Jump to content

Audit log without members only


Firth of Forth
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

Interesting logic applied here. If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member. The only ways to know if they're a member or not is to scrutinize the audit log or go check their profile (I think those are the only ways). If they haven't caused problems then I would wonder (not for very long, mind you) why anyone would care if they're exploiting the loophole.

If you want the audit log, switch the cache back to members only.

Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

 

Are you also suggesting that if a muggle stumbles upon it and, as a result, signs up for GC and logs it you will delete their log?

 

Why worry about it? What "problems" is it causing? It's found, it's logged, move on. It not like they are hacking or exploiting anything that gc is not aware of anyway.

Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

 

I think that you will find that most cachers who use the loophole are those that have found the cache in the company of a premium member. The loophole has probably been put there for that very reason. If they know of the loophole they are obviously regular cachers.

 

Family members often wish to cache in separate names.

Partners often wish to cache in separate names.

 

But is it necessary for each individual of whatever partnership they are in to have to pay membership? Surely this is not required.

 

As long as the non-member doesn't log the cache as a FTF is there any problem in this?

 

Yes I visited a premium member cache recently, and yes I was with a premium member, was I to sit in the car and wait, or was I to re-visit the cache again once the restriction was lifted?

 

Nobody wants to fall out over finding a cache in a nice spot, isn't that the whole point of caching anyway?

 

Rather than hope that GC.com will overload their servers even more with extra audit logs, would a Stat counter, or Web tracker be useful to you? You just put a short line of code on your pages before you submit (which they give you, no need to be a computer geek), that way you can see all visits, regardless of the cache membership status? They are very simple to use, and are plenty of free sites on the Internet to choose from .........however I do not know if they are suitable for what you want.

Link to comment

As long as the non-member doesn't log the cache as a FTF is there any problem in this?

 

Maybe it's just me, however why would it be a problem if a none member was FTF? Keep in mind the example I gave in first post of a non-cacher finding it.

 

Isn't the very purpose of a cache to be found?

Link to comment

As long as the non-member doesn't log the cache as a FTF is there any problem in this?

 

Maybe it's just me, however why would it be a problem if a none member was FTF? Keep in mind the example I gave in first post of a non-cacher finding it.

 

Isn't the very purpose of a cache to be found?

 

Yes I fully agree with you, I was just being courteous in not doing so myself.

 

I wish more people were of your opinion.

Link to comment

If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member.

 

Not necessarily. All it takes is for another cacher who is a member to email a non-member the url (as I understand it since I have never done it).

 

Why have members-only caches if they aren't, then? Perhaps the whole thing should be abandoned.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

If you want the audit log, switch the cache back to members only.

 

Yes, that's what I would like but without the difficulties that can arise from caches being members only. This is not about blaming people for logging members only caches; it's simply a request for these two things (members only and audit log) to be separated. I could make all of my caches members only to be able to see the audit logs, but I think that would be much misinterpreted!

 

There are cachers who would delete logs from non-members and this is the problem that I think should be avoided, if possible.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

As I understand it, the question is if it would be possible for a premium member to have an audit log on their non-premium only caches. Nothing to do with who may log what cache.

Having started some of my caches as PMO I have to say that it was nice to be able to see who was looking at them. It was interesting to see users from other parts of the country in the audit log and wonder what drew their attention to my cache, along with all the local cachers that I recognized.

I think it would be interesting for a premium member to see the same thing on their non-PMO caches. The real question is what would it do to server load?

Link to comment

As I understand it, the question is if it would be possible for a premium member to have an audit log on their non-premium only caches. Nothing to do with who may log what cache.

Having started some of my caches as PMO I have to say that it was nice to be able to see who was looking at them. It was interesting to see users from other parts of the country in the audit log and wonder what drew their attention to my cache, along with all the local cachers that I recognized.

I think it would be interesting for a premium member to see the same thing on their non-PMO caches. The real question is what would it do to server load?

 

Exactly. At least two people here understand the point so far! :D

Link to comment

If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member.

 

Not necessarily. All it takes is for another cacher who is a member to email a non-member the url (as I understand it since I have never done it).

 

Why have members-only caches if they aren't, then? Perhaps the whole thing should be abandoned.

