Private cache logs

[+Happy Humphrey]

A UK topic under discussion in this thread is about the significant number of cachers who sign the logbook but rarely (or never) log on the web page. Instead, they keep a personal diary of caches found. Unfortunately, they may still pick up geocoins and travel bugs!

 

I suspect that they are shy about what they write and/or can't be bothered to say a lot (or anything) in a public log. Add to this the feeling that some cache owners are sensitive, or critical of certain types of log style (TNLNTFTC, for instance) and trigger-happy with the delete button, and I think we have a good case for allowing cachers to mark their log as Private.

 

This would disallow access to the log entirely: exceptions being the person who submitted it, and moderators (in case bad behaviour is evident). Everyone else would simply see that it had been found (or not found) by the cacher: so the log would look the same as any other but there would be no text.

 

Whilst this might annoy certain people (those that feel the need to control how their cache is logged) and whilst it's useful to read of other peoples' experiences before you look for a cache, I think that it would encourage a proportion of secretive cache loggers to use the website as their diary. Most of my caches have logs from this type of cacher, and it would have been a benefit to have been informed without having to visit the cache itself. So anything we can do to encourage on-line logging would help.

 

HH

Edited November 7, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[CoyoteRed]

I agree with being able to keep some aspects of one's activities private.

[Mushtang]

... the significant number of cachers who sign the logbook but rarely (or never) log on the web page. Instead, they keep a personal diary of caches found.

Not logging your find on the website is rude. I know the reasons why some do it, and I'd never support any change to the site that required that all cachers log their finds (if it were possible to do so), but it's still rude to find a cache and not leave some sort of log.

 

Long flowing logs that praise a cache are nice, but even short TFTC logs are information worth sharing.

[+Happy Humphrey]

it's still rude to find a cache and not leave some sort of log.

That may be the case, in your opinion (and others), but the fact remains that some people don't log on the web. Surely a simple "X Found the cache" is an improvement?

 

I can understand that there are people who will print cache pages and go and find caches, but don't like to feel obliged to offer their notes to the public. It would be nice to be able to explain to a potential cacher "and of course you can make your remarks private if you so wish", rather than having them put off the whole thing by what they see (rightly or wrongly) as a tedious and/or worrying obligation.

 

HH

[+baloo&bd]

I can understand that there are people who will print cache pages and go and find caches, but don't like to feel obliged to offer their notes to the public. It would be nice to be able to explain to a potential cacher "and of course you can make your remarks private if you so wish", rather than having them put off the whole thing by what they see (rightly or wrongly) as a tedious and/or worrying obligation.

 

I can't understand it, mostly because I think this is a none issue.

 

I understand not wanting to log on the web, I know one or two who do it. They truly are not interested in the numbers nor particpating in that aspect of the hobby. It is neither rude nor lazy and it would make no difference if their logs were kept private, they still would not post.

 

On the other hand, if you will post anonymously or privately but not publicly, that is rude. Many use the logs to decide to hunt a cache or even help them find it. If you want to stay private so you can take snipes at the cache owner, cache or other cachers that is rude, which there really would be no other reason for them being private.

[CoyoteRed]

If you want to stay private so you can take snipes at the cache owner, cache or other cachers that is rude, which there really would be no other reason for them being private.

 

If no one can see it other than the author and admin, why would anyone do that? Doesn't make a whole heck of a lot sense to me.

[+Happy Humphrey]

On the other hand, if you will post anonymously or privately but not publicly, that is rude. Many use the logs to decide to hunt a cache or even help them find it. If you want to stay private so you can take snipes at the cache owner, cache or other cachers that is rude, which there really would be no other reason for them being private.

Sorry, I don't get the last part. If your log is private, no-one else can see it: so no sniping is possible.

 

Obviously, this doesn't apply to anyone on here: but many people are still afraid of the Internet and would rather stay as anonymous as possible. Opening their comments and opinions to public scrutiny isn't part of their way of life. However, I think that geocaching.com offers a fine facility to store one's caching record: and the facility to keep your own caching notes on the database (whether or not you're interested in the stats) is an attractive selling point. It's kind of odd that we're obliged to make these notes public though: why not give us freedom of choice (defaulting to public).

