It was a 4 stage multi and one or two of the stages had gone missing so the owner archived it but never picked up the final. After my log the owner removed the final and I later used the spot for my hide.

The first archived cache I found was one I noticed had been archived but also had some logs after that. One cacher had even left a TB. This one was right off my usual commute so I stopped and logged it and grabbed the TB to move along.

Anyway, I don't think the problem of fake logs is that great and if the owner knows the cache has been removed and is really not there he can delete them.

[+baloo&bd]

What was the topic in the other thread?

[+tozainamboku]

If someone logs a find on your archived cache under circumstances where you don't want to allow the log, delete the log. In rare cases where the logging becomes abusive (such as repeat logs from a person trying to annoy you), contact your friendly volunteer cache reviewer or Geocaching.com, and the page can be locked.

I don't want to lock ALL new logs on my archived cache. I still want to allow back logs to be made so that situations where cache teams split up, children get their own account, or someone made a new account and is moving their old finds to their new account can all still happen. I also would like to be able to block someone from logging a find on the archived cache page of a cache that I know I have removed. Maybe I'm being naive in my thinking that computers should help make our lives easier. This option would be something that would help make an archived cache owners life a little easier.

 

How it that going to stop someone who is a cheater from logging an achived cache and backdating it to before the cache was archived? Of course you could require that the user logging the cache had an account that predated the find date but that would prevent a child that just got their own account or someone creating a new account who is relogging all finds under a new name from logging the archived cache. Trying to stop cheating by changing the website software to prevent logs when there are legitimate reasons to allow logs is not a good idea. One hopes that most geocachers are honest in logging caches and log archived caches only when they have a legitimate reason. The fact that a few people will take advantage and cheat should not be used to punish the legitimate loggers. The puritans believed in trial by fire. If the person survived, she was a witch. If they burned to death then they were innocent. Changing logging requirements will only serve to punish the innocent.

[+Glenn]

I like that it's possible to log archived caches. I've found 3 that I can think of. The most recent one was in my GPSr and showed up as the nearest. I found it with no trouble and only noticed it was archived when I went to log it. It had been reported missing and the owner couldn't find it so he archived it. There was some construction going on nearby, my guess is that a muggle grabbed it and kept it for a while and then put it back.

One time I was searching for a spot to hide a cache. I found a great spot but there was already an ammo can there. I signed the log and made a note of the cache name. When I went to log it, I saw it was archived. It was a 4 stage multi and one or two of the stages had gone missing so the owner archived it but never picked up the final. After my log the owner removed the final and I later used the spot for my hide.

The first archived cache I found was one I noticed had been archived but also had some logs after that. One cacher had even left a TB. This one was right off my usual commute so I stopped and logged it and grabbed the TB to move along.

Anyway, I don't think the problem of fake logs is that great and if the owner knows the cache has been removed and is really not there he can delete them.

Please reading the thread before you post next time.

As I have said before in this thread. I'm not suggesting locking down all logs on archived cache pages. Nor am I suggesting not allowing any logs to be made to all archived cache pages that are dated after the pages archive date. I am suggesting that the option be given to the cache owner to block only the found it type log and only those that are dated after the archive date. Cache owners would use this and only after they have 100% verification that the cache was physicaly removed.

 

I also don't think that fake logs are a great issue. However, that doesn't mean that option wouldn't be widely use and appreciated. Besides I know plenty of features that I initially thought I would never use but after some time found that I couldn't live without.

 

I'm not telling anyone how to manage their archived caches. If someone wants to allow other people to log finds on their archvied cache listings then that is their prerogative. I would just like a more robust toolset to help us, cache owners, to manage our archived cache listings.

[+Team Neos]

So you want the ability for cache owners could lock the log to only the "found it" logs dated after the archive fate on the cache.

 

Why? I can't imagine that there is a problem with people accidentally logging finds dated after archival of any magnitude whatsoever. If there are any at all, my guess is that it's a case of the logger not changing the date on before logging. If they are the dread "cheaters" (my, how I am becoming weary of seeing that word!), they will no doubt backdate the logs to be less conspicuous.