 

I think may have misunderstood. Sending the url to a non-member isn't going allow them to see the page, if they use the link its going to tell them they can't view the page just like if they tried viewing from any search results. To LOG the page they can change the url, which may be what your thinking of (the 'loophole' is explained here, and probably a few others places for those that care).

To get the location of a MOC a non PM member would have to either get the info from a PM member, figure out the location by using distances from known locations (like if a TB is logged into the cache, or other caches/coords. I've never actually done it that way, but it supposed to be possiable)

or as someone said just stumble across it.

 

As for putting the audit feature on regular caches, that sounds interesting :D . Given people need to be logged in to see the coords now, I wonder how difficult it would be put in such a feature?

Link to comment

If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member.

 

Not necessarily. All it takes is for another cacher who is a member to email a non-member the url (as I understand it since I have never done it).

 

Why have members-only caches if they aren't, then? Perhaps the whole thing should be abandoned.

 

I think may have misunderstood. Sending the url to a non-member isn't going allow them to see the page, if they use the link its going to tell them they can't view the page just like if they tried viewing from any search results. To LOG the page they can change the url, which may be what your thinking of (the 'loophole' is explained here, and probably a few others places for those that care).

To get the location of a MOC a non PM member would have to either get the info from a PM member, figure out the location by using distances from known locations (like if a TB is logged into the cache, or other caches/coords. I've never actually done it that way, but it supposed to be possiable)

or as someone said just stumble across it.

 

As for putting the audit feature on regular caches, that sounds interesting :D . Given people need to be logged in to see the coords now, I wonder how difficult it would be put in such a feature?

 

I meant the url for the logging page, sorry, which can be viewed and then submitted by a non-member. Of course, they cannot subsequently see their log on the cache page. Yes, a premium member would also have to tell a non-member what the coordinates are, too, or copy and paste the cache page, or give some information about the location of the cache.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

Since the loophole is well enough known, I should think that if you do not want a non-member to log the cache, that should be spelt out in the cache page. An ALR. (Which brings up the question of how the non-member would know that? Naw. They would have had to get the info from someone.) Before I was a member, I asked permission from a few owners to log their MOCs. Some even sent me the cache page information! Most cache owners have no problems with non-members logging the MOC when accompanied by a member. Those who do should specify that in their page.

If you did not wish to succumb to pressure from non-members to make you cache public, just put your foot down. (Or fin, or paw.) I regularly cache with a non-member. If a non-member were not permitted to log the MOC, we would not hunt for them. If my caching partner's logs got deleted for not being a member, I would delete my finds as well! And we would blacklist that hider. We do not usually do many of them. There are not a lot in our area. But we did do five excellent MOCs last weekend!

I do not know how audit logs would affect the bandwidth/transmission rate at this site. It seems to me that there are enough problems with this as things are....

Link to comment

Since the loophole is well enough known, I should think that if you do not want a non-member to log the cache, that should be spelt out in the cache page. An ALR. (Which brings up the question of how the non-member would know that? Naw. They would have had to get the info from someone.) Before I was a member, I asked permission from a few owners to log their MOCs. Some even sent me the cache page information! Most cache owners have no problems with non-members logging the MOC when accompanied by a member. Those who do should specify that in their page.

If you did not wish to succumb to pressure from non-members to make you cache public, just put your foot down. (Or fin, or paw.) I regularly cache with a non-member. If a non-member were not permitted to log the MOC, we would not hunt for them. If my caching partner's logs got deleted for not being a member, I would delete my finds as well! And we would blacklist that hider. We do not usually do many of them. There are not a lot in our area. But we did do five excellent MOCs last weekend!

I do not know how audit logs would affect the bandwidth/transmission rate at this site. It seems to me that there are enough problems with this as things are....

 

I think that the logging of premium member only caches by non-premium members is a side issue here.

The real subject is about the idea of having an audit log available for non-premium member caches placed by premium members.

The possible repercussions of the added strain such a feature would have on the servers is one possible downside.

I would enjoy such a feature on my caches. As it is I would have to post my caches as PMOCs in order to see an audit log on them. Not something I would ever do.

Link to comment

Surely a feature such as this would cause many questions asked about a cachers right to privacy?

 

Yes I'm sure we have all spent too many times going back to the page of a particularly evil puzzle?

 

Looking through logs on a particular cache??

 

Looking through caches in a particular area I am planning on visiting??