 

I would add that I'd stick with allowing anyone to view my own cache notes, and I do agree that having a look through a cache log history is useful at times - and I'm proposing this feature so that the number of logs increases (even if you only know that a cache has or hasn't been found and can't always read the circumstances).

 

HH

[+tozainamboku]

As the OP points out, you can always just not log you find online. You can always keep track of finds on your own. There is no need for the Geocaching.com website to provide a special log type for keeping track of finds but logging them on line. If there is a problem with cache owners deleting legitimate finds there might be a need to address this. I don't see a problem right now. If KBI deletes CRs find becuase he didn't write poetry, CR can ignore the cache and always know that he really did find it. Some people are anal rententive and want their find count to be "accurate". They need to remember that this is just a game and not get so upset if their number is one or two less (or more) than it should be. In the meantime, I will continue to do my part to make sure the find count is accurate by crossing out names in the physical log book of those that didn't log online

[CoyoteRed]

Not logging your find on the website is rude.

 

I don't understand this. Why would it be rude? You've already written in the logbook. Why would it be rude to not log online?

 

No, I'm not talking about providing pertinent feedback like moving TBs or reporting problems, but "TNLN TFTC" is a good log? It tells you nothing and would be no different than no text at all.

 

Additionally, I find it ironic that one would call not logging at all rude while supporting a cache owner demanding a finder to log a particular way. So, not logging is rude, but a cacher owner deleting a log is not.

[CoyoteRed]

...(even if you only know that a cache has or hasn't been found and can't always read the circumstances).

 

This is an interesting concept which can be extended further with a new log-type called "visited." This would be for repeat visits to a cache after the initial find. It would serve the same function of a "Found It" in regards to someone confirming the cache is still there and the "Last Found" date, which generally indicates the last date the cache was confirmed in place, to "Date Confirmed There" or something similar. Return visits to drop or pick up travelers, or similar actions do confirm the cache is still there, but these visits don't change the "Last Found" date.

 

When folks look at "Last Found" they are really wanting to know when was the last time the cache was confirmed there. This date is a bit inaccurate because there could be many visits afterwards. The new log-type would change that.

[+Cache Heads]

I am one who takes privacy extremely seriously-- especially online. I don't like the accessability that the internet offers when it comes to peering into ones private matters. I have an entirely seperate name, email address, PO Box, and voicemail specifically for use on the internet. I refuse to post any pictures that contain images of my family (other than myself) on any website and have never done so. So, believe me, I can understand the issue of wanting to keep things private. With that said, I have never felt that I was jeopardizing my privacy by writing an online geocache log. If there is something I don't feel comfortable saying, I just don't say it. If I really want to keep my experience private, I barely say anything at all. "Found the cache after a bit of searching. Thanks for hiding it!" or even just "Found it. Thanks." doesn't reveal anything about the cacher or their experience, but it still allows them to track their counts on GC.com and use the functions associated with doing so. Truthfully, the biggest privacy issue involved with this is the ability for others to know where you tend to spend your time, or what geographical area you happen to be at the moment.... but in your suggestion, the cacher handle would still be associated with the private log and viewable to the public-- so that issue still exists.

 

In the end, a cacher can make an online log as private as they want simply by choosing what to include and what not to include within it. If a cache owner is offended by their brief log, they can shoot the owner an email letting them know not to take it personally and that it's a privacy issue. I'd be surprised if most owners wouldn't be understanding of this.

[+nfa]

I don't see the need for a new type of log.

 

Why would type-A cache-owners have less problem with logs on their caches that they could not read than with TNLN TFTC! logs?

 

Anything I don't want the geocaching world to see/read/know I simply leave out of my found it log (or didn't find it log)...if I wish to make a personal note about the cache, I enter it into the cache's visit-entry of my personal TB, which I log into and out of every cache I visit.

 

People who choose not to log their caching online will not change their habits with the addition of a new log-type.

 

jamie - nfa

[+Happy Humphrey]

In the end, a cacher can make an online log as private as they want simply by choosing what to include and what not to include within it.

That's fine under some circumstances: but if you want to put in a bit more detail to remind you about the cache, then this approach won't work.

