Jump to content

Filtering Specific Cache Owners out of Pocket Queries?


TheCarterFamily

Recommended Posts

Can't let it go because I'm now left with a big mess I don't know what to do with.

 

Because of the comment from GC.com I'm now left with uncertainty as to the state of all my 651 logs in the system. Every software I've written in the last 2 year "for my own personal use" is now useless and I have to start over, it's all based on my logs being permanent.

 

It would be so bad if the deleted logs showed up in the MyFinds gpx file with a flag to show who deleted them.

 

So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

Link to comment

Can't let it go because I'm now left with a big mess I don't know what to do with.

 

Because of the comment from GC.com I'm now left with uncertainty as to the state of all my 651 logs in the system. Every software I've written in the last 2 year "for my own personal use" is now useless and I have to start over, it's all based on my logs being permanent.

 

It would be so bad if the deleted logs showed up in the MyFinds gpx file with a flag to show who deleted them.

 

So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

 

I don't know. I've never been in your circumstances. Well, if I'd built a lot of software based around this thing, yes, I'd probably be upset. :sad:

 

Sorry, but it seems to me that you were just inviting trouble, and it finally caught up with you. You've been caching for 2 years, about the same amount of time I have been, and you never ran into this before? That is what seems oddest to me, not someone deleting multiple find logs on the same cache.

Link to comment

Can't let it go because I'm now left with a big mess I don't know what to do with.

 

Because of the comment from GC.com I'm now left with uncertainty as to the state of all my 651 logs in the system. Every software I've written in the last 2 year "for my own personal use" is now useless and I have to start over, it's all based on my logs being permanent.

 

It would be so bad if the deleted logs showed up in the MyFinds gpx file with a flag to show who deleted them.

 

So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

I see this all the time in my work. Some programmer decides to write a program to do some task. He doesn't do any system analysis to understand the problem. He doesn't spend any time writing requirements to specify what his program needs to do. He doesn't spend time laying out a design that can be modified later if needed. He just starts to write code and after awhile gets something that works. At least for awhile. Then someone throws a curve, there is some change in the inputs that the programmer didn't consider, or maybe his boss asked for the outputs to be displayed in a different format. The programmer gets upset that all his work is now useless and he quits his job. :sad:

Link to comment

When I visit a cache more than once I log a "Found It" record for each visit. That way my MyFinds Pocket Query contains the journey I took from cache to cache. (Just call me the human travel bug :sad: , I'm even keeping my DNFs and GPS tracklogs too)

 

I have a cache owner who is deleting my logs because he says they mess up his stats page (I'm assuming this is the page http://www.underwaterlabs.com/geocaching.php) I have the feeling the duplicate player log is messing up his spider program to get the cache information (GPX files only contain 20 logs, since I'm about 38 I'm assuming it's via a spider or something). The problem I have is it's leaving a big hole in my MyFinds stats.

 

Not to pile on but I would delete your multiple logs as well and do delete them when I see it on my caches. Your not really 'finding' it if you already know where it is, its really just a way to inflate your find count and I consider it cheating, and I have suggested before that GC.com should prevent multiple finds being posted.

 

So my question, is it possible to filter his caches out specificly from the pocket query? That way I don't have him deleting any more of my logs in the future.

 

I can always manually delete his caches from my GPX files... I was just wondering if there was a way to do it from the Pocket Query page.

 

As for the OP I have on times wanted to add a cacher to my ignore list so I can ignore all caches placed that person. Usually this is to screen out those who like to place caches in poison oak and thorn bushes rather than enforce reasonable ethics.

Link to comment

Can't let it go because I'm now left with a big mess I don't know what to do with.

 

Because of the comment from GC.com I'm now left with uncertainty as to the state of all my 651 logs in the system. Every software I've written in the last 2 year "for my own personal use" is now useless and I have to start over, it's all based on my logs being permanent.

 

It would be so bad if the deleted logs showed up in the MyFinds gpx file with a flag to show who deleted them.

