who's watching my cache

[+Turtle Team]

I think that if i go thru the trouble of getting coords, buying a container, placing it and designing the webpage, i should be able to know who is watching my cache. If they are watching it, maybe we could communicate back and forth about it. But all i have now is "There are 5 users watching this cache'. Well, that's nice, but WHO?

I don't think it could be THAT hard to arrange. It really would be nice.

[Mushtang]

I think that if i go thru the trouble of getting coords, buying a container, placing it and designing the webpage, i should be able to know who is watching my cache. If they are watching it, maybe we could communicate back and forth about it. But all i have now is "There are 5 users watching this cache'. Well, that's nice, but WHO?

I don't think it could be THAT hard to arrange. It really would be nice.

You can't find out and the powers that be have said repeatedly for years that they have no intention of adding the ability to see who it is.

 

The only thing you can do is post a note to the page asking nicely for those watching the cache to identify themselves to you - and then delete it. Those that have it on their watch list will get an email with the contents of the note and then they *might* send you an email. But be prepared for most not to.

 

Good luck with it.

[+flask]

if i had to be identified as watcher, i'd quit watching.

 

since most cachers consider it a compliment to have their caches watched, they'd be out of luck there.

[+The Leprechauns]

I propose that the watchlist feature be abolished. In its place, each member (premium or regular) would get a bookmark list that didn't allow for annotations like premium bookmark lists do, but which would allow the owner to decide whether to show the bookmark list publicly or to keep it a private list. Caches could still be added or removed from the watchlist with a single click from the cache page, just as we do now to ignore a cache.

 

This would roll the entire "watching" functionality into the bookmark tool.

 

As a side benefit, we wouldn't see threads anymore asking "who's watching my cache?" I could have each of the OP's caches on a non-public bookmark list and they'd be none the wiser.

[+Prime Suspect]

I think that if i go thru the trouble of getting coords, buying a container, placing it and designing the webpage, i should be able to know who is watching my cache. If they are watching it, maybe we could communicate back and forth about it. But all i have now is "There are 5 users watching this cache'. Well, that's nice, but WHO?

I don't think it could be THAT hard to arrange. It really would be nice.

Sadly, there is a minority of people who would use an exposed Watch List as the starting point for a witch hunt, should their cache be vandalized or stolen. This isn't supposition on my part. I've seen them post those intentions in these forums.

 

So, while there are good reasons to keep the list private, I've never seen a good reason to expose the list. I don't consider idle curiosity to be a good reason.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+trainlove]

People should also be aware that in addition to the ability of 'watching' by using Bookmark lists one can see a cache page without being detected by using PQ's (not appear in an audit list either). Well this is 2 birds of a different color but anyone wanting to commit a geo-crime will definately not even show up as a number in the list of watchers.

Edited August 13, 2008 by trainlove

[+ArcherDragoon]

I propose that the watchlist feature be abolished. In its place, each member (premium or regular) would get a bookmark list that didn't allow for annotations like premium bookmark lists do, but which would allow the owner to decide whether to show the bookmark list publicly or to keep it a private list. Caches could still be added or removed from the watchlist with a single click from the cache page, just as we do now to ignore a cache.

 

This would roll the entire "watching" functionality into the bookmark tool.

 

As a side benefit, we wouldn't see threads anymore asking "Who's watching my cache?" I could have each of the OP's caches on a non-public bookmark list and they'd be none the wiser.

But...then we would have..."Why isn't anyone watching my cache?"

[+TexasGringo]

***Sadly, there is a minority of people who would use an exposed Watch List as the starting point for a witch hunt, shoulod their cache be vandalized or stolen. ***

 

That is an Odd reason. You could also use the last person to your cache too as a starting point for damaged Caches, missing TB's, Geocoins and anything else that happened since the last person was there.