Example:

 

(Private log for own use only)

Found this cache when I had a spare half hour after visiting Aunt Jane in Westwick, who was the usual PIA. Nice spot, but muddier than expected so wish I'd brought the wellies as couldn't avoid gettting dirt in the new car. Container was filthy so had to stop at Fred's diner on the way back to get a wash - aren't those places awful!

 

(Public version with opinions and personal details left out)

TFTC.

[CoyoteRed]

In the end, a cacher can make an online log as private as they want simply by choosing what to include and what not to include within it.

That's fine under some circumstances: but if you want to put in a bit more detail to remind you about the cache, then this approach won't work.

Example:

 

(Private log for own use only)

Found this cache when I had a spare half hour after visiting Aunt Jane in Westwick, who was the usual PIA. Nice spot, but muddier than expected so wish I'd brought the wellies as couldn't avoid gettting dirt in the new car. Container was filthy so had to stop at Fred's diner on the way back to get a wash - aren't those places awful!

 

(Public version with opinions and personal details left out)

TFTC.

 

Prime example of the difference between our own journal and what we write online. Beautifully illustrated.

[+sTeamTraen]

If I were truly worried about my online privacy, I would want to know how many levels of security were in place at Groundspeak HQ to stop anyone from stealing the logs and thus working out that, even if account X didn't log a find on cache GCZZZZ, that account was used from IP address 1.2.3.4 at (date, time) to view the page of GCZZZZ. To a stalker that might be very useful information. I'm sure Groundspeak doesn't sell that kind of info, but I presume they don't have US Marines guarding the office either.

 

Of course, I'm not worried about all that, but it seems inconsistent to think that we might be stalked for what we write but not what we read.

 

Similar considerations apply for the question of whether to have a "public" and "private" version of the log; plus, at any point, a little database glitch and poof!, all your private logs appear online at 23:00 PST and stay up until someone gets to work at Groundspeak the next morning. Flash crowd in the forums as everyone gathers to see what cacher X really thinks of cacher Y. Lawsuit for defamation follows with Groundspeak named as co-respondent.

 

If people don't feel able to log because of shyness, that's their choice. Perhaps they could use a PKI scheme and then only their trusted buddies could read the logs. But then how would I use the "subtle give-away" info in the logs to cheat help with my cache searches?

[+baloo&bd]

In the end, a cacher can make an online log as private as they want simply by choosing what to include and what not to include within it. If a cache owner is offended by their brief log, they can shoot the owner an email letting them know not to take it personally and that it's a privacy issue. I'd be surprised if most owners wouldn't be understanding of this.

 

Another option, refering to the comment about "geographical" concerns is to just delay logging for an extended period of time.

 

If tracking things personally is the goal, use a combination of GSAK and the ignore list.

[+Cache Heads]

In the end, a cacher can make an online log as private as they want simply by choosing what to include and what not to include within it.

That's fine under some circumstances: but if you want to put in a bit more detail to remind you about the cache, then this approach won't work.

Example:

 

(Private log for own use only)

Found this cache when I had a spare half hour after visiting Aunt Jane in Westwick, who was the usual PIA. Nice spot, but muddier than expected so wish I'd brought the wellies as couldn't avoid gettting dirt in the new car. Container was filthy so had to stop at Fred's diner on the way back to get a wash - aren't those places awful!

 

(Public version with opinions and personal details left out)

TFTC.

 

Prime example of the difference between our own journal and what we write online. Beautifully illustrated.

Exactly. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want an accurate journal containing the details of your caching experience, but you don't want to do it publicly through GC.com.... well, then that's what paper is for

Edited November 7, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+PAWSitraction]

I don't understand this. Why would it be rude? You've already written in the logbook. Why would it be rude to not log online?

 

No, I'm not talking about providing pertinent feedback like moving TBs or reporting problems, but "TNLN TFTC" is a good log? It tells you nothing and would be no different than no text at all.

 

Additionally, I find it ironic that one would call not logging at all rude while supporting a cache owner demanding a finder to log a particular way. So, not logging is rude, but a cacher owner deleting a log is not.

 

I agree to a point, but the bolded part below is where there is a potential for rudeness:

A UK topic under discussion in this thread is about the significant number of cachers who sign the logbook but rarely (or never) log on the web page. Instead, they keep a personal diary of caches found. Unfortunately, they may still pick up geocoins and travel bugs!