 

So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

I see this all the time in my work. Some programmer decides to write a program to do some task. He doesn't do any system analysis to understand the problem. He doesn't spend any time writing requirements to specify what his program needs to do. He doesn't spend time laying out a design that can be modified later if needed. He just starts to write code and after awhile gets something that works. At least for awhile. Then someone throws a curve, there is some change in the inputs that the programmer didn't consider, or maybe his boss asked for the outputs to be displayed in a different format. The programmer gets upset that all his work is now useless and he quits his job. ;)

 

Your too funny. :(

 

Out of curiosity what company do you work for?

 

As for my coding ability... I will admit I didn't do enough analysis. I wasn't expecting to write entire system around handling deleted find logs. I was geared up to use find logs to filter out "Found Caches" in my system. Now I can't rely on that. I guess next time I'll include the possibility that the source data will be inaccurate and bogus.

 

Just to really clarify what I'm upset about is being totally powerless to control my own content and my own destiny. If the cache owner could only control his page that would be fine. But by being able to archive any log on his page, he can now affect all downstream systems, including my own summary page. Personally I don't care if my name shows on his page. I just want it to show on mine.

Link to comment

....So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

Work for change, Adapt for reality.

Reality is that you should use your software to capture your logs upon writing them and before the owner can delete them.

The change you want is to be able to see all your logs, including the archived ones. It may be simple enough to show all the logs on your log page, but show only the active logs on the cache page.

Link to comment

I would delete your extra logs too. While it may not be a "Law" it is generally accepted among players that you will only log a cache as found Once. As opposed to there being "Thousands" of people logging finds for every extra visit, I would challenge you to even find ten. Do you log a find every time you visit your own Caches? I would also challenge you to find ten Cache owners who do not delete the extra logs.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
Second is to tighter define "Bogus". Because it's messing up my spider program that's crawling GC.com to me doesn't seem to be a "Bogus" entry. Especially when I'm a programmer and could probably fix his spider program. :(

You might want to take a closer read of the ToS.

 

Me I know full well that spidering is not allowed. (I was wondering when someone else would notice that fact) ;) That's this guys reason for deleting my log. Because it breaks his stats page (which since my log is 38th on the list it's not in the GPX file) only other way to poll this data is to spider the page. (if he was doing it manually he could just not include the stat.

It seems that this has been dropped, or at least ignored for a while here. It is possible to gather all logs from a cache page using a GSAK macro. To assume that someone is using a spiderbot on GC is a bit hasty.

I'm not saying that they aren't using the spider, but I'm not ready to say they are, either.

Link to comment

Good grief man, are you looking to be inducted into the Geocaching Hall of Fame someday or what?

 

I can somewhat understand wanting to keep some sort of general track log for yourself but to get this worked up over it, I guess I just don't get that part... especially logging multiple finds on the same cache for whatever reason... you'd think that would really throw off your 'real' stats and make them basically unrealistic.

 

So technically, by your method... I could have 500 finds on the same cache just by visiting it every day and logging it.

 

Wow.

 

I sure hope I'm missing something here, and if I am please feel free to enlighten me.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

Good grief man, are you looking to be inducted into the Geocaching Hall of Fame someday or what?

<snip>

I sure hope I'm missing something here, and if I am please feel free to enlighten me.

Are you in a competition with TheCarterFamily? I'm not sure why you are getting worked up because he interpreted the 'Found It' log to mean he visited the cache site and found that the cache was there. If on his revisit he didn't find the cache would you get upset if he posted a DNF? How can he post a DNF if he already found the cache?

 

It may very well be that his interpretation of the meaning of the logs is not the majority view. Many people wish to count only the first time they find a cache as a find the rest of the time post just a note. Some people get really picky and won't log a find if they forgot a pen or the log was too wet to sign. Others will log a find if they only find the remains of a cache container or even something they feel was the mechanism that used to hold the cache in place (e.g. a piece of velcro on the bottom of bench). There is no official definition of when you should use a 'Found It' log. There is only a guideline that the cache owner is responsible for the quality control of the posts to their cache page and they should delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. Clearly a cache owner who insist on an interpretation of 1 find per GC # will delete multiple 'Found It' logs on their cache.

