Jump to content

Did you know that PMO owners can see when you looked at their cache?


Recommended Posts

I still don't get what everyone is afraid of. An audit log doesn't tell me your name, address, or pin number.

 

Nobody's afraid of anything, it's just a matter of choice. If I don't want to show up in that audit log, I have no option of doing that. Even the forums let me log in "invisible". The reason why somebody may want to do that is completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
I still don't get what everyone is afraid of. An audit log doesn't tell me your name, address, or pin number.

 

Nobody's afraid of anything, it's just a matter of choice. If I don't want to show up in that audit log, I have no option of doing that. Even the forums let me log in "invisible". The reason why somebody may want to do that is completely irrelevant.

 

Somebody is afraid/worried/concerned/freaked out about something or we wouldn't be discussing how to opt out of this feature...what is the harm?

Link to comment
I still don't get what everyone is afraid of. An audit log doesn't tell me your name, address, or pin number.

 

Nobody's afraid of anything, it's just a matter of choice. If I don't want to show up in that audit log, I have no option of doing that. Even the forums let me log in "invisible". The reason why somebody may want to do that is completely irrelevant.

 

The forum software was purchased, not written, by Groundspeak.

Link to comment
Somebody is afraid/worried/concerned/freaked out about something or we wouldn't be discussing how to opt out of this feature...what is the harm?

 

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

Link to comment
I still don't get what everyone is afraid of. An audit log doesn't tell me your name, address, or pin number.

 

Nobody's afraid of anything, it's just a matter of choice. If I don't want to show up in that audit log, I have no option of doing that. Even the forums let me log in "invisible". The reason why somebody may want to do that is completely irrelevant.

 

Hell, I want to opt out of the numbers game and my only choice is to not log finds. I gave you a viable way to keep your name off the audit log. It just doesn't stroke your me me me attitude. Life's a beach.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Somebody is afraid/worried/concerned/freaked out about something or we wouldn't be discussing how to opt out of this feature...what is the harm?

 

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

 

Because allowing a choice would defeat the very purpose of an audit log. It would become totally useless if there was an opt-out feature available. Whether that would be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing depends totally on your point of view, of course.

Link to comment
Hell, I want to opt out of the numbers game and my only choice is to not log finds. I gave you a viable way to keep your name off the audit log. It just doesn't stroke your me me me attitude. Life's a beach.

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Because allowing a choice would defeat the very purpose of an audit log. It would become totally useless if there was an opt-out feature available. Whether that would be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing depends totally on your point of view, of course.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

Link to comment
Hell, I want to opt out of the numbers game and my only choice is to not log finds. I gave you a viable way to keep your name off the audit log. It just doesn't stroke your me me me attitude. Life's a beach.

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

 

Certainly. But in the mean time I am willing to use the work arounds.

Link to comment

 

Somebody is afraid/worried/concerned/freaked out about something or we wouldn't be discussing how to opt out of this feature...what is the harm?

 

See. THAT is a good reason for being able to opt out. A simple question and already assumptions are being made.

 

I'm glad I don't have to worry about them. :P

Link to comment
Because allowing a choice would defeat the very purpose of an audit log. It would become totally useless if there was an opt-out feature available. Whether that would be a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing depends totally on your point of view, of course.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

 

It's just kinda fun to see who's been looking. There is no other advantage. And no sinister secret.

Link to comment

It is like you are worried about being caught with your hand in the cookie jar

 

It's probably that kind of assumption that concerns the OP.

 

I just don't understand what kind of cookie the OP is worried about being exposed.....

white-chocolate-chip-cookies1.jpg

 

I actually prefer semi-sweet chips....new picture please!

 

Really??? White chocoloate is the best. Well, here ya go.

chocolate-cookies.jpg

Link to comment
Sure it is. Keeps your name off the audit log doesn't it? isn't that what you wanted? Hey, you don't like those options open a dummy account.

 

No, I'd like to be able to view PMO caches without my name appearing in the audit log. Is that so hard to understand?

Link to comment

Sigh.......

 

since the world didn't end last Saturday, are the audit logs a sign that it is still imminent??

 

Seems like a big yawn issue to me.

 

The person that predicted the world would end on may 21st said he made a "miscalculation" which he now corrected, and now he says that the rapture is set to this october 21st... A bucket of fish, if you ask me...

Link to comment

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

The same as Facebook?

Oh nope I'm wrong there because the CO can profit from your innocent browsing habits.

 

Yep, and the authors were far-sighted enough to give users the choice. Why doesn't Groundspeak?

Yeah why didn't Groundspeak...

...and Facebook?

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

Facebook once again.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

Yeah what is the purpose of Facebook tracking every cache page you look at?

