Please explain the new "Souvenirs" feature

[+John in Valley Forge]

Another cacher (don't think it was the poster). What creeped me out is that poster must have been searching the galleries of other cachers to find this particular family out caching, then posted them on a thread here that had nothing to do with families.

so it's the fault of whoever took the pictures and uploaded them to gc.com, and not the fault of the poster. you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway.

 

So you think the family is to blame for posting a picture to a cache page and you have no problem with a total stranger copying that photo into an internet forum? OK.

[+dfx]

So you think the family is to blame for posting a picture to a cache page and you have no problem with a total stranger copying that photo into an internet forum? OK.

bingo. everybody should be aware that everything and anything they ever post to the internet is going to be eternally publicly available. if you don't want that to happen, don't post it.

 

think of the internet as marjorie from fraggle rock.

Edited November 20, 2010 by dfx

[+2v]

How can I get the 10.10.10 souvenir?

 

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

There were no caches for me to find in the area. Either I had already found and logged them, or I own them.

 

Is it possible to get the 10.10.10 souvenir for hosting a 10.10.10 event?

[+niraD]

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

My guess is that yes, you need to post an Attended log to get the souvenir. But I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV...

[+sbell111]

Another cacher (don't think it was the poster). What creeped me out is that poster must have been searching the galleries of other cachers to find this particular family out caching, then posted them on a thread here that had nothing to do with families.

so it's the fault of whoever took the pictures and uploaded them to gc.com, and not the fault of the poster. you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway.

 

So you think the family is to blame for posting a picture to a cache page and you have no problem with a total stranger copying that photo into an internet forum? OK.

From the way you explained it, I don't think that there is any blame to be had. Pictures were posted publicly to gc.com and someone linked to them in a gc.com forum thread. I'm missing the problem.

 

Similarly, as it relates to the prior conversation, if a person publicly posts pics to a cache page, he shouldn't expect to have privacy control over the now public images.

[+addisonbr]

Similarly, as it relates to the prior conversation, if a person publicly posts pics to a cache page, he shouldn't expect to have privacy control over the now public images.

Certainly not the way things are currently set, that's very true.

[+addisonbr]

so it's the fault of whoever took the pictures and uploaded them to gc.com, and not the fault of the poster. you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway.

I'll add a different perspective.

 

The local cacher I mentioned earlier, who got angry thinking cachers were stealing his caches a few years back... Another cacher got fed up with the battles and etc. and posted a new cache listing that featured:

 

- the other guy's real name

- real photos of the other guy

- the name of the other guy's company

- posted coordinates that were at the other guy's office

- the location of the other guy's apartment

- information about the other guy's other activities

- some not nice things about the other guy's character

 

Now, these guys weren't friends; he didn't know all that stuff personally. 100% of everything that was posted was publicly available on the Internet; all the guy did was sleuth it out, collect it and post it.

 

To a certain way of thinking this might be okay, because you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway.

 

I don't personally think that because information is available on the Internet that anything done with it is always all right. I found posting of all that information to be pretty inappropriate.

[+dfx]

To a certain way of thinking this might be okay, because you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway.

 

I don't personally think that because information is available on the Internet that anything done with it is always all right. I found posting of all that information to be pretty inappropriate.

depends on where the information comes from.

 

if it comes from a single website that had all the same information (let's say a public facebook profile), then i see no problem. the only issue here would be the connection between the gc.com username and the public profile, which may or may not have been trivial to make anyway.

 

if it comes from such a private website (i.e. private facebook profile), then that's a definite violation of privacy.

 

if it comes from multiple websites and the poster had to correlate all the information to each other, then what was posted was not simply public information, but rather included new information (the fact that it was all grouped together). it's not really a violation of privacy though, as there's public websites which do exactly the same thing: for example you punch in somebody's email address and it spits out all information related to that address, gathered from all kinds of public websites.

 

and then of course there's the issue of linking to content vs. the copying of content, but that's mostly a legal issue.

 

things aren't black and white.

[+John in Valley Forge]

How can I get the 10.10.10 souvenir?

 

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

There were no caches for me to find in the area. Either I had already found and logged them, or I own them.

 

Is it possible to get the 10.10.10 souvenir for hosting a 10.10.10 event?

 

The 10/10/10 was awarded to anyone that logged any kind of log entry on 10/10/10. I went out and found a cache just to make sure I had one to log that day, but I also think I would have gotten it for logging a maintenance run on an existing cache.