 

The OPs mistake is in not recognizing that cache owners can delete logs they feel are bogus and that his use of the 'Found It' log would likely result in some of his logs being deleted by owners who have a different definition. He has started two other threads looking for ways to track his 'finds' as he defines them given that some of his logs may get deleted. It looks like he has gotten a few good suggestions in the other threads so maybe he can resolve this problem to his satisfaction.

Link to comment

I would delete your extra logs too. While it may not be a "Law" it is generally accepted among players that you will only log a cache as found Once. As opposed to there being "Thousands" of people logging finds for every extra visit, I would challenge you to even find ten. Do you log a find every time you visit your own Caches? I would also challenge you to find ten Cache owners who do not delete the extra logs.

 

This is my rude, dismissive agreement with Write Shop Robert. :(

 

I agree. I would do the same thing, re: deleting logs.

Link to comment

I would delete your extra logs too. While it may not be a "Law" it is generally accepted among players that you will only log a cache as found Once. As opposed to there being "Thousands" of people logging finds for every extra visit, I would challenge you to even find ten. Do you log a find every time you visit your own Caches? I would also challenge you to find ten Cache owners who do not delete the extra logs.

 

I've been debating to post this but it does illustrate my frustration. "While it may not be a "Law" it is generally accepted among players that you will only log a cache as found Once" In the past it was generally accepted that all black people should be salves... does that make it right because it was the majority at the time?

 

To you a cache uniqueness is the waypoint number. To me the uniqueness is the physical cache. We can argue it till we're blue in the face. It's not going to change my belief that if the physical location and/or entire cache structure is changed, it's a new unique cache. If you want to report caches your way that's fine. Don't dictate to me how I should view my own stats.

 

As for your challenge, oh I love a challenge. Since I've received over 10 private e-mails of people supporting me I'd say I reached your challenge... however the fact they sent them to me privately, I suppose they don't want me to post there names here... So I have nothing to prove it.

 

So I'll do it another way.

 

From my analysis of my GPX data (also remembering I don't have everything) I have found over 41,118 people who have allowed duplicate logs on their cache. Since I've only been able to re-analyze about 5,000 caches to remove deleted logs let's assume low, that only 1% of that is accurate. 411 people. So if we assume that if they allow it on their cache they are ok with it. Does 411 people beat your challenge? :(

Link to comment

tozainamboku,

It takes a lot more than a forum thread about a cache log getting deleted to get me worked up.

 

:(

 

Breathe. ;)

 

Also, DEFINITELY not in competition with anyone... that's actually part of my point, to ME it's not worth getting so obsessed over and last I checked I was free to express my opinion. I guess I'm still trying to figure out where the 'OP' is coming from or headed... Either I'm slow today or just don't get why deleting a second find on the same cache id is such a big deal. (I truly am trying to understand it, not get the 'OP' upset.) It's just based on what I've read and the way I interpreted what I read, it's hard for me to comprehend the reasoning.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment
tozainamboku,

It takes a lot more than a forum thread about a cache log getting deleted to get me worked up.

 

;)

 

Breathe. :)

 

Also, DEFINITELY not in competition with anyone... that's actually part of my point, to ME it's not worth getting so obsessed over and last I checked I was free to express my opinion. I guess I'm still trying to figure out where the 'OP' is coming from or headed... Either I'm slow today or just don't get why deleting a second find on the same cache id is such a big deal.

 

I'm just one of those crazy people who is on meditation... :) <-- can't find the right smile for that...

 

Point: I don't like being powerless to control my own content and destiny. These people who are working me up, are essensally saying its their right as cache owners to control my destiny. I think they should only be in control of their pages... .not what I can and can't pull through my own My Finds PQ.

 

Heading: I've come to beleive that GC.com will only implement change if the majority in this forum agree. So my request for change being that the My Finds PQ be untouch by cache owners, that there be a way to filter owners out of PQs and all the other request I have out there. So I'm heading to get that majority vote.

 

Optimistic Heading: I'd like geocachers to stop dictating how other geocachers should have fun and enjoy the sport. Their numbers are their business, and don't actually affect anyone else. This would take a fundmental shift in human behavour, and to be true to my words, I can't force others to change. Just respond to there posts and hope for the best. :(

Link to comment

Awesome, thanks for clarifying this for me...