Oh yeah I answered that.

 

That may be what it is to you. Not to everybody, though.

Exactly!

 

No, I'd like to be able to view PMO caches without my name appearing in the audit log. Is that so hard to understand?

Just about as hard as it is for you to understand why some people didn't want to be tracked by Facebook here.

 

 

And all of this arguing coming from the guy who vehemently argued against people not wanting to connect to Facebook every time anyone viewed any cache page.

Have you altered that stance to mirror your anti-PMOC audit log one?

Link to comment

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

The same as Facebook?

Oh nope I'm wrong there because the CO can profit from your innocent browsing habits.

 

Yep, and the authors were far-sighted enough to give users the choice. Why doesn't Groundspeak?

Yeah why didn't Groundspeak...

...and Facebook?

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

Facebook once again.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

Yeah what is the purpose of Facebook tracking every cache page you look at?

Oh yeah I answered that.

 

That may be what it is to you. Not to everybody, though.

Exactly!

 

No, I'd like to be able to view PMO caches without my name appearing in the audit log. Is that so hard to understand?

Just about as hard as it is for you to understand why some people didn't want to be tracked by Facebook here.

 

 

And all of this arguing coming from the guy who vehemently argued against people not wanting to connect to Facebook every time anyone viewed any cache page.

Have you altered that stance to mirror your anti-PMOC audit log one?

 

What does any of this have to do with facebook other than the fact that dfx has apparently favored the integration of facebook at some point?

 

Noone is arguing that Groundspeak shouldn't be able to track its users. The argument is with owners of pmo caches tracking viewers.

Link to comment

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

The same as Facebook?

Oh nope I'm wrong there because the CO can profit from your innocent browsing habits.

 

Yep, and the authors were far-sighted enough to give users the choice. Why doesn't Groundspeak?

Yeah why didn't Groundspeak...

...and Facebook?

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

Facebook once again.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

Yeah what is the purpose of Facebook tracking every cache page you look at?

Oh yeah I answered that.

 

That may be what it is to you. Not to everybody, though.

Exactly!

 

No, I'd like to be able to view PMO caches without my name appearing in the audit log. Is that so hard to understand?

Just about as hard as it is for you to understand why some people didn't want to be tracked by Facebook here.

 

 

And all of this arguing coming from the guy who vehemently argued against people not wanting to connect to Facebook every time anyone viewed any cache page.

Have you altered that stance to mirror your anti-PMOC audit log one?

 

What does any of this have to do with facebook other than the fact that dfx has apparently favored the integration of facebook at some point?

 

Noone is arguing that Groundspeak shouldn't be able to track its users. The argument is with owners of pmo caches tracking viewers.

I am really having a hard time trying to understand why this is even an issue.

 

From the Groundspeak Knowledgebooks:

 

1.2. Audit Log

 

An Audit Log is a list of users who have viewed a Premium Member Only Cache on the web site. The cache owner can use the Audit Log to see a detailed list that shows these data:

 

  • Last Visit
  • First Visit
  • Username
  • #Times

The cache owner can find a link to "[read the audit log]" at the top of his or her Premium Member Only Cache, just above the cache coordinates.

Ignorance of the law or the rules of engagement is no reason to throw a hissy fit. :huh:

 

 

Link to comment

What does it matter? What's the harm of having the choice? What's the benefit of forcing every PM to show up in the audit log of every PMO cache they view?

The same as Facebook?

Oh nope I'm wrong there because the CO can profit from your innocent browsing habits.

 

Yep, and the authors were far-sighted enough to give users the choice. Why doesn't Groundspeak?

Yeah why didn't Groundspeak...

...and Facebook?

 

Actually I'm all in favor of giving people the choice of not having their find count displayed. Aren't you?

Facebook once again.

 

So what's the purpose of the audit log, anyway?

Yeah what is the purpose of Facebook tracking every cache page you look at?

Oh yeah I answered that.

 

That may be what it is to you. Not to everybody, though.

Exactly!

 

No, I'd like to be able to view PMO caches without my name appearing in the audit log. Is that so hard to understand?

Just about as hard as it is for you to understand why some people didn't want to be tracked by Facebook here.

 

 

And all of this arguing coming from the guy who vehemently argued against people not wanting to connect to Facebook every time anyone viewed any cache page.

Have you altered that stance to mirror your anti-PMOC audit log one?

 

What does any of this have to do with facebook other than the fact that dfx has apparently favored the integration of facebook at some point?

 

Noone is arguing that Groundspeak shouldn't be able to track its users. The argument is with owners of pmo caches tracking viewers.

I am really having a hard time trying to understand why this is even an issue.

