Archived+Locked

[+Avernar]

Looks like the non visibility of archived+locked caches is not a bug.

 

I've started a suggestion on the GetSat site Archive+Locked+Hidden for a "hidden" status to be added to archived+locked caches.

 

The "locked" status should be used to keep people from cheating on rare cache types or special caches. We can no longer view archived locationless and ape caches. Even GCF can't be viewed now!

 

The new "hidden" status would be for problem caches that have certain sensitive issues surrounding them.

 

Please vote the suggestion up.

[GOF and Bacall]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

[+geodarts]

I sometimes liked to look at the old locationless caches to pull information from them - and the APE caches and the original Dave Ulmer hide are indeed a historical part of caching. First we could no longer view the archived caches on a map, now we can no longer even read those that have been locked. As the game gets more advanced in some ways, other things get cast aside. But this is not an improvement.

Edited September 2, 2010 by mulvaney

[+t4e]

Jeremy has already replied to this issue

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/...d_locked_caches

 

i did vote on your idea Avernar

 

pretty sad to see where things are going, especially sneaky decisions like this, no word of warning, no announcement

 

poor business practice afaic

Edited September 2, 2010 by t4e

[+tozainamboku]

Virtual caches that are being archived because of couch potato logs and no active owner to delete them are archived an locked. I've been encouraging people to submit these a Best Kept Secret waymarks. Now that Groundspeak hides the cache page information, this makes it difficult to find out the information about the virtual cache needed to create a new waymark. Thanks a lot Grounspeak

[+escomag]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

[+t4e]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

if you don't care for this subject can keep your mouth shut so your dentures don't slip too

[GOF and Bacall]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

[+Keith Watson]

Seems pretty simple to me if I am reading the reasoning correctly. For some reason, they can not let us know, they had to make a quick change to block some listings from being viewed. This sort of thing happens to companies all the time. Give them time and hopefully the unaffected listings will be visible again.

[+geodarts]

Jeremy has already replied to this issue

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/...d_locked_caches

 

i did vote on your idea Avernar

 

pretty sad to see where things are going, especially sneaky decisions like this, no word of warning, no announcement

 

poor business practice afaic

 

Jeremey first indicated that the change is not a bug and that your own logs can be seen. This did not seem like it was not enough of a response to the issue. But since my original post, I see that he has added further responses indicating that things should get resolved. Hopefully, that is the case.

Edited September 2, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Harry Dolphin]

Wow! They've been retracted! That is terrible! I cannot read what othr people said about the APE cache in Maryland after I was there.

[+addisonbr]

Wow! They've been retracted! That is terrible! I cannot read what othr people said about the APE cache in Maryland after I was there.

After you *claim* you were there anyway. I can't see any evidence you were there at all.

 

[+Keith Watson]

I wonder how this will affect challenge caches where you have to provide proof.

[+Avernar]

Jeremy has already replied to this issue

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/...d_locked_caches

 

i did vote on your idea Avernar

I saw that. That's what prompted me to make my suggestion. Looks like TPTB may implement it in a future update.

 

pretty sad to see where things are going, especially sneaky decisions like this, no word of warning, no announcement

 

poor business practice afaic

I don't think so. I believe it was necessary. You should too.

 

I just wanted to know that it was a quick fix to a problem and that they hopefully would implement a better solution once they had the time. Their reply to my suggestion pretty much says that.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Avernar

[+Avernar]

Seems pretty simple to me if I am reading the reasoning correctly. For some reason, they can not let us know, they had to make a quick change to block some listings from being viewed. This sort of thing happens to companies all the time. Give them time and hopefully the unaffected listings will be visible again.

Yup. Their responses to my suggestion and t4e's problem report confirms this.

[+Avernar]

After you *claim* you were there anyway. I can't see any evidence you were there at all.

 

I wonder how this will affect challenge caches where you have to provide proof.

 

You can prove you visited it as your log is still publicly accessible. Proving what the terrain, difficulty, size, etc is not possible.

[+Flintstone5611]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

if you don't care for this subject can keep your mouth shut so your dentures don't slip too

wow, classy! stay off of decaf!!

[+Kit Fox]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

[+geodarts]

Yup. Their responses to my suggestion and t4e's problem report confirms this.

 

I am glad that it appears that Groundspeak has thought it through more carefully from the time that Jeremy's initial responses were posted to the problem report. Although things can change - I remember when we were told that they would actually restore the ability to see archived caches on the map - the latest reply is a positive step.

Edited September 2, 2010 by mulvaney

[GOF and Bacall]

Yeah, We've heard promises before. Let's hope they keep this one.

[knowschad]

Can somebody please explain to me why they can't simply make a cache page read-only? Do not let anybody log it anymore, and do not allow the cache owner to make changes anymore. What am I missing?