 

The intent as I recall was to try to get as many people as possible on that day to set a record. I don't know what the results were.

Edited November 21, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[+2v]

, but I also think I would have gotten it for logging a maintenance run on an existing cache.

I'll try that. I visited some of my caches that day.

 

But I still think the host of a 10.10.10 event also should be rewarded with a souvenir.

[Skippermark]

Here's a non-central, and probably incomplete, list

Please do not posts any lists. What may be on a list may not actually become a souvenir. Thanks!

[Skippermark]

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

My guess is that yes, you need to post an Attended log to get the souvenir. But I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV...

You either needed to turn on a smart phone like the iPhone with the Geocaching app on 10/10/10 or find or attend a cache or event on 10/10/10.

[I!]

Here's a non-central, and probably incomplete, list

Please do not posts any lists. What may be on a list may not actually become a souvenir. Thanks!

Don't be ridiculous: that list was sourced from a selected few people's profiles, just as anyone else could have done.

 

And please don't duck the question: when, if ever, is there going to be a central list? You TPTB are hiding nothing by not hosting such a list, just adding tedious obfuscation.

[ EDIT to point the finger at the frog, not you, on this latter point. ]

Edited November 21, 2010 by I!

[Skippermark]

Don't be ridiculous: that list was sourced from a selected few people's profiles, just as anyone else could have done.

 

And please don't duck the question: when, if ever, is there going to be a central list? You TPTB are hiding nothing by not hosting such a list, just adding tedious obfuscation.

[ EDIT to point the finger at the frog, not you, on this latter point. ]

Whoops, sorry about that. I wasn't aware that those all had been released yet. Unfortunately, since I edited it, I can't get your original back. I hope you have it saved somewhere in case you want to post it again.

 

Earlier, there was a list floating around that named souvenirs that may be coming out. That wasn't meant to be posted because what was listed may not even become souvenirs.

 

As for the second part of your post, I'm not sure the plans for releasing a master type list.

[+addisonbr]

I agree with this: "things aren't black and white."

 

More than I agree with this: "you can't blame someone for posting something that's public anyway."

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Earlier, there was a list floating around that named souvenirs that may be coming out. That wasn't meant to be posted because what was listed may not even become souvenirs.

 

That list couldn't even be considered accurate because the links that were listed used the old method for souvenir "ids" (integers, starting at 1). The new links for souvenirs are not really "guessable". I'd be curious to know what souvenirs are planned after all the U.S. and German state souvenirs are released. Are we going to see countries, significant features?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

[+John in Valley Forge]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

 

Along with Virginia, although the term State is still generally applied to them, as they are among the United STATES of America.

[+TerraViators]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

...and Louisiana has no counties.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

 

Along with Virginia, although the term State is still generally applied to them, as they are among the United STATES of America.

 

I suppose one could use a more generic term like "Administrative Regions" to describe States, Provinces, Commonwealths, etc. but I suspect that only people that use the term Commonwealths to describe the administrative regions known as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia are a few residents of those regions.

 

In other souvenir related news I noticed that on my iPhone app, that in the Settings menu item that Souvenirs can be "disabled". I'm not sure what it actually does, but it might stop souvenirs from loading into the "Saved" section, and *could* be used to turn off the awarding of souvenirs using the mobile app. I have no idea if the same functionality appears on the Android or Windows 7 mobile apps.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

 

Along with Virginia, although the term State is still generally applied to them, as they are among the United STATES of America.

 

I suppose one could use a more generic term like "Administrative Regions" to describe States, Provinces, Commonwealths, etc. but I suspect that only people that use the term Commonwealths to describe the administrative regions known as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia are a few residents of those regions.

 

 

And we don't seem too picky about it either. I didn't get a degree from Pennsylvania Commonwealth University, I got one from Pennsylvania State University. And because I live here, I paid "in-state" tuition (although the fine print required me to be a resident of the Commonwealth).

 

Oh, Kentucky is a Commonwealth too. I'd forgotten about them.

[+Castle Mischief]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

 

Oh, good grief.

[knowschad]

Not ridiculous at all. Just last week, photos of a cacher and his children were posted in a thread on this very forum. The poster of the photos were not the was not the cacher, nor do I think it is one of his children.

so who took the pictures?

