Jump to content

Please explain the new "Souvenirs" feature


BlueGerbil

Recommended Posts

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.

I didn't reply to your post.
Link to comment
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.

For me, the activity begins when I fire up my GPSr and see which of the nearest caches that I want to find. For you, the activity somehow doesn't begin until you have made the find and are back home writing your log.

 

I don't think that I'm the one who has it wrong.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
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.

For me, the activity begins when I fire up my GPSr and see which of the nearest caches that I want to find. For you, the activity somehow doesn't begin until you have made the find and are back home writing your log.

 

I don't think that I'm the one who has it wrong.

 

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no idea where you got the idea that my definition of geocaching stipulates that one has to find a geocache. That strawman won't hunt.

 

I don't consider using the search function on the mobile app any different then running a pocket query or looking on the website to see a list of caches I have not yet found. Even if those waypoints are downloaded to my GPS, I wouldn't consider myself engaged in the activity of geocaching unless I've have at least begun navigating to one of those waypoints.

 

Do you consider armchair logging of virtual caches "geocaching"?

Link to comment
I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no idea where you got the idea that my definition of geocaching stipulates that one has to find a geocache. That strawman won't hunt.

 

I don't consider using the search function on the mobile app any different then running a pocket query or looking on the website to see a list of caches I have not yet found. Even if those waypoints are downloaded to my GPS, I wouldn't consider myself engaged in the activity of geocaching unless I've have at least begun navigating to one of those waypoints.

 

Do you consider armchair logging of virtual caches "geocaching"?

You're going to throw out a strawman in the very post that you accuse me of using one (even though I didn't). Really?
Link to comment
I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no idea where you got the idea that my definition of geocaching stipulates that one has to find a geocache. That strawman won't hunt.

 

I don't consider using the search function on the mobile app any different then running a pocket query or looking on the website to see a list of caches I have not yet found. Even if those waypoints are downloaded to my GPS, I wouldn't consider myself engaged in the activity of geocaching unless I've have at least begun navigating to one of those waypoints.

 

Do you consider armchair logging of virtual caches "geocaching"?

You're going to throw out a strawman in the very post that you accuse me of using one (even though I didn't). Really?

 

Not a straw man at all. You've already indicated that reading text and pictures about nearby geocaches on a mobile device is sufficient criteria for meeting your definition of geocaching. My question merely asks just how broad your definition is.

 

On the other hand, you specifically wrote that my definition of geocaching required that one find a geocache, then suggested that your definition was more correct than mine. Perhaps you use a different definition of strawman than I do as well.

 

I really don't care how you define geocaching (or strawman). I don't recall that I ever wrote that souvenirs should only be awarded to those that are geocaching within a souvenir zone. My suggestion has been that logging a found it or attended log should be the minimum criteria for the awarding of a souvenir. I just think that would make more sense and clear up some confusion regarding how they awarded (which what the OP asked for at the beginning of this thread).

Link to comment

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.

 

(Sorry, just had to add one more)

I find it ironic that you continually bring up Facebook as a model of Internet privacy. The fact is, numerous times in the past, they have revised their privacy policy and exposed their users hidden tabs without any notice to their casual users. If you logged on, you got a notice. They, however made no effort to notify, (email), people like me that, that only log on every two or three weeks, that what I thought was private was no longer. When users complained, they deleted Wall messages and even blocked accounts.

 

Luckily, I have NEVER posted anything to Facebook that I wasn't afraid of the whole world looking at.

 

In a nutshell, I could take your continued argument much more seriously if you were not holding Facebook up as the model.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment
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.

I didn't reply to your post.

 

I usually keep the closest 750 caches in my 60GSX. I keep the closest 7000 as POIs in my Nuvi. If I am in a part of town that I'm not normally in and end my business with some time to spare, I check the POIs on the Nuvi. If the five closest caches are LPCs and I'm simply not in the mood for that, I'll hit the Freeway and try to beat the traffic. Was I Geocaching? I don't think so. I was simply doing research on caches that were close to my current location. I don't feel that I should receive an award for this if I never actually tried to navigate to and find a cache.

 

I agree with a previous poster that this is an award for buying the app.

Link to comment
(Sorry, just had to add one more)

I find it ironic that you continually bring up Facebook as a model of Internet privacy. The fact is, numerous times in the past, they have revised their privacy policy and exposed their users hidden tabs without any notice to their casual users. If you logged on, you got a notice. They, however made no effort to notify, (email), people like me that, that only log on every two or three weeks, that what I thought was private was no longer. When users complained, they deleted Wall messages and even blocked accounts.

 

Luckily, I have NEVER posted anything to Facebook that I wasn't afraid of the whole world looking at.

 

In a nutshell, I could take your continued argument much more seriously if you were not holding Facebook up as the model.

To say that Facebook has botched changes to their privacy policies would be to undersell it pretty dramatically - especially when they've loosened privacy. Beacon, in particular, was an utter catastrophe. I am completely with you on that point.