[+Avernar]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

[+Keith Watson]

I suspect it was a frantic change to conform to a legal requirement. But that is only my guess. makes sense to me though. Groundspeak can't / won't reveal why.

[+Keith Watson]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

 

How can this be a good decision when nobody outside of Groundspeak knows why it was made?

[GOF and Bacall]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

 

I'd like that one explained. Preferably by Jeremy but any GS rep in the know would do.

[+Avernar]

I suspect it was a frantic change to conform to a legal requirement. But that is only my guess. makes sense to me though. Groundspeak can't / won't reveal why.

 

How can this be a good decision when nobody outside of Groundspeak knows why it was made?

It's an educated guess based on what was posted on the GetSat site.

 

Looks like you've come to the same conclusion.

[+Flintstone5611]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

How so? I only started last year and love looking at the history of this pastime. By trying to remove these caches from memory, aren't we forcing the newer cachers to repeat careless mistakes? As mentioned they could easily make them read-only pages.

[+Semper Questio]

After six years of Geocaching, I have to conclude this is the worst decisions made by Groundspeak. I find the move to be very offensive. Thanks for ruining the history of my old finds.

No, I have to disagree. This is a good decision, for both Groundspeak and the geocaching community even though the community doesn't realize it yet.

 

That sounds a bit Orwellian. GS knows what's good for us so we should just accept it?

 

I think we deserve a little bit more respect from GS than just to say something like, "We know what we are doing. We can't tell you anything about it. Just trust us." At least give us a generalized reason for this unilateral response to what could be a legitimate issue or just a whim of TPTB. I know they don't HAVE to tell us anything. They don't OWE us any explanation. But it sure would go a long way to maintain good relations and general PR.

 

But barring any further word from "on high", I suppose the best we can hope for is that it is nothing terribly serious and that they can come up with a better long-term solution than this and in fairly short order.

[+Avernar]

That sounds a bit Orwellian. GS knows what's good for us so we should just accept it?

Not Orwellian. I didn't say that "GS knows what's good for us". I said "I think it was a good decision for the community".

 

I think it's for legal reasons.

[+tozainamboku]

It seems to me that Groundspeak ought to be able to provide a generic reason for this decision even if they are unable to provide specific details on the caches that predicated this change.

 

Like the some other decisions it looks like they are using the chain saw instead of the scalpel approach to deal with problems. In general is about tradeoffs. Often the problem caused by a very few caches is so serious that a decision is made that effects many caches beyond the few that cause a problem. Without specifics we cannot evaluate if the tradeoff is worth it or not. This unfortunate. It makes TPTB appear unresponsive to geocachers' concerns. It allows us to speculate about the motivation. I personally think Jeremy was about to be sued over some cache that Groundspeak had archived when someone found that you could still see the page. He found a way to hide this information quickly and avoided losing his shirt. What I don't understand is that if this was a specific instance couldn't he have just edit the offending information of that one cache page? Oh, that would be scalpel. Why do that when you can use the chain saw and hide every archived+locked cache?

[+DanOCan]

And then Groundspeak wonders why people are constantly working at maintaining their own offline databases?

[+Panther&Pine]

I haven't looked at the topic in GetSat.

But I would assume that they could/should lock the page and change the coords to fakes (or hide them all together).

That way the logs are still in place but folks can't go and find it or log it or anything like that.

[GOF and Bacall]

Personally I think it smells like a big old cart full of fertilizer.

[+Avernar]

But I would assume that they could/should lock the page and change the coords to fakes (or hide them all together).

Moving coords could mess up peoples challenge qualifications. It may accidentally move it to another county or mess up total distance calculations.

 

The cache still shows up in the My Finds PQ so that won't be a problem. The COs will have a problem getting their own GPX however...

[+Panther&Pine]

But I would assume that they could/should lock the page and change the coords to fakes (or hide them all together).

Moving coords could mess up peoples challenge qualifications. It may accidentally move it to another county or mess up total distance calculations.

 

The cache still shows up in the My Finds PQ so that won't be a problem. The COs will have a problem getting their own GPX however...

I was thinking they'd just change the last three numbers. Not all of them.

They should be able to do a 'mask' to hide what shows and still leave the 'bolts' in place.

[+Avernar]

I was thinking they'd just change the last three numbers. Not all of them.

You'd be surprised how little a move it will take to put some caches into another county.

[+Castle Mischief]

So if I logged a find on a cache that was later archive+locked, would I still be able to see my log in a "my finds" pocket query?

[+Avernar]

So if I logged a find on a cache that was later archive+locked, would I still be able to see my log in a "my finds" pocket query?

Yes. We checked.

[+Castle Mischief]

So if I logged a find on a cache that was later archive+locked, would I still be able to see my log in a "my finds" pocket query?

Yes. We checked.

 

So your history of your find is still available.