 

Another cacher (don't think it was the poster). What creeped me out is that poster must have been searching the galleries of other cachers to find this particular family out caching, then posted them on a thread here that had nothing to do with families.

I guess I fail to see the risk here. I was at my dentist today, and he has a bulletin board in the waiting room with pictures of kids that he has as patients. What's the difference?

[knowschad]

, but I also think I would have gotten it for logging a maintenance run on an existing cache.

I'll try that. I visited some of my caches that day.

 

But I still think the host of a 10.10.10 event also should be rewarded with a souvenir.

You should always log an Attended log, even at your own caches. Unless you didn't attend, that is.

[knowschad]

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

My guess is that yes, you need to post an Attended log to get the souvenir. But I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV...

You either needed to turn on a smart phone like the iPhone with the Geocaching app on 10/10/10 or find or attend a cache or event on 10/10/10.

Quite a ways back in this thread, I asked JYoungman if he could elaborate on why that decision was made. He either didn't see my question, or for whatever reason, could not elaborate. Has that been answered elsewhere already, and I just missed it? Unless it was due to a technical limitation of the smart phones, it seems like an odd decision to have made.

[knowschad]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

Maybe, but I doubt anyone is that anal about it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Maybe someone should point out to Geocaching that Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not 'States", but rather 'Commonwealths'???

Maybe, but I doubt anyone is that anal about it.

Really? In this forum you doubt that?

[+addisonbr]

Another cacher (don't think it was the poster). What creeped me out is that poster must have been searching the galleries of other cachers to find this particular family out caching, then posted them on a thread here that had nothing to do with families.

I guess I fail to see the risk here. I was at my dentist today, and he has a bulletin board in the waiting room with pictures of kids that he has as patients. What's the difference?

It just starts getting a little weird when pictures of someone's kids are used in a different context, that's all. If I know my dentist has a photo board and I send him a card at Christmas, I know he's probably going to add it to the board (and that I could ask him not to display it if it was important to me). That all seems reasonable.

 

But, like, if another patient took my family's photo from my dentist's board and hung it in his own office or put it on the dashboard of his car or something, I'd be pretty majorly bummed / freaked out.

 

I'm not saying everyone has to feel the same way - others are welcome to be as open (and uncreeped out) as they'd like.

[+sbell111]

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

My guess is that yes, you need to post an Attended log to get the souvenir. But I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV...

You either needed to turn on a smart phone like the iPhone with the Geocaching app on 10/10/10 or find or attend a cache or event on 10/10/10.

Quite a ways back in this thread, I asked JYoungman if he could elaborate on why that decision was made. He either didn't see my question, or for whatever reason, could not elaborate. Has that been answered elsewhere already, and I just missed it? Unless it was due to a technical limitation of the smart phones, it seems like an odd decision to have made.

It is more likely that it is due to a technical limitation faced by non-smartphone users. The theory being that once you've hit <goto>, you're caching regardless of whether you've found the box. You can be pretty certain that smartphone users are where they claim to be, unlike computer loggers.

[+sbell111]

Another cacher (don't think it was the poster). What creeped me out is that poster must have been searching the galleries of other cachers to find this particular family out caching, then posted them on a thread here that had nothing to do with families.

I guess I fail to see the risk here. I was at my dentist today, and he has a bulletin board in the waiting room with pictures of kids that he has as patients. What's the difference?

It just starts getting a little weird when pictures of someone's kids are used in a different context, that's all. If I know my dentist has a photo board and I send him a card at Christmas, I know he's probably going to add it to the board (and that I could ask him not to display it if it was important to me). That all seems reasonable.

 

But, like, if another patient took my family's photo from my dentist's board and hung it in his own office or put it on the dashboard of his car or something, I'd be pretty majorly bummed / freaked out.

 

I'm not saying everyone has to feel the same way - others are welcome to be as open (and uncreeped out) as they'd like.

I think that you twisted and stretched the analogy to complete failure. It has no resemblance to random geocachers being able to view publically posted pictures.

[+TerraViators]

I keep seeing the operative word "public" being used. Seems obvious to me. I do understand some folks are freaked out by that kind of stuff and some aren't. I'm in the "aren't" group. Whatever, put a pic of my family on your dashboard, I still have to pay the mortgage.

[+addisonbr]

I think that you twisted and stretched the analogy to complete failure. It has no resemblance to random geocachers being able to view publically posted pictures.

