+Team Idasam Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I recently sent an inquiry to GC.com about a new cache idea and they suggested that I post that idea on the forums to get everyone's opinion. So here it is: What do you all think about a dual (or more) ownership of caches? In my neck of the woods, there are a lot of caches that are collaborated on by groups of cachers, but the cache can only show up on one of the cacher's profiles. What if there was an option (kind of like a friend request) so that we could have multiple owners for a cache? All the owners would be able to access the the cache page just like they do for their own caches so that everyone can edit, modify, or do maintenance. Everyone would also get credit for the hide. Any thoughts? Link to comment
+whistler & co. Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 This has been discussed before. Someone will probably be able to post a link to that/those thread(s). I think it is a good idea. Dual ownership would be a convenient way for families/teams to share the credit for hides, for more than one person to be able to host an event, and for out-of-town cachers to team up with locals in creating new hides. Thumbs up to multiple cache owners! Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 While I too like the idea - I can also see a logistical problem in making it work at a database/programming level. One idea to correct this is to create "teams" and assign the cache ownership to the team and then allow members of the team access. Maybe. Link to comment
+Kealia Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I've never seen the need for this. I've hidden caches with others who have accounts and we just decide who will be the official owner. Since you can list multiple names on the cache page, and others can watch the cache to get all the notifications - what's the real benefit to this? I guess I just don't see the need for "credit" for a hide. If this is REALLY something that you want, what about: - Setting up a new account under a group name where everybody knows the password - Logging hides under that account Link to comment
+Ned Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 One idea to correct this is to create "teams" and assign the cache ownership to the team and then allow members of the team access. Maybe. I have thought of this as well, I think the "teams" idea would be great for multiple owners on a single hide. Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 One idea to correct this is to create "teams" and assign the cache ownership to the team and then allow members of the team access. Maybe. I have thought of this as well, I think the "teams" idea would be great for multiple owners on a single hide. If two people hide the cache, and only one gets credit for the hide, the other would not want to mark it as found since they helped hide it. It would continue to be in their filtered nearest unfound list and in their pq's for unfound caches. Ignoring it would mean they couldn't get emails when it is logged, which they might like to keep track of. I'm not sure if it's possible to ignore and watch the same cache Having an extra team account would mean both would deal with it as an unfound cache. Link to comment
+the hermit crabs Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Ignoring it would mean they couldn't get emails when it is logged, which they might like to keep track of. Not true. I'm not sure if it's possible to ignore and watch the same cache It is possible (which is why the other statement is not true ) Link to comment
+Beaverbeliever Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I love the idea, but as Star Brand said, it would be hard to program it. I would suggest making a new account on GC.com that if the users "Jack" and "Jill" hid the cache, create and account Jack and Jill. That way it will appear on the cache page Placed by Jack and Jill. Just share the password between the 2 people, and it should work... Link to comment
+JABs Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Just do what one local team does and have an account for the team with all there finds and all there hides under that account. Even if the team has over a 1000 finds each menber my only of been to 3/4 of those finds. But they get to claim the team finds/hides. Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Just do what one local team does and have an account for the team with all there finds and all there hides under that account. Even if the team has over a 1000 finds each menber my only of been to 3/4 of those finds. But they get to claim the team finds/hides. No... please do NOT do that! Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Just do what one local team does and have an account for the team with all there finds and all there hides under that account. Even if the team has over a 1000 finds each menber my only of been to 3/4 of those finds. But they get to claim the team finds/hides. No... please do NOT do that! Why not? This is no different than the family account where not everyone in the family goes to every cache but they still log it on that account. It sounds like they may even be keeping individual accounts to track their individual finds in addition to the team account. I'm not sure who is competing with a team or family of cachers that they need to define team find = everybody on the team found it together. Most team/family accounts don't work that way. Link to comment