 

I dont think I would want my activities open to others in such a manner where they could track my movements?

 

At the moment if I look at a PMO cache I am aware that the owner will probably be looking at the audit log and I do think twice before going onto such a page. If this facility was open to all premium member owned caches, would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

 

Yes I do respect my right to privacy!

Link to comment

Getting back to the original topic: I don't think it would be posible to have the audit log for non-premium member caches, because this would involve logging in before even seeing the cache page. While you need to log in for the coords, logging in for every page would really be a pain in the rear.

Link to comment

Not sure why privacy concerns came up since they do not come into play here, however the system resources would probably not justify it. Think about the storage requirements alone.

 

Having it as an option would ease it somewhat, however you would still have the people who turn it on "just in case" with no real reason, or even understanding of what it is, to use it.

Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

Interesting logic applied here. If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member. The only ways to know if they're a member or not is to scrutinize the audit log or go check their profile (I think those are the only ways). If they haven't caused problems then I would wonder (not for very long, mind you) why anyone would care if they're exploiting the loophole.

If you want the audit log, switch the cache back to members only.

I agree with pdxmarathonman. The logic used for removing the PMO status on the cache(s) in question was very convoluted and, to me, extremely confusing. We own a great many PMO caches -- in fact, the majority of our caches are PMOC -- and we never mind the occasional non-PM finder who finds the cache and uses one of the 644 known loopholes on the system to log it; and, we encourage non-PMs who find our caches to file logs (using one of those loopholes.) In actual fact, our post-facto research shows that logged finds by non-PMOs constitute fewer than 1% of finds on our PMO caches, and, in each case, the non-PM was accompanied on their hunt by a geocacher who was a PM. In fact, in the majority of the cases, the non-PM was a child under 18 years of age who was accompanied by their PM parent on the find. To us, this is not a cause for worry or concern; we are not the Geocache Rightneousness Police (GRP.) :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Surely a feature such as this would cause many questions asked about a cachers right to privacy?

It's already a feature.

 

I don't think I would want my activities open to others in such a manner where they could track my movements?

Noone would be able to make an overall track of anyone's 'movements', as they would only be able to see audit logs for their own caches.

 

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log. However, recently this has caused problems as non-members who object to 'selective availibility' go ahead and log them anyway through the loophole.

 

I don't want to start deleting logs and getting into a wrangle with people, so I just changed the caches so that they are open to all - my hand has been forced as it were, earlier than anticipated.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members. Since non-members can get round this, it seems a bit pointless, and has lots of potential for people falling out.

 

Thanks.

Interesting logic applied here. If people use the loophole they obviously are partnered with a member. The only ways to know if they're a member or not is to scrutinize the audit log or go check their profile (I think those are the only ways). If they haven't caused problems then I would wonder (not for very long, mind you) why anyone would care if they're exploiting the loophole.

If you want the audit log, switch the cache back to members only.

I agree with pdxmarathonman. The logic used for removing the PMO status on the cache(s) in question was very convoluted and, to me, extremely confusing. We own a great many PMO caches -- in fact, the majority of our caches are PMOC -- and we never mind the occasional non-PM finder who finds the cache and uses one of the 644 known loopholes on the system to log it; and, we encourage non-PMs who find our caches to file logs (using one of those loopholes.) In actual fact, our post-facto research shows that logged finds by non-PMOs constitute fewer than 1% of finds on our PMO caches, and, in each case, the non-PM was accompanied on their hunt by a geocacher who was a PM. In fact, in the majority of the cases, the non-PM was a child under 18 years of age who was accompanied by their PM parent on the find. To us, this is not a cause for worry or concern; we are not the Geocache Rightneousness Police (GRP.) :rolleyes:

 

The logging of member only caches by non-members isn't the issue I'm trying to ask a question about. Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse. :rolleyes:

 

The issue of server capacity is one that I hadn't thought of, not being a techy sort of person. If that is a problem, then I wonder if a way round it is that the audit log feature could be time-limited, as it's mostly for new caches that cachers find it more interesting.

 

It's not something that is a burning issue for me. There are probably other features that have a higher priority (such as the split of countries into regions as discussed on another thread in this forum).

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log.

 

I wonder if it's possible to make the audit logs a members only perk without caches having to be listed as only available to members.

Thanks.