That's the trouble with analogies. When someone says something is like a bulletin board in a dentist's office, we've already started going down a weird road where every step we take gets us further from what we're really talking about.

 

If they're dentist's photos to you, or not, I agree, it may just confuse the issue. What they are to me is an aspect of my electronic profile, and all in all it would be nice to have a modicum of control over my profile.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I hosted a 10.10.10 event that day, do I have to log "Attended" to my own event to get the souvenir?

My guess is that yes, you need to post an Attended log to get the souvenir. But I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV...

You either needed to turn on a smart phone like the iPhone with the Geocaching app on 10/10/10 or find or attend a cache or event on 10/10/10.

Quite a ways back in this thread, I asked JYoungman if he could elaborate on why that decision was made. He either didn't see my question, or for whatever reason, could not elaborate. Has that been answered elsewhere already, and I just missed it? Unless it was due to a technical limitation of the smart phones, it seems like an odd decision to have made.

It is more likely that it is due to a technical limitation faced by non-smartphone users. The theory being that once you've hit <goto>, you're caching regardless of whether you've found the box. You can be pretty certain that smartphone users are where they claim to be, unlike computer loggers.

 

We'll, you *can* determine the location of those logging via a computer (the location API associated with the HTML5 spec is intended to do that) but I think it's a stretch to say one is caching by hitting the <goto> button. I can hit the "Find Nearby Geocaches" button (as it's labeled on the iPhone app) while sitting in my living room, while riding on a bus or train, or waiting for my flight to board on a connecting flight to a final destination. I wouldn't consider any of those situations geocaching.

 

I suspect that the feature of awarding souvenirs as a result of hitting a search button in the mobile app was intended to be some sort of reward for those that bought the official geocaching app. Thanks, but I already have a toaster.

Edited November 23, 2010 by NYPaddleCacher

[+sbell111]

Quite a ways back in this thread, I asked JYoungman if he could elaborate on why that decision was made. He either didn't see my question, or for whatever reason, could not elaborate. Has that been answered elsewhere already, and I just missed it? Unless it was due to a technical limitation of the smart phones, it seems like an odd decision to have made.

It is more likely that it is due to a technical limitation faced by non-smartphone users. The theory being that once you've hit <goto>, you're caching regardless of whether you've found the box. You can be pretty certain that smartphone users are where they claim to be, unlike computer loggers.

We'll, you *can* determine the location of those logging via a computer (the location API associated with the HTML5 spec is intended to do that) but I think it's a stretch to say one is caching by hitting the <goto> button. I can hit the "Find Nearby Geocaches" button (as it's labeled on the iPhone app) while sitting in my living room, while riding on a bus or train, or waiting for my flight to board on a connecting flight to a final destination. I wouldn't consider any of those situations geocaching.

 

I suspect that the feature of awarding souvenirs as a result of hitting a search button in the mobile app was intended to be some sort of reward for those that bought the official geocaching app. Thanks, but I already have a toaster.

You don't start geocaching the moment you log your find. You are geocaching when you fire up your unit to start the search. Therefore, it is only right to get a souvi at that earlier stage. The mere fact that a computer user cannot be rewarded at that point is no reason not to do so for smartphone users. The very fact that someone can 'cheat' and obtain a souvi for a local area when they did not actually intend to geocache is also not a reason not to have the app work in this manner. Edited November 23, 2010 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

The very fact that someone can 'cheat' and obtain a souvi for a local area when they did not actually intend to geocache is also not a reason not to

have the app work in this manner.

 

Did you just say "cheat"? Say it ain't so!

[+bflentje]

I keep seeing the operative word "public" being used. Seems obvious to me. I do understand some folks are freaked out by that kind of stuff and some aren't. I'm in the "aren't" group. Whatever, put a pic of my family on your dashboard, I still have to pay the mortgage.

 

Exactly. Because data mining has proven that you and your loved ones are much more likely to be hurt or molested by someone you know. So go ahead and post all of the pictures of me and family that you want.

[knowschad]

I suspect that the feature of awarding souvenirs as a result of hitting a search button in the mobile app was intended to be some sort of reward for those that bought the official geocaching app. Thanks, but I already have a toaster.

I suspect you are correct.

[+addisonbr]

Exactly. Because data mining has proven that you and your loved ones are much more likely to be hurt or molested by someone you know. So go ahead and post all of the pictures of me and family that you want.