 

***So, while there are good reasons to keep the list private, I've never seen a good reason to expose the list. I don't consider idle curiosity to be a good reason.***

 

I have yet to hear a good reason to keep the list private.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Drooling_Mongoloid

[+TexasGringo]

***if i had to be identified as watcher, i'd quit watching.***

 

I could care less who knew I was watching their cache.

 

I've watched a few hard ones to see if other people found it. Here is one that I watched and no one after me found it...so thinking that I did something to the cache, I went back to verify that it is still there and report back to the owner.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5d-ef4fc7e73541

[+Prime Suspect]

***Sadly, there is a minority of people who would use an exposed Watch List as the starting point for a witch hunt, shoulod their cache be vandalized or stolen. ***

 

That is an Odd reason. You could also use the last person to your cache too as a starting point for damaged Caches, missing TB's, Geocoins and anything else that happened since the last person was there.

 

***So, while there are good reasons to keep the list private, I've never seen a good reason to expose the list. I don't consider idle curiosity to be a good reason.***

 

I have yet to hear a good reason to keep the list private.

It may be an odd reason. But there are odd people out there. I would consider not wanting to be a victim of some misguided person's witch-hunt to be a pretty darn good reason.

[+TexasGringo]

***But there are odd people out there.***

 

Ok, Ok....you caught me...lol

[+Turtle Team]

If i do a cache, and really like it, i will watch it to see what the next 'victims' have to say. It should flatter the hider. I wouldn't mind if the CO saw i was watching.

If someone is going to steal a container, then they are going to steal it, whether or not they are watching the cache. Maybe the 'odd' ones are the ones replying to this topic.j

OK, thanks for your replies. Wasn't aware this came up before.

Keep caching

[Motorcycle_Mama]

***Sadly, there is a minority of people who would use an exposed Watch List as the starting point for a witch hunt, shoulod their cache be vandalized or stolen. ***

 

That is an Odd reason. You could also use the last person to your cache too as a starting point for damaged Caches, missing TB's, Geocoins and anything else that happened since the last person was there.

 

***So, while there are good reasons to keep the list private, I've never seen a good reason to expose the list. I don't consider idle curiosity to be a good reason.***

 

I have yet to hear a good reason to keep the list private.

 

The reasons that I'm watching the caches I'm watching are personal and private. It's no one else's business not even the cache owner.

 

***if i had to be identified as watcher, i'd quit watching.***

 

I could care less who knew I was watching their cache.

And that's fine for you. And I would support the idea that if you WANT to make it public that you could do so.

 

However, other cachers might care if other people knew which caches they were watching. This should be respected as well in my opinion.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+TexasGringo]

***The reasons that I'm watching the caches I'm watching are personal and private. It's no one else's business not even the cache owner. ***

 

LOL

[Mr.Yuck]

***Sadly, there is a minority of people who would use an exposed Watch List as the starting point for a witch hunt, shoulod their cache be vandalized or stolen. ***

 

That is an Odd reason. You could also use the last person to your cache too as a starting point for damaged Caches, missing TB's, Geocoins and anything else that happened since the last person was there.

 

***So, while there are good reasons to keep the list private, I've never seen a good reason to expose the list. I don't consider idle curiosity to be a good reason.***

 

I have yet to hear a good reason to keep the list private.

 

OK, how about the time I was surfing Geocaching.com Google Maps, clicked on an MOC (which of course I had no idea was an MOC) 3,000 miles from home, and received an email from the cache owner a few days later asking why I looked at their cache page? None of their freaking biness. Related to the topic in hand if the watchlist was made public. What're y'all, nosy or something? Go out and find some caches.

 

EDIT looking at that the next day, that sounds like a crazy rant, but I assure you, I was just trying to be funny. I'll still go with the list not being made public due to privacy/witch hunt issues though.