 

Although I 'think' (dangerous, I know) that I was reading what you wrote correctly, it's good to know I was and that you really DO want your numbers, your way.

 

I could care less (and really should care less) what your numbers are. However as a cache owner, on the rare instance I would even notice you logged the same cache twice, it would bring up a red flag in my eyes.

 

1. I would think you mistakingly logged it again.

2. If not, I would think you're padding numbers.

3. Possibly logging it for another member of your family.

 

Chances are (again, on the rare occasion I might notice) I would email you and ask if it was intentional, hear your side and then make my decision. If you were cool about it, I'd have no problem just overlooking it however if you replied with an attitude I'd have no problem deleting it.

 

I believe in 'you cache your way, I'll cache mine', it's supposed to be fun... and that is the bottom line.

 

:(

Link to comment

 

I've been debating to post this but it does illustrate my frustration. "While it may not be a "Law" it is generally accepted among players that you will only log a cache as found Once" In the past it was generally accepted that all black people should be salves... does that make it right because it was the majority at the time?

 

 

Well, that was quite a reach......

Link to comment
Second is to tighter define "Bogus". Because it's messing up my spider program that's crawling GC.com to me doesn't seem to be a "Bogus" entry. Especially when I'm a programmer and could probably fix his spider program. :)

You might want to take a closer read of the ToS.

 

Me I know full well that spidering is not allowed. (I was wondering when someone else would notice that fact) :) That's this guys reason for deleting my log. Because it breaks his stats page (which since my log is 38th on the list it's not in the GPX file) only other way to poll this data is to spider the page. (if he was doing it manually he could just not include the stat.

It seems that this has been dropped, or at least ignored for a while here. It is possible to gather all logs from a cache page using a GSAK macro. To assume that someone is using a spiderbot on GC is a bit hasty.

I'm not saying that they aren't using the spider, but I'm not ready to say they are, either.

Also, by downloading GPX files over time (even at 5 per file) you can get all the logs on a cache. Unless you are clearing the database before each load, GSAK will accumulate logs as new ones are loaded. So it is very possible to have all logs on a cache without using a spider.

Link to comment

Optimistic Heading: I'd like geocachers to stop dictating how other geocachers should have fun and enjoy the sport. Their numbers are their business, and don't actually affect anyone else. This would take a fundmental shift in human behavour, and to be true to my words, I can't force others to change. Just respond to there posts and hope for the best. :)

Aren't you doing the very thing you are against? By insisting that you can make multiple Found logs you are dictating to the cache owner how they "play" the game. So who's "rights" take precedence? It seems that the vote falls to the cache owner, as they have 'control' of the cache page.

 

BTW, using GSAK to gather your logs, even if they are deleted from the cache page they'd still be stored in the GSAK database. So you could have all the data you want.

 

Or, as others have suggested, get a trackable (coin or TB) and use it track yourself. There's no problem dipping the same trackable into a cache as many times as you want.

Link to comment
Heading: I've come to beleive that GC.com will only implement change if the majority in this forum agree. So my request for change being that the My Finds PQ be untouch by cache owners, that there be a way to filter owners out of PQs and all the other request I have out there. So I'm heading to get that majority vote.

 

I'd venture to say this isn't going to happen. Otherwise it would be easy to log any cache anywhere at any time. Sure a lot of your logs could get deleted, but the logs would just keep coming in a "my finds" PQ. Allow folks to compile all kinds of interesting stats. Bog down the system and be just a general pain.

Link to comment

Would this work? Sorry, I'm new.

 

Creat a cache. Once it's published. Create a "Found It" log and back date it before your 400th find. Perhaps you could even back date it to the day of the deleted log. You don't even have to go there, just create the dummy log.

 

In the log explain why your doing this entry with ALL the gory details, including referencing the old GC#. How one your of physical finds was deleted, the whole story, etc.

 

This should adjust all your stats properly. So now your 400th find is your 400th find. Then archive the cache.

 

As long as the page allows you to back date this should work shouldn't it? Plus you have an accurate record of your travels and how it happened.