 

I'm not seeing the need for outrage. Unless I'm missing the point, this ranks about a 1.5 on the "meh" meter for me.

[GOF and Bacall]

So if I logged a find on a cache that was later archive+locked, would I still be able to see my log in a "my finds" pocket query?

Yes. We checked.

 

So your history of your find is still available.

 

I'm not seeing the need for outrage. Unless I'm missing the point, this ranks about a 1.5 on the "meh" meter for me.

 

Can you read the cache page that goes with the log? How many of those logs loose their meaning without the page to put them in context?

[+addisonbr]

It's an educated guess based on what was posted on the GetSat site.

Do you have a link to the appropriate GetSat post? I have not had very much luck navigating that site at all.

[+Castle Mischief]

So if I logged a find on a cache that was later archive+locked, would I still be able to see my log in a "my finds" pocket query?

Yes. We checked.

 

So your history of your find is still available.

 

I'm not seeing the need for outrage. Unless I'm missing the point, this ranks about a 1.5 on the "meh" meter for me.

 

Can you read the cache page that goes with the log? How many of those logs loose their meaning without the page to put them in context?

 

I give up, how many? Plenty of my own logs have no particular relation to what may have been on the cache page- for me the experiance has to do more with the cache itself and the location. Often I'm only scanning through the page on my Nuvi looking for information that might help me make the find or give some indication of the terrain.

 

I'm guessing this has to do with a specific cache page that was archive+locked for a specific reason. So, fill me in- what little tid-bit of angst did I miss recently?

[+Avernar]

cant_view_archived_locked_caches

 

archived_locked_hidden

[sabrefan7]

worst idea ever Archiving,locking and hideing information is horrible! suggesting to make old virts waymarks is crap! Waymarking is the second worst idea ever

[+dbrierley]

Additional comments on the archived+locked issue are in the Canada forum:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...258319&st=0

[+Castle Mischief]

Additional comments on the archived+locked issue are in the Canada forum:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...258319&st=0

 

So the going theory is that this has something to do with caches the bomb-squad finds and the approaching aniversary of the WTC attack? I don't see the connection.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm guessing this has to do with a specific cache page that was archive+locked for a specific reason. So, fill me in- what little tid-bit of angst did I miss recently?

While most people will accept that there must have been some specific instance that triggered this change and that Groundspeak cannot (or choose not to) share the specifics, there is a lot of angst at the way it was done.

 

Many people do look at the cache pages for archived caches - both those that have been locked and those that haven't been locked. Among the cache pages that have been locked are the old locationless caches, many archived virtual caches, and archived Project A.P.E. caches. Some people want to see what these old caches were about. In some cases information on the cache page may be useful for creating new waymarks or Waymarking categories. In some cases these cache may be used in meeting the requirements for some challenge caches. In any case there are legitimate reasons for wanting to look at the cache page itself any not just at the found logs of someone who had previously found the cache.

 

Groundspeak choose to take a chain saw to a problem that likely involved only a handful of caches. In doing so they prevent people from viewing cache pages of hundreds or maybe even thousands of caches which were archived and locked for a variety of reasons. I'm feeling a little angsty, because I see it happening over and over again. Guidelines are changed or functionality is removed from the site because a small number of caches caused a problem. The solution effects far more caches than those causing a problem. I understand there may be tradeoffs. Sometimes a more targetted solution is too costly or difficult to implement in a timely manner. If the problem is serious, sometimes good ideas and caches suffer. In this case, I think it would be common courtesy for Grounspeak to explain the reason for the change and engage in a discussion with geocachers of what workarounds may be available. It seems sometimes they are able to do this and other times they claim their hands are tied and they can't even discuss it.

[jholly]

The forums and the GetSat site have been under attack lately, but perhaps you did not notice. It seems they got that under control. Perhaps the latest broadside in the attack was cache pages. Perhaps the draconian measures of archive+locked = unpublished was to put a quick halt to that attack. I'm sure this was something Jeremy really did not want to do or something he was doing just for the piss-off factor. I fully expect that he will not, nor should he, discuss the reasons for the action. And I'm sure the action was taken to stem further damage. I doubt it has anything to do with the bomb incident in Canada.

[+sseegars]

Not getting this? What is missing? I looked back at some old caches I found under my old handle, on an APE cache and I could still read everything.

[+escomag]

Those caches are our history. Those pages a part of our caching experience. We should dadgum well be able to see those pages and revisit the experiences we had!

 

Your dentures slipped while you posted

 

If you are referring to the word "dadgum" that wasn't a slip of my dentures, it was the nanny software Groundspeak uses sanitizing my post. I had let a word not appropriate for a "family friendly" forum slip through my self filtering. I bet even you can guess what word it was.

 

A yes, that was the reason. I don't hear dadgum used often. Hmmmm makes we want to fill a post full of 'naughty bits' just to see what comes back