"Auditing" your caches?

[+Menehune2]

Hey I finally paid my dues to become a premium member and have been having fun today playing with the new features. One of the things that sold me on membership was "auditing" my caches to see who has been looking at them that I heard about from others here on the forum. I can't figure out how to do it and I was hoping someone could clue me into the procedure.

Thanks.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

That feature is available for caches that are designated as being available for Premium Members Only.

[Mr.Yuck]

Hey I finally paid my dues to become a premium member and have been having fun today playing with the new features. One of the things that sold me on membership was "auditing" my caches to see who has been looking at them that I heard about from others here on the forum. I can't figure out how to do it and I was hoping someone could clue me into the procedure.

Thanks.

 

On the upper left hand corner of the cache page. Under the cache name, and the cache size. Then it should say "this is a subscriber only cache". Then below that there should be an underlined hyperlink "Read the Audit log". Click on that link and you're good to go.

 

Congratulations. Now you can unjustly accuse people of messing with your cache, and stealing Geocoins and Travel Bugs. And spy on people and invade their web surfing privacy. Just kidding.

[+Airmapper]

By clicking that box you create a cache where non paying members of the website will not be able to view your cache page or get the coords.

 

Personally I won't use that feature. I would like an audit log, but I'm not going to make my caches members only just to see who is looking.

[+Xaa]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

 

Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

[+DanOCan]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

/quote]

 

Interesting. I never looked at the audit log from a "controlling" point of view, just more from curiosity. I also never thought about contacting someone who looked at my cache page, although I guess if I saw someone from a far off location I might think of sending them a note just to find out how it caught their attention.

 

I have, however, sent a mocking email to one of my puzzle hound friends when I noticed he hadn't visited my new puzzle cache after a couple of days just to make sure he was still alive.

[+doingitoldschool]

We submitted a PMO cache, and have quite enjoyed looking up who has checked it out. There's people from Norway lookin' at it! It was also fun to see how many time people read the page before they found it. I hadn't thought of using the info to make accusations of malfeasence.

[+Huntcliff]

If you make it a PMO cache and select the audit option, does the ability to read the audit log go away if you later open the cache to all regular members?

[+hukilaulau]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

 

Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

If I were in your area I'd probably send you daily emails asking why you hadn't looked at my cache page yet. Just kidding, of course. Seems to me you are making some baseless assumptions. In the many threads on this topic, almost everyone who uses the audit logs just finds it another interesting aspect of the game. I remember exactly ONE instance of someone receiving unwelcome emails.

For the record, all of my hides from here on will be PMO's because: I like looking at the audit logs. I like to encourage people to support the website. I don't care if people who are not PM's find and log the cache. I don't care if you find a way to look at the listing without having your visit added to the audit log. It's a game!

[Mr.Yuck]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

 

Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

If I were in your area I'd probably send you daily emails asking why you hadn't looked at my cache page yet. Just kidding, of course. Seems to me you are making some baseless assumptions. In the many threads on this topic, almost everyone who uses the audit logs just finds it another interesting aspect of the game. I remember exactly ONE instance of someone receiving unwelcome emails.

 

 

If you're talking about me, yes, there has been one instance of unwanted emails. If you're not talking about me, make that two instances.

 

Oh admit it, you're all just nosy.

[+Xaa]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

 

Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

If I were in your area I'd probably send you daily emails asking why you hadn't looked at my cache page yet. Just kidding, of course. Seems to me you are making some baseless assumptions. In the many threads on this topic, almost everyone who uses the audit logs just finds it another interesting aspect of the game. I remember exactly ONE instance of someone receiving unwelcome emails.

For the record, all of my hides from here on will be PMO's because: I like looking at the audit logs. I like to encourage people to support the website. I don't care if people who are not PM's find and log the cache. I don't care if you find a way to look at the listing without having your visit added to the audit log. It's a game!

 

I've had at least a hand full of those emails, from the time when I used to just check the last 200 logs page for looking at random caches. Just to see what's out there in the world etc. I'm sorry if I implied that everyone is sending those emails, just enough people for me to stop looking at caches that way, and making sure I read them via PQ.

 

If you want to make them PMO for reasons of supporting the site, that's your choice. I'd say "let people make that choice without forcing them, however gently", but that's just a different point of view and I wouldn't offer you a beer less for it :-)

[Keystone]

As a cache reviewer, I have received many "Why are you looking at my cache page?" e-mails. Often, the cause is quite innocent. A new cache is hidden in a park. When reviewing it, I will look at any nearby multicaches to see if the new cache interferes with it. I will look at any nearby archived caches to see if there was a problem with this particular section of the park. If I do not know whether the park system has a geocaching permission policy, I will look at the other caches in the park to see how that issue was handled. If any of those caches was a MOC, then yeah, a reviewer's name is in the audit log. Big deal.

 

I've also received a small handful of e-mails over the years saying "please stop Billy from looking at my cache pages, he is stalking me" or "Billy is the local cache maggot because his name is all over the audit logs for the missing caches."

 

On days when I receive a message like this, I rather want the feature to be discontinued. But then I remember that there are many more days when I don't get such a message, and that most users of the feature are not mis-using it.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"!

 

Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

If I were in your area I'd probably send you daily emails asking why you hadn't looked at my cache page yet. Just kidding, of course. Seems to me you are making some baseless assumptions. In the many threads on this topic, almost everyone who uses the audit logs just finds it another interesting aspect of the game. I remember exactly ONE instance of someone receiving unwelcome emails.