+BWidget Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 This is how I would do it. Then each individual of the team can log a find. If this is REALLY something that you want, what about: - Setting up a new account under a group name where everybody knows the password - Logging hides under that account Link to comment
+benh57 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Or rather than all these silly workarounds (which the OP didn't ask for) - geocaching.com could just implement the feature requested. There is a clear need for it, as evidenced by all the workarounds. Sockpuppet / "shared" accounts are likely to be technically against the TOU, anyway. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I like the idea and have wished for it before myself. It might help keep caches better maintained. It would also let you hide a cache in your favorite vacation spot if you can find a local buddy/family member to co-own it with you. I don't really see any downsides. It seems like they could assign a primary owner and then have secondary owners to simplify the programming. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Or rather than all these silly workarounds (which the OP didn't ask for) - geocaching.com could just implement the feature requested. There is a clear need for it, as evidenced by all the workarounds. Sockpuppet / "shared" accounts are likely to be technically against the TOU, anyway. 1. Workarounds are to be expected when someone asks for a new feature. Even if there is a need for the feature (which I am not sure of in this case), people offer workaround so that others can accomplish what they are set out to do in the first place. 2. Not sure that there is a clear need. A caches are place by multiple accounts all the time. One person is the cache owner. The placed by field can have a team name or list the accounts that placed the cache. The other team members can ignore the cache, if they are premium members, and put it on their watchlist to get notifications when the cache is logged. The only problem is that only the owner can edit the cache page or clear a needs maintenance log. The self-adoption page can be used to transfer ownership if needed. 3. Sock puppet accounts are against the Forum Guidelines. There is no mention of sock puppet accounts in the TOU for Geocaching. Since team accounts are allowed, I'd guess you could have a team account and an individual account. We know already that many of the volunteer reviewers maintain two separate accounts. Link to comment
+benh57 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 (edited) 1. Workarounds are to be expected when someone asks for a new feature. Even if there is a need for the feature (which I am not sure of in this case), people offer workaround so that others can accomplish what they are set out to do in the first place. 2. Not sure that there is a clear need. A caches are place by multiple accounts all the time. One person is the cache owner. The placed by field can have a team name or list the accounts that placed the cache. The other team members can ignore the cache, if they are premium members, and put it on their watchlist to get notifications when the cache is logged. The only problem is that only the owner can edit the cache page or clear a needs maintenance log. The self-adoption page can be used to transfer ownership if needed. 3. Sock puppet accounts are against the Forum Guidelines. There is no mention of sock puppet accounts in the TOU for Geocaching. Since team accounts are allowed, I'd guess you could have a team account and an individual account. We know already that many of the volunteer reviewers maintain two separate accounts. 1. "not sure it's needed"? Are you kidding? You really saying that with a straight face? Ignoring and watching your own cache makes logical sense to you? Are you high? 2. Indeed. Here we go again, Toz. The Old guard again going to great (ridiculous) lengths to deny any change to the website. If there's a workaround, then a feature is clearly not needed. No changes or improvements to the site, ever! GMAFB. This forum is for suggesting site improvements. Some seem to visit just to shoot down each thread. 3. I'm 90% certain that i've seen TPTB state in one of hte many flame threads that sock accounts are not allowed on the 'regular' site as well. After all, they are the same accounts. Team accounts used for creating caches i'm sure are tolerated, though. -Ben Edited April 2, 2008 by benh57 Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I am going to take most of these points offline or discuss them with Ben the next time I see him at an event but I do want to agree at least in part with this statement This forum is for suggesting site improvements. Some seem to visit just to shoot down each thread. There does seem to be a bit of an attitude from time to time than any suggestion made here (or even any bug that is reported) isn't worthy of the attention of TPTB. I sometimes think of this as the "brown nosed" forum with everybody happy with the status quo and taking every suggestion as criticism of TPTB. Suggestions for changes and bugs reported should be taken as sincere requests to improve the site. That being said, I think that people have a right to ask a poster to give a reason why they need a change challenge that reason by suggesting alternatives provide workarounds that accomplish the same thing while waiting for a change to be made indicate what they feel are the relative priorities of this change to others in the queue (I like my change better than your change) Link to comment
Recommended Posts