I think that's why (for example) Facebook gives you the option to make your profile as open as you'd like.

[+sbell111]

Exactly. Because data mining has proven that you and your loved ones are much more likely to be hurt or molested by someone you know. So go ahead and post all of the pictures of me and family that you want.

I think that's why (for example) Facebook gives you the option to make your profile as open as you'd like.

Facebook is a completely different animal, as I previously explained to you.

[+addisonbr]

Facebook is a completely different animal, as I previously explained to you.

Nothing is exactly like anything else. But there are a lot of similarities too, especially as they both involve electronic profiles with personal information and photos and are potentially open to millions of strangers on the web.

 

The nice thing about Facebook is that you can set your profile to be completely open if you'd like, and I know a lot of people dig that.

[+sbell111]

Facebook is a completely different animal, as I previously explained to you.

Nothing is exactly like anything else. But there are a lot of similarities too, especially as they both involve electronic profiles with personal information and photos and are potentially open to millions of strangers on the web.

 

The nice thing about Facebook is that you can set your profile to be completely open if you'd like, and I know a lot of people dig that.

Facebook's purpose is to connect with your friends. The purpose of logs and (their associated photos) on GC.com is to connect with strangers. Big difference.

 

If you are considering posting pictures that you don't want the entire world to see, I would recommend either not posting them at all, or posting them to a locked-down facebook account.

[+Castle Mischief]

Just like with Facebook, if you really don't want anybody to see the pictures or the information, the best method is to not provide it.

[+addisonbr]

Facebook's purpose is to connect with your friends. The purpose of logs and (their associated photos) on GC.com is to connect with strangers. Big difference.

 

If you are considering posting pictures that you don't want the entire world to see, I would recommend either not posting them at all, or posting them to a locked-down facebook account.

Right. What I'm saying is that as Groundspeak moves to a more 'social network' model, which they inarguably are, I would use those functions of the site more if there was just even a little control over the personal profile. Twitter for example is widely by people who haven't met the people they are following - but Twitter also has an option to protect tweets. So both the 'interact with strangers' and 'restrict your info' goals are met simultaneously.

 

I would, for example, post more photos here and otherwise interact with the once-strangers I met through geocaching more, if there were more controls. It's paradoxical, but increasing a little control can actually increase the interactions. Folks like you and many others could continue to have completely 100% open profiles, and others could set it so that folks would submit friend requests if they want to see tabbed, organized gallery of photos all taken by (and of) them. I haven't really seen how geocaching would be harmed by introducing some controls; I don't think too many folks would drop out of the game if they had to ask me to see my tabbed gallery.

 

The information would still be available at the cache-level.

[+addisonbr]

Just like with Facebook, if you really don't want anybody to see the pictures or the information, the best method is to not provide it.

Completely agreed.

 

If Facebook for example was a completely open model, I wouldn't post anything there at all. And even with the controls that they do have, I am careful about what I post. As of now, their controls provide a bit of a middle ground between "I want to drop off the grid completely" and "I'm comfortable with anyone in the world browsing all of my data".

 

But I agree that if it's paramount that no photos of you exist at all, it would be a good idea to post none.

[+sbell111]

Facebook's purpose is to connect with your friends. The purpose of logs and (their associated photos) on GC.com is to connect with strangers. Big difference.

 

If you are considering posting pictures that you don't want the entire world to see, I would recommend either not posting them at all, or posting them to a locked-down facebook account.

Right. What I'm saying is that as Groundspeak moves to a more 'social network' model, which they inarguably are, I would use those functions of the site more if there was just even a little control over the personal profile. Twitter for example is widely by people who haven't met the people they are following - but Twitter also has an option to protect tweets. So both the 'interact with strangers' and 'restrict your info' goals are met simultaneously.

 

I would, for example, post more photos here and otherwise interact with the once-strangers I met through geocaching more, if there were more controls. It's paradoxical, but increasing a little control can actually increase the interactions. Folks like you and many others could continue to have completely 100% open profiles, and others could set it so that folks would submit friend requests if they want to see tabbed, organized gallery of photos all taken by (and of) them. I haven't really seen how geocaching would be harmed by introducing some controls; I don't think too many folks would drop out of the game if they had to ask me to see my tabbed gallery.

 

The information would still be available at the cache-level.