 

That another company has made missteps along the way doesn't, I don't think, invalidate the idea of having different levels of control over the information in your profile. I wouldn't want to say that because Facebook screwed up by making private things public, no web site should have any profile controls at all.

 

I wouldn't suggest someone use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, or any of a number of other social networking sites without availing themselves of the available profile controls. If this site had profile controls, I would use them, and I would in turn use the social functions of the site a lot more.

Link to comment
(Sorry, just had to add one more)

I find it ironic that you continually bring up Facebook as a model of Internet privacy. The fact is, numerous times in the past, they have revised their privacy policy and exposed their users hidden tabs without any notice to their casual users. If you logged on, you got a notice. They, however made no effort to notify, (email), people like me that, that only log on every two or three weeks, that what I thought was private was no longer. When users complained, they deleted Wall messages and even blocked accounts.

 

Luckily, I have NEVER posted anything to Facebook that I wasn't afraid of the whole world looking at.

 

In a nutshell, I could take your continued argument much more seriously if you were not holding Facebook up as the model.

To say that Facebook has botched changes to their privacy policies would be to undersell it pretty dramatically - especially when they've loosened privacy. Beacon, in particular, was an utter catastrophe. I am completely with you on that point.

 

That another company has made missteps along the way doesn't, I don't think, invalidate the idea of having different levels of control over the information in your profile. I wouldn't want to say that because Facebook screwed up by making private things public, no web site should have any profile controls at all.

 

I wouldn't suggest someone use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, or any of a number of other social networking sites without availing themselves of the available profile controls. If this site had profile controls, I would use them, and I would in turn use the social functions of the site a lot more.

 

Seeing as the announcements for Souvenirs has been moved and there's already a thread about privacy/security issues, might it be time to close the thread?

Link to comment

Question on the state ones. Do you get them for finding one in that state and why are some cachers getting state ones who have never even cached that state? And would you get one if you own a cache in the state but never cached?

 

Finding a cache in a state does award the souvenir for that state. The reason some cachers are getting souvenirs for states they haven't been to is because they have logged traveling caches that are presently in that state. This is a known issue that we will be correcting. Placing a cache does not grant souvenirs, only finding them.

Link to comment

Question on the state ones. Do you get them for finding one in that state and why are some cachers getting state ones who have never even cached that state? And would you get one if you own a cache in the state but never cached?

 

Finding a cache in a state does award the souvenir for that state. The reason some cachers are getting souvenirs for states they haven't been to is because they have logged traveling caches that are presently in that state. This is a known issue that we will be correcting. Placing a cache does not grant souvenirs, only finding them.

 

I thought you got them for using an App to search for caches as well...?

Link to comment
The reason some cachers are getting souvenirs for states they haven't been to is because they have logged traveling caches that are presently in that state. This is a known issue that we will be correcting.

It was my understanding that there is a flag in the database to signify moving caches. This allows the COs to enter "Update Coordinate" logs that are farther than 0.1 mile. I would think you can look at the same flag for deciding if the cache is eligible for a souvenir.

Link to comment
The reason some cachers are getting souvenirs for states they haven't been to is because they have logged traveling caches that are presently in that state. This is a known issue that we will be correcting.
It was my understanding that there is a flag in the database to signify moving caches. This allows the COs to enter "Update Coordinate" logs that are farther than 0.1 mile. I would think you can look at the same flag for deciding if the cache is eligible for a souvenir.
Probably not a bad solution for the grandfathered Locationless caches either.
Link to comment

I thought you got them for using an App to search for caches as well...?

 

This is correct. Searching in the region using Groundspeak's iPhone, Android, or Windows Phone 7 Geocaching app will result in the granting of a souvenir if a souvenir is active in that region at that time. State and country souvenirs remain active from the day they are activated, but Mega Event souvenirs are only active for the duration of the event.

Link to comment

<!--quoteo(post=4563855:date=Dec 20 2010, 10:38 AM:name=JYoungman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JYoungman @ Dec 20 2010, 10:38 AM) 4563855[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason some cachers are getting souvenirs for states they haven't been to is because they have logged <b>traveling caches</b> that are presently in that state. This is a known issue that we will be correcting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It was my understanding that there is a flag in the database to signify moving caches. This allows the COs to enter "Update Coordinate" logs that are farther than 0.1 mile. I would think you can look at the same flag for deciding if the cache is eligible for a souvenir.

 

How about making a Souvenir for all of us that have found a moving cache? That way, we get one, and our states wont keep changing.

 

Edit: I have no idea how to fix the quoting. I simply hit reply and added my comments. This obviously needs to be debugged.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

All I want to know is how you post them to your profile. I only have one, but it's very pretty and I just think it would dress up my profile. On all the little informational places about them it says you can add them to your profile but no where does it actually tell you how to do it and I cannot figure it out. Anybody...... Anybody......???

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...