 

And of course, there will be the people who find a cache after it is archived, but before it is picked up. You say that that this option is only for owners who have already picked up the cache, but people being how they are, at least some owners would just go ahead and add the lock without really going out to get the cache.

 

What happens when those same owners drift away from geocaching altogether?---We get geolitter with even less incentive to go after it.

 

I agree with the others who say this is not needed, and may even be counter-productive to good cache stewardship.

[+Glenn]

If someone logs a find on your archived cache under circumstances where you don't want to allow the log, delete the log. In rare cases where the logging becomes abusive (such as repeat logs from a person trying to annoy you), contact your friendly volunteer cache reviewer or Geocaching.com, and the page can be locked.

I don't want to lock ALL new logs on my archived cache. I still want to allow back logs to be made so that situations where cache teams split up, children get their own account, or someone made a new account and is moving their old finds to their new account can all still happen. I also would like to be able to block someone from logging a find on the archived cache page of a cache that I know I have removed. Maybe I'm being naive in my thinking that computers should help make our lives easier. This option would be something that would help make an archived cache owners life a little easier.

 

How it that going to stop someone who is a cheater from logging an achived cache and backdating it to before the cache was archived? Of course you could require that the user logging the cache had an account that predated the find date but that would prevent a child that just got their own account or someone creating a new account who is relogging all finds under a new name from logging the archived cache. Trying to stop cheating by changing the website software to prevent logs when there are legitimate reasons to allow logs is not a good idea. One hopes that most geocachers are honest in logging caches and log archived caches only when they have a legitimate reason. The fact that a few people will take advantage and cheat should not be used to punish the legitimate loggers. The puritans believed in trial by fire. If the person survived, she was a witch. If they burned to death then they were innocent. Changing logging requirements will only serve to punish the innocent.

Lets review. As I have stated many times in this thread. This idea isn't a method to stop cheaters. It is an idea for an additional tool to help cache owners manage their cache listings better.

 

In a vain attempt to not have to have repeat myself over and over again. What I am suggesting is a new option. The cache owner would have the option to set or not set for each of his archived cache listings a block on found it logs dated after archive log date. Not a total lockdown on logs for all archived caches but simply a per cache listing option for the cache owner.

 

For a majority of my archived caches I'll delete a new found it log dated after the date I have archived the listing because there is no cache there to be found, or if there is a cache there it isn't the one I placed, because I have personally removed the physical cache. On those caches why shouldn't I, as the cache owner, have the option to not allow found it logs dated after the date the cache listing was archived. It would automate a process that I currently have to do manually.

[+welch]

Maybe I'm just not getting this whole archive thing. So how about having two kinds of archiving. One for the wishy-washy people who archive their listing but still can't deside if they really ment to archvie it and a true archive for those who know they don't want any new logs dated after the date the listing is archived.

Making archives non loggable would be ok if (notice I say IF):

1. When a cache is archived it truly isn't there. It shouldn't but, but it happens .

Maybe the owner cound't find it either and archived it but the cache was really there, or maybe the owner is missing and others can't find it and its gets archived by a well meaning reviewer, or maybe the owner archives it themselves but doesn't actually get it picked up before someone else goes looking .

Then of course, you still want to allow for logging dates before it was archived for people that have decided to change user names, or are spliting off a team/family/couple account, or those people that get a hands on intro and back log caches they found before they had an account. I suppose might also run across people that have accounts but are just slowly as heck logging their vists so weeks or months might pass before they around to logging online.

I'm looking at this from the owners point of view. If I walk in to the woods, pick up my cache, and walk out with it I am 100% sure that no one should log any future finds on my cache. Why shouldn't I, the cache owner, also have the option to block future found logs on the cache page when I archive the listing?

(by future I will asssume you mean logs which are dated to a time after the date the cache was archived!)

If your 100% sure, then yes it would be a good thing for that cache. The thing is not every archived cache is that 100% and so making it any sort of default is not a good idea. Even making it an option could be a problem because it would likely be abused. Anyone want to have to contact a reviewer so you can log a find on an incorrectly archived cache?