 

If they don't log online, the coins / bugs don't get registered as being picked up out of the cache, then people think the coins / bugs are still there. And IF they take a bug or coin and then don't drop them anywhere, then it's impossible to email them and ask them to move them along. Perhaps they've just forgotten, but they'll never get the reminder email, because they don't log online.

I've seen that happen several times - people who don't log online pick up a TB, then either drop out of caching, or forget they have it, or what have you. Even if they sign the physical log, there's no way for anyone to contact them.

 

From a cache owners' perspective, yeah, I like to see online logs, but I figure uit's up to each person how they're going to cache. If they don't like to log online, that's fine.

However, if they're going to pick up a traveler, they really should log THAT online, at least. Log the pickup, log the drop. That's all I ask.

[+sbell111]

I think that this is a solution in search of a problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

it's still rude to find a cache and not leave some sort of log.

That may be the case, in your opinion (and others), but the fact remains that some people don't log on the web. Surely a simple "X Found the cache" is an improvement?...

 

 

The X log is a new way to post "TFTC" with less effort and not even the abbreviated thanks part. I'm suprised we don't already get FI caches (Found It) since that's two less characters.

 

Logs are why owners place caches. No log, no incentive, nothing to find due to lack of cache placing interest. Some people would still place them but most would lose interest.

 

Another log benefit is that since I'm responsible for the cache and I'm the one who has to answer for any moronic things that a finder may do, it's handy to know what they are up to. Not everone logs as it is but it does help you keep tabs on the cache because at least someone who does take the time to do the right thing will post about the trail that's developing, or the wet log, or the litter that was dumped nearby etc.

 

Lastly while you as a finder may seek as a ghost (no logs anywhere) if I had my way I'd not even allow those who don't log access to my caches. That's not viable so I don't sweat it. A cache with no logs is nothing more than litter.

 

What you are asking is for an X log to have your stats and to not feel any obligation for a better log. Leaving it to less people still to write the logs that keep this activity going.

 

If you need an X log just put "X" in the log. It's 50% less work than FI and 75% less work than TFTC. From this day forward I'll know what an X log means.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think that it would encourage a proportion of secretive cache loggers to use the website as their diary...

 

I forgot to mention: If I recall correctly the Terms of Service of This Site allows this site to use the data we submit for derivative works. That means there is no such thing as a private log or diary without a TOS change. The TOS can’t really be changed much since it’s written in such a way to allow this sit to make caching available on the internet.

[Mushtang]

Not logging your find on the website is rude.

 

I don't understand this. Why would it be rude? You've already written in the logbook. Why would it be rude to not log online?

Because you're not giving feedback to the owner and to future cachers. The owner went to the trouble to hide a cache for you to find, so it just seems courteous to let him know you found it, didn't find it, enjoyed it, found it full of water, etc. This is also very useful information for future finders too. If you don't log your finds online you're keeping useful information to yourself. That's rude.

 

No, I'm not talking about providing pertinent feedback like moving TBs or reporting problems, but "TNLN TFTC" is a good log? It tells you nothing and would be no different than no text at all.

It's not the best log, but it IS a log. It tells me that you found it, and that the cache is indeed there if I wanted to go look for it. If very few people logged their finds and the most recent log were months old, I wouldn't be as confident that a cache might be there before I headed out. That's just one example.

 

Additionally, I find it ironic that one would call not logging at all rude while supporting a cache owner demanding a finder to log a particular way. So, not logging is rude, but a cacher owner deleting a log is not.

Those are completely different issues. If you want to discuss ALRs I'd be happy to, but not in this thread (and not in the last one we were in). Start a new one.

 

Not logging your find (or DNF, or whatever) online is rude.

[CoyoteRed]

Not logging your find (or DNF, or whatever) online is rude.

 

...in your opinion.

 

In mine, it's not. It's simply a matter of choice.

 

When we do maintenance calls on our caches, we always look through the logbook and see there have been folks who signed the logbook and not logged online. Never once has it ever crossed my mind these folks were being rude for not doing so.

[Mushtang]

Not logging your find (or DNF, or whatever) online is rude.

 

...in your opinion.

 

In mine, it's not. It's simply a matter of choice.