 

From the Groundspeak Knowledgebooks:

 

1.2. Audit Log

 

An Audit Log is a list of users who have viewed a Premium Member Only Cache on the web site. The cache owner can use the Audit Log to see a detailed list that shows these data:

 

  • Last Visit
  • First Visit
  • Username
  • #Times

The cache owner can find a link to "[read the audit log]" at the top of his or her Premium Member Only Cache, just above the cache coordinates.

Ignorance of the law or the rules of engagement is no reason to throw a hissy fit. :huh:

 

Who's throwing a hissy?

 

I'm immune, so it doesn't really affect me. But it does put a slight damper on becoming a premium member.

 

(although I'm pretty sure I would just ignore any emails from any controlling cache owner wanting to know why I looked at his cache)

Link to comment

I simply used your post for my response. A few of the posters in this thread are throwing a hissy because they don't bother to take the time to be educated. It is quite easy to see everything on a PMO cache page and read all of the logs and never appear on an audit log. No dampers needed. But you DO need to be a premium member unless you are really good. :)

Link to comment
It is quite easy to see everything on a PMO cache page and read all of the logs and never appear on an audit log. No dampers needed. But you DO need to be a premium member unless you are really good. :)

Care to summarise for those of us who would rather not trawl through the preceding diatribe? TIA.

Link to comment
It is quite easy to see everything on a PMO cache page and read all of the logs and never appear on an audit log. No dampers needed. But you DO need to be a premium member unless you are really good. :)

Care to summarise for those of us who would rather not trawl through the preceding diatribe? TIA.

PQ

 

Need anything more? :)

Link to comment
It is quite easy to see everything on a PMO cache page and read all of the logs and never appear on an audit log. No dampers needed. But you DO need to be a premium member unless you are really good. :)

Care to summarise for those of us who would rather not trawl through the preceding diatribe? TIA.

PQ

 

Need anything more? :)

 

Oh. That's been mentioned a few times. I'm gonna have to go premium just so I can learn what all this code word stuff is.

Link to comment
I'm gonna have to go premium just so I can learn what all this code word stuff is.

 

PQ is short for Pocket Query. A way of querying Groundspeak's database for caches in groups of up to 1000 at a time and receiving the .gpx file for those caches.

Premium Member only caches that might come in that query can be viewed by you in your own software, or perhaps directly on your gps device. You won't appear on the audit log, because you aren't looking at the cache on Geocaching.com.

It's also possible to go directly to the logging page of the cache via a number of routes, thus logging the cache without appearing on the audit log.

 

A few years ago I logged a find on a PM cache, and the cache owner emailed me asking if I'd really found it, as I did not appear on the audit log. So I posted a new note with a bunch of pictures of the hunt attached (once again, without ever looking at the cache page on Geocaching.com). I would have emailed an explanation if he'd included his email, but he emailed from noreply... so I didn't reply ;-)

Link to comment
The forum software was purchased, not written, by Groundspeak.

 

Yep, and the authors were far-sighted enough to give users the choice. Why doesn't Groundspeak?

 

Groundspeak does give users the choice - but in this case the users it gives the choice to are the cache owners. They, after all, created the cache and the listing.

If a cache owner chooses to make their cache PMO, they have every right (under the current set-up) to audit who visits the page. Nobody's forcing you to look!

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

If I was a Groundspeak employee trying to prioritize what changes to make to the site, I'd need a more compelling reason than "Because I want it" before I'd go through the effort of creating the ability for someone to opt out of the audit log. :unsure:

 

EXCELLENT point of view, DanOCan!!

Link to comment

What does any of this have to do with facebook other than the fact that dfx has apparently favored the integration of facebook at some point?

 

Noone is arguing that Groundspeak shouldn't be able to track its users. The argument is with owners of pmo caches tracking viewers.

Try rereading what you quoted and then answer this question.

Is Groundspeak Facebook?

Never mind I'll answer it for you.

NO it is not of course neither is the CO but lets hold things in the light.

 

#1. What type of information is left on the audit log that a CO gets to see?

Last Visit and time

First Visit

User Name

Number of times they visited.

 

#2. What pages do they get to see that information on?

Only their pages.

 

#3. What type of information can be extrapolated from this information?

Last Visit and time

First Visit

User Name

Number of times they visited.

 

Do I even need to go into what FB got and what they would do with it? It is one thing to see a small portion of my viewing on this site with my consent but entirely another seeing it all and profiting from it without my consent.

 

Consent:

When I signed up to be a PM I knew full well all of the features I was signing up for, I'm not just some slob that says "Here take my money and don't tell me what I'm getting for it"

When I signed up for BM and then upgraded, I had the reasonable expectation that nobody outside of Groundspeak, the occasional CO and anyone that busted butt getting at the data trail between me and GS would know what I was looking at here.