Then finally, is it worth the admin time to work in this option? Will it be used enough to make it woth the work, and will it create as many or more problems than it fixes? Currently if your 100% sure its been removed, then delete the find. If your having problems with a cache being logged after the fact, contact Groundspeak and work some magic on the page to block all new logs. For most people that seems to work ok.

[+IV_Warrior]

 

For a majority of my archived caches I'll delete a new found it log dated after the date I have archived the listing because there is no cache there to be found, or if there is a cache there it isn't the one I placed, because I have personally removed the physical cache. On those caches why shouldn't I, as the cache owner, have the option to not allow found it logs dated after the date the cache listing was archived. It would automate a process that I currently have to do manually.

 

How about because it would be a "feature" that would rarely be needed, and as stated in another post would be prone to abuse by caches who choose to simply archive then "lock" their caches and not actually remove them. I think what most of us are getting at is there are simply far more important things for TPTB to spend their coding time working on. Seriously, how many times have you actually had a log on one of your archived caches? If any, how many were dated AFTER the date you removed and archived the cache?

[+Glenn]

So you want the ability for cache owners could lock the log to only the "found it" logs dated after the archive fate on the cache.

 

Why? I can't imagine that there is a problem with people accidentally logging finds dated after archival of any magnitude whatsoever. If there are any at all, my guess is that it's a case of the logger not changing the date on before logging. If they are the dread "cheaters" (my, how I am becoming weary of seeing that word!), they will no doubt backdate the logs to be less conspicuous.

Does there really need to be a problem for a useful feature to be implemented? I'm all for finding fixes for the problems first but then consider features that will make management easier.

 

As I have stated before and most likely will have to restate many times again. This new feature would in no way stop cheaters because the loophole you mentioned and the fact that each cache owner would be able to turn the feature on or off at will. That isn't the reason for this feature. The reason for the feature is to help cache owners better manage the their cache listing.

 

And of course, there will be the people who find a cache after it is archived, but before it is picked up. You say that that this option is only for owners who have already picked up the cache, but people being how they are, at least some owners would just go ahead and add the lock without really going out to get the cache.

And cache owners disable caches when they mean to archive then and archive when they mean to disable. This is just one simple feature to allow cache owners to manage their listings better. My idea isn't some fix all for unintentional archiving or logging.

 

Besides each cache owner has his own idea of how his cache should be logged. Some cache owners may not want their caches to be logged on the cache page after they archive the cache page, weither the cache is physically there or not. I really don't understand what all the consern is about being able to log a cache on this website after the owner has archived the listing. You went to the spot and enjoyed the location. You were able to sign the physical log to prove your find. If neither of those events satisfy you then either the cache wasn't a very good one or you are a numbers hound. If you are a numbers hound then all you have to do is date your find one day before the archiving of the listing. Odds are that not all of your find dates are too accurate anyways.

 

What happens when those same owners drift away from geocaching altogether?---We get geolitter with even less incentive to go after it.

Again, what I am suggesting is one tool to help cache owners better manage their archive cache listings. I am in no way suggesting a cure all for anything.

 

I agree with the others who say this is not needed, and may even be counter-productive to good cache stewardship.

How can giving cache owners better tools to manage their cache listings ever be counter-productive to good cache stewardship?

[+Prime Suspect]

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

 

Are archived caches really getting so many fake logs that the owners can't handle it? Is this problem actually happening to someone?

 

I can't see adding this proposed complexity to the system, in order to prevent something that rarely happens. Especially when a cache owner can simply ask their reviewer to lock the listing. I somehow don't think the reviewers will be inundated with these requests.

[+Glenn]

 

For a majority of my archived caches I'll delete a new found it log dated after the date I have archived the listing because there is no cache there to be found, or if there is a cache there it isn't the one I placed, because I have personally removed the physical cache. On those caches why shouldn't I, as the cache owner, have the option to not allow found it logs dated after the date the cache listing was archived. It would automate a process that I currently have to do manually.

 

How about because it would be a "feature" that would rarely be needed,

No one really knows to what level a feature will be used until it is actually implemented. I thought the convert a cache page to .pdf file feature would be rarely used. But now I use it all the time! It makes pocket caching much easier for me.