 

Edited down to the core request (hope you dont mind :rolleyes: )

 

Sounds a good idea perhaps as stated above it could be time limited and the option would be

 

I want to see who has looked at this cache page.

 

Still would have the issue of people who cache by pq's would not show up on the audit log.

 

Would be a nice value added feature for premium members to enjoy

Link to comment

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

 

If the requested feature where like the current MOC audit, then all you'd need to do is get the info from PQs. Since those that got thats caches info from a PQ is not recorded in the audit log :rolleyes: .

Link to comment

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

 

If the requested feature where like the current MOC audit, then all you'd need to do is get the info from PQs. Since those that got thats caches info from a PQ is not recorded in the audit log :rolleyes: .

 

But you have to be a premium member to get PQs, so the only way to stay 'hidden', as it were, is to pay for membership. :rolleyes: Somehow I think we're going round in circles. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Surely a feature such as this would cause many questions asked about a cachers right to privacy?

It's already a feature.

 

Yes I realise that as I said later in my post. I do not intend to search for a PMO cache therefore do not look at the pages intentionally, however if in order for my sites activities not to be audited I would have to restrict my caching activities to those set by non PMs.

 

 

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

 

No, most people who do PMO caches seem to justify the reason as being a bit of fun to see who has been looking at their cache?

 

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log.

Link to comment

 

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

 

No, most people who do PMO caches seem to justify the reason as being a bit of fun to see who has been looking at their cache?

 

I sometimes make my new caches members only for a short period of time as it's a bit of fun to see who has been looking at the page through the audit log.

 

Perhaps 'bit of fun' should have been better put as 'interesting'. As a previous poster said "It was interesting to see users from other parts of the country in the audit log and wonder what drew their attention to my cache, along with all the local cachers that I recognized." I would certainly expect local cachers in Scotland to have a look, even from as far away as Angus. :rolleyes: One can also speculate about who is going to be FTF

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to comment

........would we need to then check the owners membership status before we decided if we would afford them the pleasure of them seeing that we had looked at their cache?

That's a strange way of thinking about it.

 

If the requested feature where like the current MOC audit, then all you'd need to do is get the info from PQs. Since those that got thats caches info from a PQ is not recorded in the audit log :huh: .

 

But you have to be a premium member to get PQs, so the only way to stay 'hidden', as it were, is to pay for membership. :D Somehow I think we're going round in circles. :huh:

:huh:

I thought we were trying to 'hide' from the cache owners, not the people that run gc.com??? :huh:

Link to comment

It would not suprise me of this website kept an audit log on all caches and it just so happens that you as a Premium member can see them on the PMOC caches.

 

If that's the case there is no extra server time to keep the log. Just some overhead to view what already exists. I think it's a great idea to allow PMOC's to see the audit log on all their caches.

Link to comment

It would not suprise me of this website kept an audit log on all caches and it just so happens that you as a Premium member can see them on the PMOC caches.

 

If that's the case there is no extra server time to keep the log. Just some overhead to view what already exists. I think it's a great idea to allow PMOC's to see the audit log on all their caches.

 

I wonder if the extra perk of having an audit log on premium member caches may be an incentive for those cachers who remain undecided about becoming a member, to opt to do so.

Link to comment

It would not suprise me of this website kept an audit log on all caches and it just so happens that you as a Premium member can see them on the PMOC caches.

 

If that's the case there is no extra server time to keep the log. Just some overhead to view what already exists. I think it's a great idea to allow PMOC's to see the audit log on all their caches.

 

If this were the case, I agree however I can't see GC spending much time on it since I think those that would use it would be limited. On another thread there is someone complaining about the information they recieve on their hides now.

 

It would probably be more of a novelty than anything else. I still can't see much use for the information.

Link to comment

As I have already stated, I think it is just a bit of fun to look at the audit log and see who has been looking at the page of my cache. No big deal.

 

As for privacy issues, I can look at any users profile and see where and when they have been caching. I can see all the pictures in their gallery, read all the things they have put in their profile to amuse themselves and others. I'll even know what trackable they have logged. Most users have even put in the town/state/country they live in. The ony thing I will be able to add to that from the audit log is that they looked at my cachepage. I still won't know if they are even going to hunt for my cache, let alone when. It's not like I'll be able to see your credit card numbers or your mothers maiden name.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...