 

I am utterly incapable of understanding how someone can object to an individual receiving innocuous information, but not to a corporation attempting attempting to profit off of you without your consent.

Lets face it, if you become a PM you are giving consent to every PMOC owner to know your first and last visit plus the number of visits to their page. If you don't know that then it is your fault because the information is available. If you do know that and you object to it then you should not become a PM until it is corrected to your liking.

Link to comment

We learn things everyday and I just learned that PMO (Premium members only) cache has a nifty little feature that allows the cache owner to know that you visited their cache page and I think the time as well.

 

Did you know that? I sure didnt and dont remember giving consent either to have my wherebouts on the GC site disclosed to anyone else other than Groundspeak themselves.

So how do I go about OPTing OUT of this feature?

 

Audit logs are no secret. One can do a search of the forums to find plenty of discussions about them.

 

But the most basic information is available in the Knowledge Books.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=5

 

Right there, second point...."Audit Log".

 

I'm quite surprised that people don't seem to take the time to research something before plunging into it by paying for it or posting about it on the forums.

 

It's always interesting to me, too, that instead of contacting Groundspeak to ask questions of this nature, they post in the forums.

 

No, you can't opt out of it. Having your username show up on an audit log should be harmless. If you do receive emails from a cache owner, you can either ignore the communication, or if they are threatening, once again....contact Groundspeak. There's a sticky up there about threatening emails...information that has been very publicly visible for quite some time.

 

If you haven't received any communication...then why the concern?

Link to comment
Facebook? ...and Facebook? ... Facebook ... Facebook ... Facebook ...

Awesome point you make there. Wanna know a secret? I don't use Spambook, and this is exactly one of the reasons why.

 

And all of this arguing coming from the guy who vehemently argued against people not wanting to connect to Facebook every time anyone viewed any cache page.

Where the heck did you get that from? I was never in favor of that silly button.

 

Groundspeak does give users the choice - but in this case the users it gives the choice to are the cache owners. They, after all, created the cache and the listing.

If a cache owner chooses to make their cache PMO, they have every right (under the current set-up) to audit who visits the page. Nobody's forcing you to look!

We've already been over this, it's not an option, because 1) many times you don't know in advance that a cache is PMO, and 2) not looking at PMO caches is not a solution because then you're losing the basic ability of being able to view PMO caches.

 

The fundamental problem behind the audit log is something else though. While the existence of the audit log is documented, it's not well advertised and many people don't know about it. The cache says it's for premium members only, so yeah that makes sense, a basic member can't view it but a premium member can. It does not say "this is a cache with an audit log". It's something the unaware user doesn't expect to be there.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

Round and round. At this point that isn't possible. But if you don't want your name on the audit log you can not open PMO pages. But we've covered this ground already.

 

I'm going to bed.

Did you have one of those dreams where nothing ever seems to get resolved? I hate those dreams.

Link to comment

I just can't wait to get my first PM Log and start emailing everyone on the list demanding to know who they are, where they are from, and why if they looked at my cache listing they haven't turned off the computer and gone out to find it already.

 

I'll send you one of my audit logs if you can't wait.

Link to comment

I just can't wait to get my first PM Log and start emailing everyone on the list demanding to know who they are, where they are from, and why if they looked at my cache listing they haven't turned off the computer and gone out to find it already.

 

Go check your Audit Log...I peeked at your cache page! :ph34r:

 

My name is Pup Patrol, I'm from Ontario, Canada, and your cache is too danged far away for me to even attempt to solve the puzzle to get the coordinates.

 

There, saved you an email. :D

Link to comment

I just can't wait to get my first PM Log and start emailing everyone on the list demanding to know who they are, where they are from, and why if they looked at my cache listing they haven't turned off the computer and gone out to find it already.

 

Go check your Audit Log...I peeked at your cache page! :ph34r:

 

My name is Pup Patrol, I'm from Ontario, Canada, and your cache is too danged far away for me to even attempt to solve the puzzle to get the coordinates.

 

There, saved you an email. :D

 

Thanks PP; now if I could just figure out where the log is... :lol:

Link to comment

I just can't wait to get my first PM Log and start emailing everyone on the list demanding to know who they are, where they are from, and why if they looked at my cache listing they haven't turned off the computer and gone out to find it already.

 

Go check your Audit Log...I peeked at your cache page! :ph34r:

 

My name is Pup Patrol, I'm from Ontario, Canada, and your cache is too danged far away for me to even attempt to solve the puzzle to get the coordinates.

 

There, saved you an email. :D

 

Can I get some help on how to solve Kameharem's puzzle? :lol:

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...