 

and as stated in another post would be prone to abuse by caches who choose to simply archive then "lock" their caches and not actually remove them.

Here is another situation. I archive the cache listing at geocaching.com and then list the cache at teracaching.com. I leave the cache in the same physical location it was when it was listed on geocaching.com In this situation I don't want any more logs to made at geocaching.com for this cache and the cache is not geolitter because it is now listed at another caching site.

 

But both of our situations are hypothetical and my suggestion was never ment to cure poor CITO habbits. I suggested it as a way to make the management of cache page easier.

 

I think what most of us are getting at is there are simply far more important things for TPTB to spend their coding time working on. Seriously, how many times have you actually had a log on one of your archived caches? If any, how many were dated AFTER the date you removed and archived the cache?

 

It sounds like you saying that just because this isn't a hot bug fix that it doesn't deserve any consideration. For me, anything that has the possibility of improving my caching experience, at the very least, deserves my consideration.

[+Glenn]

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

 

Are archived caches really getting so many fake logs that the owners can't handle it? Is this problem actually happening to someone?

 

I can't see adding this proposed complexity to the system, in order to prevent something that rarely happens. Especially when a cache owner can simply ask their reviewer to lock the listing. I somehow don't think the reviewers will be inundated with these requests.

Exactally, as you point out right now there are only two options. All found it logs allowed or no found it logs allowed. It is only natural to have something in between the two. Partically when a majority of cache owners believe that that is the way things should work in the first place. It would be a big help to cache owners in maintain their listings.

[+MtnGoat50]

Please reading the thread before you post next time.

As I have said before in this thread. I'm not suggesting locking down all logs on archived cache pages. Nor am I suggesting not allowing any logs to be made to all archived cache pages that are dated after the pages archive date. I am suggesting that the option be given to the cache owner to block only the found it type log and only those that are dated after the archive date. Cache owners would use this and only after they have 100% verification that the cache was physicaly removed.

 

I also don't think that fake logs are a great issue. However, that doesn't mean that option wouldn't be widely use and appreciated. Besides I know plenty of features that I initially thought I would never use but after some time found that I couldn't live without.

 

I'm not telling anyone how to manage their archived caches. If someone wants to allow other people to log finds on their archvied cache listings then that is their prerogative. I would just like a more robust toolset to help us, cache owners, to manage our archived cache listings.

 

First, I did read the entire thread, I just don't type as fast as you do.

 

In one of the examples I gave, I believe the cache owner was 100% sure the cache was gone, but it was still there. I think the existing system works well. What you suggest is a bad idea. It gives cache owners who don't want to bother removing their caches the opportunity to suppress legitimate logs ,adds unnecessary complexity and is simply not needed.

[+Glenn]

Please reading the thread before you post next time.

As I have said before in this thread. I'm not suggesting locking down all logs on archived cache pages. Nor am I suggesting not allowing any logs to be made to all archived cache pages that are dated after the pages archive date. I am suggesting that the option be given to the cache owner to block only the found it type log and only those that are dated after the archive date. Cache owners would use this and only after they have 100% verification that the cache was physicaly removed.

 

I also don't think that fake logs are a great issue. However, that doesn't mean that option wouldn't be widely use and appreciated. Besides I know plenty of features that I initially thought I would never use but after some time found that I couldn't live without.

 

I'm not telling anyone how to manage their archived caches. If someone wants to allow other people to log finds on their archvied cache listings then that is their prerogative. I would just like a more robust toolset to help us, cache owners, to manage our archived cache listings.

 

First, I did read the entire thread, I just don't type as fast as you do.

 

In one of the examples I gave, I believe the cache owner was 100% sure the cache was gone, but it was still there. I think the existing system works well. What you suggest is a bad idea. It gives cache owners who don't want to bother removing their caches the opportunity to suppress legitimate logs ,adds unnecessary complexity and is simply not needed.

 

I agree the exisiting system does work well. But I also believe that the system can be made to work better.

 

How can you be 100% sure your cache isn't there if you didn't pack the cache out yourself or have someone give it to you after they packed it out. I can see you being 99% or even 99.9% sure but until you have physical possession of your cache your can't know 100% that it isn't still in place.