 

When we do maintenance calls on our caches, we always look through the logbook and see there have been folks who signed the logbook and not logged online. Never once has it ever crossed my mind these folks were being rude for not doing so.

I will agree with you on this 100%. We're both expressing our opinions. I wouldn't want to do anything to force anyone to believe the way I do, or to cache the way I do.

 

When I visit my caches and read through the logbook I see people that haven't logged online quite often. I roll my eyes, think it rude, and do nothing about it.

 

Like I said in my first post to this thread - even if it were possible to force a cacher to log all finds online I wouldn't want the site to do so. I'm okay with people playing the game their way, even if it is rude.

[Neos2]

I also think it is a non-issue. Privacy and the ability to remain shy while still logging are available to anyone at any time--you don't really think my name is Neos2, do you?

 

Oh sure, I've been to events and told folks that I cache under that name, but I didn't have to go to the events--I could have gone to events under one name and logged my finds online under another. So no one else had to know my true identity. Even now, there are people who have cached with me all day long who likely don't know my full name, and may not even be sure of my first name.

 

That should impart a feeling of freedom, rather than of self-consciousness. I'd encourage anyone who feels awkward about electronic communication to keep their true identity secret and use the anonymity to practice their communication skills in the relative comfort zone.

[+StarBrand]

The 4 or 5 groups I know that cache but don't log online still wouldn't go online to even say - "found it" - they just don't care about that aspect of caching.

 

As an owner - I love to read the logs and I feel it is a very important aspect of caching - the whole social interaction of seeing who what and where.

 

I can't make anybody log them - so I just live with the way it is.

[Mushtang]

I also think it is a non-issue. Privacy and the ability to remain shy while still logging are available to anyone at any time--you don't really think my name is Neos2, do you?

 

Oh sure, I've been to events and told folks that I cache under that name, but I didn't have to go to the events--I could have gone to events under one name and logged my finds online under another. So no one else had to know my true identity. Even now, there are people who have cached with me all day long who likely don't know my full name, and may not even be sure of my first name.

 

That should impart a feeling of freedom, rather than of self-consciousness. I'd encourage anyone who feels awkward about electronic communication to keep their true identity secret and use the anonymity to practice their communication skills in the relative comfort zone.

I agree. It seems strange to me that some people freely publish their real names, address, and cell numbers online, but argue that their cache logs or find numbers be kept "private".

 

Very ironic indeed.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I also think it is a non-issue. Privacy and the ability to remain shy while still logging are available to anyone at any time.

Not the case. See my example above: we can't just write whatever you like in a cache log, but have to bear in mind that it's public and censor accordingly. So you might want to remark on your Aunt who you visited on the way, or you might want to mention that you have a new car which you got mud on, or you might want to criticise the restaurant you used on the way home. After all, the primary reason for writing a log is as your geocaching journal (isn't it?), and your thoughts at the time will bring back the memory of the day.

 

But for a log which is going to be viewed by all and sundry, all this stuff is perhaps a little too personal: so as a fairly shy or cautious cacher you're likely to edit all that type of thing out of the log altogether. Even though identity is hidden, many are uncomfortable with seeing such thoughts out in the open.

Now you're left with an inane "TFTC" or some trivial one-line log, and you have to write your "real" log (call it journal or diary if you prefer) somewhere else (on paper, which gets lost when you move house, or found by your work colleague...).

 

I'm not arguing that this is a big problem (or even really a problem), simply suggesting a new feature. But I think that there is a demand for the facility to make your own personal, private notes on the web site, and I also see it as a benefit to the more shy, retiring cacher who isn't interested in the "caching community" but enjoys hunting caches and noting his observations.

 

Perhaps the best suggestion is to allow the attaching of extra notes to a log: the log being as normal, but the extra notes restricted.

 

HH

[Jeremy]

I'm sure Groundspeak doesn't sell that kind of info, but I presume they don't have US Marines guarding the office either.

 

The machines are actually hosted in one of the most technically secure locations in Seattle. There are, however, no Marines on duty there.

 

It's an interesting idea. I'll put it on the "nice to have" feature list in Fogbugz.