I'm not buying the idea that blocking people from seeing pics that you post to other people's cache pages creates more openness. No way, no how.

 

I also don't buy the argument that pics would remain public on teh cache pages but reference to those same public pics should be locked down at the profile level to protect some 'privacy' that ceased to exist at the moment that the pics ewre publically posted to teh cache pages. It makes absolutely no sense.

Edited November 23, 2010 by sbell111

[+addisonbr]

I'm not buying the idea that blocking people from seeing pics that you post to other people's cache pages creates more openness. No way, no how.

The idea would be that if:

 

- you and others keep your profiles completely open and continue to post photos at your original rates, and

 

- with some control (like using the existing Friends list) folks like me post more photos, knowing that it would be difficult for strangers to page through an organized gallery of photos of just us, and

 

- the photos are still available on the cache pages just like before, for cache owners and visitors to click through

 

...you could make a reasonably convincing argument that nobody will be posting fewer photos, and some folks will post more photos, resulting in more photos on cache pages for cachers to enjoy.

 

Unless folks drop out of the game in protest because they can't access the "Gallery" tab on addisonbr's profile, I don't think that it would reduce photos on the site by any stretch.

[+bflentje]

Exactly. Because data mining has proven that you and your loved ones are much more likely to be hurt or molested by someone you know. So go ahead and post all of the pictures of me and family that you want.

I think that's why (for example) Facebook gives you the option to make your profile as open as you'd like.

Facebook is a completely different animal, as I previously explained to you.

 

Explained to me? I could care less either way. I just got a kick out of how this has evolved into a question of security. Y'all need to get out and cache more.

[+addisonbr]

I also don't buy the argument that pics would remain public on teh cache pages but reference to those same public pics should be locked down at the profile level to protect some 'privacy' that ceased to exist at the moment that the pics ewre publically posted to teh cache pages. It makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry for the double post, this was added after I replied.

 

It's much like on any social networking site. Generally speaking, you acknowledge that you are giving up some control over a photo once it's posted. But it is still nice for people to ask you before paging through *all* of your photos at one time, in one easy place. If I attend a friend's party and post a photo through a social networking site to their page or their party's page, I know that other people will see it, people that I don't know. But that doesn't automatically mean that I want all of those people in turn to be able to easily see every photo of every party and everything else I've ever done over the past few years.

 

Sometimes I just want to share a photo.

[+addisonbr]

Exactly. Because data mining has proven that you and your loved ones are much more likely to be hurt or molested by someone you know. So go ahead and post all of the pictures of me and family that you want.

I think that's why (for example) Facebook gives you the option to make your profile as open as you'd like.

Facebook is a completely different animal, as I previously explained to you.

Explained to me? I could care less either way. I just got a kick out of how this has evolved into a question of security. Y'all need to get out and cache more.

No worries, it was directed at me, I think.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Quite a ways back in this thread, I asked JYoungman if he could elaborate on why that decision was made. He either didn't see my question, or for whatever reason, could not elaborate. Has that been answered elsewhere already, and I just missed it? Unless it was due to a technical limitation of the smart phones, it seems like an odd decision to have made.

It is more likely that it is due to a technical limitation faced by non-smartphone users. The theory being that once you've hit <goto>, you're caching regardless of whether you've found the box. You can be pretty certain that smartphone users are where they claim to be, unlike computer loggers.

We'll, you *can* determine the location of those logging via a computer (the location API associated with the HTML5 spec is intended to do that) but I think it's a stretch to say one is caching by hitting the <goto> button. I can hit the "Find Nearby Geocaches" button (as it's labeled on the iPhone app) while sitting in my living room, while riding on a bus or train, or waiting for my flight to board on a connecting flight to a final destination. I wouldn't consider any of those situations geocaching.

 

I suspect that the feature of awarding souvenirs as a result of hitting a search button in the mobile app was intended to be some sort of reward for those that bought the official geocaching app. Thanks, but I already have a toaster.

You don't start geocaching the moment you log your find. You are geocaching when you fire up your unit to start the search.

 

You obviously have a very different definition of geocaching than I do. IMHO, clicking on "Find Nearby Geocaches" isn't searching for geocaches. It's searching for information about geocaches. I don't consider it to be geocaching until I use that information to begin navigating toward a waypoint associated with a geocache. I don't consider running a pocket query or entering search criteria into the Hide and Seek a Cache form to be geocaching either.