For the record, all of my hides from here on will be PMO's because: I like looking at the audit logs. I like to encourage people to support the website. I don't care if people who are not PM's find and log the cache. I don't care if you find a way to look at the listing without having your visit added to the audit log. It's a game!

Exactly! I agree! The percentage of PM geocachers who have used info from the audit logs on their PM caches to send inappropriate emails/PMs to cachers who looked at the audit page is ridiculously low, perhaps one in a million. I personally love the audit log feature on our many PM and Platinum Member caches, and the more folks who visit my cache listing pages, the more I enjoy it!

 

.

[+beejay&esskay]

I think it's a bit creepy that some cache owners are checking if I am looking at their caches, but I have never had an e-mail from one asking me about it...so I manage to put it out of my mind most of the time.

 

(Except when someone starts a thread like this.)

[+murphyrulez]

Sorry for the old thread bump, but why in the world would be CO's be upset if people are looking at their cache page?? Seems counter-productive to me.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Some people use the audit log as "proof" to go after a user after their cache has been muggled. In their line of thinking, the muggling MUST have been done by someone who viewed their cache page. Usually, this is flawed logic.

[+cerberus1]

"Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs"

 

Please excuse this dyslexic old fart's ignorance of all the bells and whistles associated with this game...

If you "PQ" members' only caches, the owners' can't see who's looking ?

I'd like to get a private mail from someone who could tutor me on that one.

 

Apparently quite a few folks changed to PMO to steer clear of Cachemate's "Gotta get 'em all !" download.

 

I'm annoyed by PMOs and I agree with another it's kinda creepy when you get e-mailed by a micro-manager (pun intended), just because you looked at a cache page.

 

Sometimes I'd get a little bit 'o ribbing about when I'm hittin' it, or "think you can do this one ?"

- Those are fine.

But the guy who kept hassling me, day-by-day about it is a bother. Seemed to borderline stalking.

 

I haven't looked at a PMO cache the same since. Most are placed on the ignore list.

[+pppingme]

The whole concept of using the 'audit logs' as proof for a muggled cache (or for anything) is extremely flawed. I can pull a PQ and have all of the info I need, and even go as far as logging the cache, and NEVER show up in the audit log.

 

To take it a step further, anyone (premium and non premium) can see a list of cache names and owners, and from that determine the actual coordinates of any cache (premium or non premium). This can even be done without actually being logged into the site.

 

Look at this url (you do not need to be logged in):

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...;lng=-94.304517

 

Look at the first listing, its a premium cache, I was able to determine cache name, owner, and coordinates simply by toying with the URL, all while NOT being logged into the site.

 

As a premium member, I also have the full description of the cache, again without ever visiting the page.

 

If someone is running around muggling caches as was suggested in one post, it can all be done without ever showing up in an 'audit log'.

 

I'm not for or against it, its just simply pointless and holds no real value.

[4wheelin_fool]

Geocache web pages can be viewed by anyone.

 

If you make it "Premium Member" it cuts out the nongeocaching traffic.

 

If you are curious to how it works, but dont want to disinclude anyone, edit the page to PMO just before you archive it. The audit logs are interesting after archival. The cache is not listed, but yet plenty are still looking at it.

 

PQ Packrat (formerly from Canada) looks at ALL CACHE PAGES.

Edited November 28, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[+pppingme]

If you are curious to how it works, but dont want to disinclude anyone, edit the page to PMO just before you archive it. The audit logs are interesting after archival. The cache is not listed, but yet plenty are still looking at it.

I would say most of this is people trying to figure out why it quit updating in their own (dare I say it, offline database) listings, and possibly grabbing a .gpx to "close it out" of their listings. Hmm... Maybe a good reason to include .gpx in notify emails.

 

Another reason would be cachers that get either a notify or have it bookmarked and get an email saying it was archived, then they just want to see the final details.

[+briansnat]

As a cache reviewer, I have received many "Why are you looking at my cache page?" e-mails.

 

The few times I submitted MOC caches, I was very surprised by the number of people who viewed the pages, particularly people from outside the region. I was curious as to why a cacher somewhere in Wyoming whom I never heard of, would be looking at my cache pages, but I never dreamed of e-mailing him to find out why.

 

The whole concept of using the 'audit logs' as proof for a muggled cache (or for anything) is extremely flawed. I can pull a PQ and have all of the info I need, and even go as far as logging the cache, and NEVER show up in the audit log.

 

I don't think the typical cache thief is that sophisticated. Sure if you have a "professional" cache thief, or some local geocacher has a beef with with another, you may see that level of sophistication, but I doubt the usual bozo who decides it would be fun mess with geocachers is.

 

Using audit logs as "proof" that someone stole your cache is foolish, but in some cases the audit logs can be used along with other evidence to narrow down the pool of suspects.

Edited November 28, 2009 by briansnat

[+zoltig]

 

The few times I submitted MOC caches, I was very surprised by the number of people who viewed the pages, particularly people from outside the region. I was curious as to why a cacher somewhere in Wyoming whom I never heard of, would be looking at my cache pages, but I ever dreamed of e-mailing him to find out why.

 

My guess is that a person is reading the forums, will see you or anybody's post, looks at or profile and just wants to see what type of caches that you set.