[+baloo&bd]

Not the case. See my example above: we can't just write whatever you like in a cache log, but have to bear in mind that it's public and censor accordingly. So you might want to remark on your Aunt who you visited on the way, or you might want to mention that you have a new car which you got mud on, or you might want to criticise the restaurant you used on the way home. After all, the primary reason for writing a log is as your geocaching journal (isn't it?), and your thoughts at the time will bring back the memory of the day.

 

If this is what you want to use the logs for, use GSAK, a diary, a notebook or something else more suitable.

 

Remeber, no matter what, if it is online it is going to be accessible in some manner.

[+tozainamboku]

Perhaps the best suggestion is to alw the attaching of extra notes to a log: the log being as normal, but the extra notes restricted.

 

Sounds like you are asking for Groundspeak to provide space on their servers for you to record a private log. Certainly there are some social websites that provide a semi-private space for you to leave information that can only be seen by your friends list as opposed to everyone on the net. Geocaching.com probably does not want to become another MySpace or Live Journal. The log information is meant to be shared with the cache owner and everyone else who looks at the listing. If you want to have a personal log, there are plenty of options other than having Groundspeak provide you with the disk space. But if you insist on it being hosted on Geocaching.com, premium members already have the ability to create private bookmark lists and to enter whatever they like as comments for each cache they add to a bookmark list.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tozainamboku

[Neos2]

I also think it is a non-issue. Privacy and the ability to remain shy while still logging are available to anyone at any time.

Not the case. See my example above [...] After all, the primary reason for writing a log is as your geocaching journal (isn't it?), and your thoughts at the time will bring back the memory of the day.

No, I wouldn't say that was the primary reason for the journal. I think most cachers would say that the primary reason for the online log is to share your experiences with the cache with other geocachers.

 

I usually read the cache logs to see what the hike to the cache is like, how long it might take me to find it, what tools I might need to prepare, if the cache needs any small repairs that I can take care of when I find it, if there is a theme for the trade items and so forth.

 

I write my logs with that in mind, too, for the next cacher--although I'm also prone to add a bit about any personal connections I might have with the spot, or any amusing stories from the trip out there. It is nice to read back through those, and doing so will often trigger other memories of the day as well; I don't, however, feel a need to turn the cache logs into personal diaries.

 

As tozainamboku and baloo&bd have already pointed out, there are already plenty of other options for creating a personal diary or online blog.

[+KBI]

I also think it is a non-issue. Privacy and the ability to remain shy while still logging are available to anyone at any time.

Not the case. See my example above: we can't just write whatever you like in a cache log, but have to bear in mind that it's public and censor accordingly. So you might want to remark on your Aunt who you visited on the way, or you might want to mention that you have a new car which you got mud on, or you might want to criticise the restaurant you used on the way home. After all, the primary reason for writing a log is as your geocaching journal ...

It is? What do any of those things you mentioned have to do with the cache?

 

I disagree with your premise. The primary reason for writing an online cache log is to indicate – to the owner, future finders, and your future self looking back – whether or not you found the cache. Most people also take the opportunity to post facts and opinions related to the cache experience and the condition of the hardware. Some even include interesting (to them, anyway) personal asides, which are frequently fun to read, but this is entirely optional.

 

I don't think online cache logs were ever intended to be a record of personal and private memories as their primary purpose. That's entirely optional.

 

 

... and your thoughts at the time will bring back the memory of the day.

If you really want to maintain a "geocaching journal" complete with cache-irrelevant or sensitive personal information, I would join previous posters in inviting you to do so via a separate personal diary of some type (paper, PDA, whatever) that is NOT linked to the Internet.

 

 

But for a log which is going to be viewed by all and sundry, all this stuff is perhaps a little too personal: so as a fairly shy or cautious cacher you're likely to edit all that type of thing out of the log altogether. Even though identity is hidden, many are uncomfortable with seeing such thoughts out in the open.

Now you're left with an inane "TFTC" or some trivial one-line log, and you have to write your "real" log (call it journal or diary if you prefer) somewhere else (on paper, which gets lost when you move house, or found by your work colleague...).

I just don't see this as a problem. "Inane" and "sanitized of sensitive personal information" are two completely different things. There are many ways to go beyond "TFTC" without bringing your aunt into it.

 

Besides, there is no such thing as a perfectly secure written record. If you're truly afraid of someone else reading about your relatives or your muddy car, then simply don't write it down – anywhere. If the memory of a specific event is really that important to you, then you're not likely to need help remembering it anyway, are you?