Edited August 14, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+TexasGringo]

***OK, how about the time I was surfing Geocaching.com Google Maps, clicked on an MOC (which of course I had no idea was an MOC) 3,000 miles from home, and received an email from the cache owner a few days later asking why I looked at their cache page?***

 

That was YOU? ... Now, if any caches go missing somewhere around the world, you are #1 suspect.....LOL

[Mr.Yuck]

***OK, how about the time I was surfing Geocaching.com Google Maps, clicked on an MOC (which of course I had no idea was an MOC) 3,000 miles from home, and received an email from the cache owner a few days later asking why I looked at their cache page?***

 

That was YOU? ... Now, if any caches go missing somewhere around the world, you are #1 suspect.....LOL

 

I wouldn't doubt it. I have seen witch hunt examples. Anyways, it looks like Michael has weighed in in a similar thread, and he says "we never tell", as far as who is watching. I'm quite certain (but am not prepared to Markwell), that the official word from the CEO, back when he used to interact in the forums, was that there were no plans to make the watchlist public and he was thinking of removing "X people watching this cache" all together. But of course that was a couple of years ago, and that never happened.

[+Lil Devil]

OK, how about the time I was surfing Geocaching.com Google Maps, clicked on an MOC (which of course I had no idea was an MOC) 3,000 miles from home, and received an email from the cache owner a few days later asking why I looked at their cache page?

I have an evil idea: Name that cache owner and we all could inundate his audit logs from all over the world. That should freak him out

[+Parabola]

***OK, how about the time I was surfing Geocaching.com Google Maps, clicked on an MOC (which of course I had no idea was an MOC) 3,000 miles from home, and received an email from the cache owner a few days later asking why I looked at their cache page?***

 

That was YOU? ... Now, if any caches go missing somewhere around the world, you are #1 suspect.....LOL

 

I wouldn't doubt it. I have seen witch hunt examples. Anyways, it looks like Michael has weighed in in a similar thread, and he says "we never tell", as far as who is watching. I'm quite certain (but am not prepared to Markwell), that the official word from the CEO, back when he used to interact in the forums, was that there were no plans to make the watchlist public and he was thinking of removing "X people watching this cache" all together. But of course that was a couple of years ago, and that never happened.

 

Then did remove it a while back but there was enough complaining to bring it back. A lot of people use that number of people on a watchlist to help and try and find the ones that people really watch cause chances are if someone put it on their watchlist it's usually cause they thought it was a neat cache.

 

When I'm out of town and looking a cache pages I will look and see how many are watching a cache for this very same reason. If a bunch of people are watching it, there's usually a reason why.

 

But I don't think we really need a list to show us who's watching our caches.

[+paleolith]

I have 19 people watching one of my caches, just on regular watchlists. That's nice. I'm happy. I don't care who they are.

 

Maybe it's the message that's wrong. It should say

 

There are 19 users watching this cache

AND YOU'LL NEVER KNOW WHO THEY ARE

nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

 

Ah, I feel better now.

 

Edward

[+knabino]

Chiming in here. If the owners could see who was watching their cache, I would no longer watch caches. The majority of cachers out in the world are great, but there are just enough crazy ones that would keep me away from the watch lists.

 

And to be honest, I HATE the audit logs that owners get for the MOC. There was recently an older cache that was turned into a MOC because of "an incident". Long and short of it, the cache was made MOC so the owners could see who visited the cache page and then, if there is another "incident" determine who trashed their cache. (Yes, this is what they stated).

[+Stunod]

And to be honest, I HATE the audit logs that owners get for the MOC. There was recently an older cache that was turned into a MOC because of "an incident". Long and short of it, the cache was made MOC so the owners could see who visited the cache page and then, if there is another "incident" determine who trashed their cache. (Yes, this is what they stated).

 

And nobody has logged it since. Yes, it's easy to get that info without ever visiting the page and getting tracked by the MOC log.

[+markandsandy]

... If they are watching it, maybe we could communicate back and forth about it...

 

If I want to communicate back and forth with a CO about a cache, I'll just email them. If I'm watching a cache, it's usually because I'm curious about what other cacher's have to say about the cache, not the CO.