 

I'm on your side by the way, howver, it's pretty clear that the hider can do pretty anything they want with their cache page.

 

You can find something twice...it happens all time. I've bet others have found their car keys twice and I'm willing to bet many of them have found them in the same spot twice.

Edited by dspaedt
Link to comment

Regardless of the discussion about multiple find logs, the topic of being able to filter out specific geocache owners is a valid one on its own merits. I can even provide a non-cynical rationale for this.

 

 

One time I was meeting up with another geocacher for some hunts. Obviously it made sense to rule out geocaches that either of us found, and there are programmes that can create that filter. However, this specific geocacher is rather prolific with hides (over 500 at last check), so ruling those out on my PQ makes sense as well. True, I can use Watcher to filter them out that way, but I would still have a smaller PQ (and thus area) to work with.

 

 

Come to think about it, perhaps a similar feature that can filter out a specific geocacher's finds as well might make sense, even more sense in some ways. I rather not have to shuffle my Ignore list each time I plan a geocaching hunt with someone or a solo excursion.

Link to comment

Regardless of the discussion about multiple find logs, the topic of being able to filter out specific geocache owners is a valid one on its own merits. I can even provide a non-cynical rationale for this.

 

One time I was meeting up with another geocacher for some hunts. Obviously it made sense to rule out geocaches that either of us found, and there are programmes that can create that filter. However, this specific geocacher is rather prolific with hides (over 500 at last check), so ruling those out on my PQ makes sense as well. True, I can use Watcher to filter them out that way, but I would still have a smaller PQ (and thus area) to work with.

 

Come to think about it, perhaps a similar feature that can filter out a specific geocacher's finds as well might make sense, even more sense in some ways. I rather not have to shuffle my Ignore list each time I plan a geocaching hunt with someone or a solo excursion.

 

I agree that, setting aside the OP's tantrums, there are many reasons the ability to filter out a specific cache owners caches could come in handy.

 

I have a friend who I have assisted in hiding most, if not all, their caches to some degree. Now I ignore them which works, but having another method would be helpful too.

Link to comment

Can't let it go because I'm now left with a big mess I don't know what to do with.

 

Because of the comment from GC.com I'm now left with uncertainty as to the state of all my 651 logs in the system. Every software I've written in the last 2 year "for my own personal use" is now useless and I have to start over, it's all based on my logs being permanent.

 

It would be so bad if the deleted logs showed up in the MyFinds gpx file with a flag to show who deleted them.

 

So my question to you... under my circumstances... wouldn't you be a little upset too?

Seems to me one of the rules of software develpemnet is to write code to come up with the correct answer, not so it just comes up with the answer you are looking for. That's just poor programming.

Link to comment
Certainly defining 'bogus' could be a help. But to take your request/theory a step further, I have a cache I drive by 4-5 times a day. I could certainly be within my rights to log this as a find every time I pass by. About once a week I could place preprinted form w/signature in the cache to verify my so-called find. At the end of the week I could have 25-30 more finds to increase my numbers with very little effort involved.

 

Which leads to ask, WHY? And since it hasn't been asked and you did try at an explanation as to why, but seemed a little weak! Just why is it so important to log it as a find and not just post it as a note as suggested.

 

:D

 

Why is it so important. Simple, log type.

 

If I write a note it can be to just say hello or any reason. If I'm tracking a journey of actually physically finding a cache the log type "Found it" is the only one that fits at the moment.

 

When I start trying to filter my own logs how do I filter... GC.com filters on log type, so do I. IF you want to log the same cache 25-30 times that's your business. I'm not as bold as to dictate and enforce how another person runs there life.

 

I see this as a fundamental part of the flaw in your argument. You are trying to force the cache owner to play the game the way you want to play it rather than adapt your game play (and your program) so it can work for you. Since you are a programmer you should easily be able to write your program to combine all of your finds and notes, but exclude notes that just say "hello or any other reason".

 

Your entire premise is indeed that you are so bold as to dictate and enforce how another person runs their (geocaching) life.

Link to comment
tozainamboku,

It takes a lot more than a forum thread about a cache log getting deleted to get me worked up.