 

 

I'm not arguing that this is a big problem (or even really a problem), simply suggesting a new feature. But I think that there is a demand for the facility to make your own personal, private notes on the web site.

Just curious: What is your basis for believing that a person who is already too shy or afraid to post their caching activity to an online cache page would be willing to store their personal or private notes on ANY web site?

 

 

... and I also see it as a benefit to the more shy, retiring cacher who isn't interested in the "caching community" but enjoys hunting caches and noting his observations.

As others have already pointed out, your suggestion is not likely to change the behavior of those types of cachers.

 

(If you can really call them "cachers," that is. I tend to agree with others that those folks aren't fully participating in the game, conveniently leaving it to the rest of us to do the dirty work of posting 'Needs Maintenance' logs, etc.)

 

 

Perhaps the best suggestion is to allow the attaching of extra notes to a log: the log being as normal, but the extra notes restricted.

Again, how is that any more secure than keeping those written notes in a private offline format of your own?

 

 

 

I think your suggestion is thoughtful and creative, HH. I just don't think it would be used by the targeted group, or that there's even a problem in the first place.

Edited November 9, 2006 by KBI

[markandlynn]

 

I think your suggestion is thoughtful and creative, HH. I just don't think it would be used by the targeted group, or that there's even a problem in the first place.

 

I know of some local cachers who dont log online but use pocket queries who would love this idea.

 

a ) One doesnt log online because they worry about sounding stupid on a publicly viewable cache page

b ) One doesnt log online because they are computer phobic and are afraid of pressing the wrong button !

c ) I know a third who doesnt log online because of privacy fears etc.

 

a and c use pq's and mark caches as found using GSAK i a would use this logging facility (i asked them) c would consider it if thier profile could be hidden or was accesed via permision only.

 

Examination of our cache log books shows about 4% of the logs are from people who dont log online at all if this would persuade just one more person to log online would'ny it be an improvement of value to ALL ?

[+baloo&bd]

I know of some local cachers who don't log online but use pocket queries who would love this idea.

 

a ) One doesn't log online because they worry about sounding stupid on a publicly viewable cache page

b ) One doesn't log online because they are computer phobic and are afraid of pressing the wrong button !

c ) I know a third who doesn't log online because of privacy fears etc.

 

a and c use pq's and mark caches as found using GSAK i a would use this logging facility (i asked them) c would consider it if their profile could be hidden or was accessed via permission only.

 

Examination of our cache log books shows about 4% of the logs are from people who don't log online at all if this would persuade just one more person to log online wouldn't it be an improvement of value to ALL ?

 

a. Nothing can be said.

b. Private logs would have no impact on this.

c. Private logs would have no impact on this.

 

The online logging portion is one of the social aspects of GC. It also performs the other necessary functions mentioned previously in this thread. I don't think the site should need to cater to a very miniscule minority because the are phobic or anti-social and in all likelyhood, would not change their behaviour even if there were private logs.

 

It appears, by your description, a and c have already found and are using a solution so there is not problem for them. If b is computer phobic, how would making it private change this? The phobia would carry over to not checking the right box.

 

As to your log books, many prefer to not log online for many reasons, mostly (it appears) because they are not in it for numbers or the social aspect. While I would love everyone who finds my caches to log them online, there is no requirement compelling them to do so. Making the log private won't affect them one way or the other.

[+V-I-cacher]

In the meantime, I will continue to do my part to make sure the find count is accurate by crossing out names in the physical log book of those that didn't log online

 

I certainly hope, that the smiley behind that is a sign of you simply jesting!

 

It's like tearing a couple of pages of logbook out and all of a sudden say: nanananana, you didn't find it! ?!??

 

Back to the subject:

It is not a rare occassion to find TB and coins in caches they were never logged into, by whoever moved them.

 

So what? Next finder straightens out the situation online...

...I usually go the extra mile on that and after retrieving the coin from where it was signed into, "drop it" into the cache I really found it at, then retrieve it from there...

 

If there is anything to ask from non-online-logging cachers, then it is to leave the travel-items alone...

...but what if they can help them on their mission? If they want to help an item on it's mission, I say, let them!