 

Your argument about abuse is very thin because cache owner can already suppress logs by deleting them. What I am suggesting is disallowing only found it logs. Other log types would still be allowed. If someone wanted to write a note log saying that the cache was still in place they could (they just wouldn't be able to increase their find count by doing so) and email is always an option.

 

Another one of your points was about legitimate logs. It has been hashed out here time and time again and the same conclusion is always reached. It has been determined that it is the cache owner that desides what logs are legitimate and what logs arn't. If a cache owner doesn't want found it logs dated after the cache was archived on the cache page why should he be made to wait until someone makes the log before he has to delete it. If he is going to delete it anyways, why not allow him to just outright block those logs. Why is there a need to cause the cache owner extra work when his mind is already made up.

 

And again, I don't ever see this feature changing anyones caching behaviours. This feature has no higher goals like reducing cheating or encouraging better caching habbits. It is just a suggestion for a tool to help cache owners manage their cache listings better.

 

As far as complexity a feature like this shouldn't be any complex than one check box and if a cache owner doesn't want to use it they can simply ignore it.

[+Yellow ants]

For me, anything that has the possibility of improving my caching experience, at the very least, deserves my consideration.

 

If I happened to actually find an archived cache, being unable to post a "Found It" would definitely not improve my caching experience. How does it improve yours?

[+Runaround]

Between my own archived caches and those I monitor on behalf of the Cleveland Metroparks, I'm watching more than 30 archived caches. In a busy month I see 1-2 logs on these caches. None of these have yet to raise my suspicion. It appears to be an isolated problem best resolved between the cache owner, TPTB, or the local reviewer. I don't see the need for a new feature.

[+Glenn]

For me, anything that has the possibility of improving my caching experience, at the very least, deserves my consideration.

 

If I happened to actually find an archived cache, being unable to post a "Found It" would definitely not improve my caching experience. How does it improve yours?

As a cache owner it would by giving me another tool to manage my caches.

[+Prime Suspect]

This looks like another case of Prime's 50/100 Rule © 2006.

 

When putting forth an argument, as the number of posts in the thread by the Original Poster approaches 50%, the certainty that the Original Poster is fighting a losing battle approaches 100%.

 

[+Glenn]

Between my own archived caches and those I monitor on behalf of the Cleveland Metroparks, I'm watching more than 30 archived caches. In a busy month I see 1-2 logs on these caches. None of these have yet to raise my suspicion. It appears to be an isolated problem best resolved between the cache owner, TPTB, or the local reviewer. I don't see the need for a new feature.

There is no problem that will be fixed by this feature it will be an site enhancement. Site enhancements are rarely introbuced to fix problems, that is what bug fixes are for and this is no bug fix.

 

Let me give you a for example. For example, a few cache owners were using HTML to change the background image on their cache page from the standard green to an image that they uploaded to the page. TPDB added a feature to the page that allowed you to simply put a URL in a text box and that image would be used as the background image. There was no hugh problem they were trying to fix. This wasn't a big bug fix. It just made things a little easier for cache owners to edit the their pages. It was a site enhnacment. It wasn't even a wide sweeping event that effected everyone. As a cacher I can't tell which pages use which method simply by surfing to the page. It seems that most other cache owners, myself included, don't use the feature. So it is of little use to most. But just because I don't use that feature on any of my pages it doesn't mean that I wouldn't complain as loud as everone else if the feature was suddenly removed.

[+Glenn]

This looks like another case of Prime's 50/100 Rule © 2006.

 

When putting forth an argument, as the number of posts in the thread by the Original Poster approaches 50%, the certainty that the Original Poster is fighting a losing battle approaches 100%.

 

I think your right so I'm locking this thread ATT.

 

People keep comming back with the same points.

1) What is this going to fix?

It isn't going to fix anything. It is a site enhancement not a bug fix.

2) How is this going to stop cheaters?

It isn't this is a site enhancement. In other words a better way to do things. It is not a bug fix.

3) I as a cacher want to be able to log a found on an archived cache even if the cache owner doesn't want me to.

Well, that isn't your call. It is up to the cache page owner if your log stays or goes.