 

:D

 

Breathe. :D

 

Also, DEFINITELY not in competition with anyone... that's actually part of my point, to ME it's not worth getting so obsessed over and last I checked I was free to express my opinion. I guess I'm still trying to figure out where the 'OP' is coming from or headed... Either I'm slow today or just don't get why deleting a second find on the same cache id is such a big deal.

 

I'm just one of those crazy people who is on meditation... :D <-- can't find the right smile for that...

 

Point: I don't like being powerless to control my own content and destiny. These people who are working me up, are essensally saying its their right as cache owners to control my destiny. I think they should only be in control of their pages... .not what I can and can't pull through my own My Finds PQ.

 

Heading: I've come to beleive that GC.com will only implement change if the majority in this forum agree. So my request for change being that the My Finds PQ be untouch by cache owners, that there be a way to filter owners out of PQs and all the other request I have out there. So I'm heading to get that majority vote.

 

Optimistic Heading: I'd like geocachers to stop dictating how other geocachers should have fun and enjoy the sport. Their numbers are their business, and don't actually affect anyone else. This would take a fundmental shift in human behavour, and to be true to my words, I can't force others to change. Just respond to there posts and hope for the best. :D

 

Point: I don't care about your geocaching destiny other than I hope you enjoy your journey. My caches belong to me and I see no reason why I should be required to modify the way I play the game and maintain my caches because of some other player who has written a program that forces me to change the way I play the game in order to satisfy the requirements of the program.

 

Optimistic Heading: I'd like other geocachers to stop dictating how other geocachers should have fun and enjoy the sport. :D

Link to comment

An on topic reply from Jeremy in another thread from many moons ago:

 

Nov 29 2005, 03:25 PM Post #10

Group: Site Wide Moderators

Posts: 9,159

Joined: 1-June 00

From: Emerald City, USA

 

Geocaching etiquette would say that logging a find twice for the same cache is not ok. However there are enough reasons why it is ok that there is no programming logic to restrict it. There are, however, ways for the cache owner to delete finds when he or she feels that it is wrong. In most situations it is the cache owner's responsibility to enforce a double-logging situation.

 

So does it increase the statistics for a listing? Yes. Is it bad form? Yes, except in some situations. Do I care? Only when I consider it abuse of the site, like when someone logs an archived cache they never found just to boost their find count. That's just outright rude.

 

briansnat, although I do care about the cheats in all the examples you offer, you are using examples from competitive activities. If you are in competition with geocachers over your find "score" then I assume you would validate whether that person is "playing" fair. However I continue to maintain that geocaching as the geocaching.com site is concerned is a noncompetitive activity, so someone's find count shouldn't harm you.

 

I gave you the entire post just so I couldn't be accused of quoting out of context. It seems pretty clear to me. I don't see anything about multiple finds being ok just because a particular user wrote a program that wants to use the site differently than intended.

Link to comment

Wow! What a bizarre thread! OP (who describes himself as a Human Travel Bug) takes offense that his multiple logs for the same cache get deleted. As has been noted, it is expected of owners to delete such bogus finds. OP is on a high horse, insisting that following the guidelines is an infringement of his rights.

The pertinent solution is the "Human Travel Bug" remedy. Tattoo a TB number on yourself, and use that to track your mileage! How simple a remedy! (Okay, OP can use a personal TB instead. Many cachers do this to track their mileage.) One's rights only extend until they tread on others' rights. (In this case the rights of the cache owner.)

But, the question is how to filter a cache owner from a PQ. Click on cache owner's name. Open his or her hidden cache pages. Put them on your ignore list. On PQ, click 'and not on my ignore list'. Repeat as necessary. Very simple solution (except for cachers who expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter.)

Link to comment

Not to argue the side points of "cheating at solitaire," (my standards are straight and clear) but I understand the problem that some may have. For ex. I have a cache that will allow up to four extra "found-it" logs, provided adequate pictures are taken at the cache site (if a cacher wishes to do so).

 

What about the possibility of a box on the cache submission page giving the cache owner the abilitiy to either allow or disallow extra "found-it" logs...

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