Stalked on gc.com

[+GeoBain]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

You got a better way of excluding your finds from PQ's? And I'm not aware that anyone can see my ignore list. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

Yeah, I just check the box that says "I haven't found" and leave the "I have found" unchecked. The ones I found aren't in the PQ.

 

As far as I know that doesn't work if you don't log your finds.

[jholly]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

You got a better way of excluding your finds from PQ's? And I'm not aware that anyone can see my ignore list. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

Yeah, I just check the box that says "I haven't found" and leave the "I have found" unchecked. The ones I found aren't in the PQ.

 

As far as I know that doesn't work if you don't log your finds.

That is true. So how am I suppose to stalk you if you don't log your finds?

[+GeoBain]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

You got a better way of excluding your finds from PQ's? And I'm not aware that anyone can see my ignore list. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

Yeah, I just check the box that says "I haven't found" and leave the "I have found" unchecked. The ones I found aren't in the PQ.

 

As far as I know that doesn't work if you don't log your finds.

That is true. So how am I suppose to stalk you if you don't log your finds?

 

Exactly.

[jholly]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

You got a better way of excluding your finds from PQ's? And I'm not aware that anyone can see my ignore list. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

Yeah, I just check the box that says "I haven't found" and leave the "I have found" unchecked. The ones I found aren't in the PQ.

 

As far as I know that doesn't work if you don't log your finds.

That is true. So how am I suppose to stalk you if you don't log your finds?

 

Exactly.

Well, that is no fun.

[AZcachemeister]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

 

That could work, unless there were caches you wanted to ignore, but didn't find.

Still, you could keep them separate if you're a GSAK user.

 

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

Your find-count would go nowhere, since you aren't recording finds!

 

I am still trying to figure out what real damage could be done by knowing where someone was yesterday (or even this morning) unless the person being 'stalked' was supposed to be somewhere else, lied about their whereabouts and went geocaching instead.

My guess the 'stalkers' are trying to annoy (frighten, intimidate, piss-off) the 'stalkee', are not trying terribly hard to mask their activities, and are apparently getting the desired results.

[knowschad]

Log with a 'Note' -keep a list of your caches as 'Found' on GSAK. (It gives you a chance to write a log, but as such, is not searchable/visible on the site other that once you get to the cache page.)

(I haven't read the rest of the responses, so this may have already been said)

 

The note option might work, but if you don't have and don't want GSAK (GSAK is not easy to use), how do you get the found caches off your PQ list?

 

Also, I don't think you can add a Favorite to a cache unless you mark it as found.

 

Privacy suggestions have been submitted in the feedback forums, specifically.... let the user decide who can see the list detailed list of geocache finds. But that's probably never going to happen - how does the GS company profit from this type of feature?

 

Mark your found caches on your ignore list and then exclude them from your PQ. Until Groundspeak offers the ability to hide your finds this is the best method I've come up with.

Oh, I love that one! Still on your personal profile, not on your public profile but you count keeps going up. Drive them wild trying to figure out what caches you got.

 

You got a better way of excluding your finds from PQ's? And I'm not aware that anyone can see my ignore list. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

 

I don't think he was being sarcastic.

[+Bamilbis]

Still waiting for an answer how knowing where somebody WAS is a problem. Where is the threat of harassment? How could this possibly be a problem (you're caching while called in sick and boss finds out excluded)?

 

Why would anyone want to hide their logs from the public view? Obviously I support privacy rights, just can't see how this would be a problem...

[+lamoracke]

I have known 2 caching acquaintances who started doing their logs as "notes" instead of logs due to supposedly stalking issues. There is stalking and there is stalking I suppose. As long as you do not say I found this cache 1000 feet from your work, I do not know what kind of information they could gleam just by your found logs. Is one worried the person is going to make patterns about where you were based on that? The fact one does a cache in Seattle one weekend and then Tacoma the next weekend, and then whether or not you enjoyed the hides, etc, how does that make them find you easier?

 

I would agree with some folks who posted to just try to include minimal information in your logs that you feel will bite you. Just like on Facebook, do not say in advance you are going out of town, for security purposes, until you get back and then you can discuss the trip. Mention your caching trips after you return. Unless they already know where you live, do not see how reading a past log could make them find you quicker. Perhaps log caches closest to home on the same day as other caches you did so it wont be isolated. Who really cares if you found it on 10/10 and logged it 10/15 instead. Without knowing your situation, to me, just someone reading past logs of yours, do not see how that could really change things too much. I have friends do that to each other all the time. I sometimes see what some of my best friends found in the last week once in a blue moon.

 

If you like using Geocaching.com as a record of your finds, and you like the statistics, then logging them as notes could take away some of your enjoyment, its up to you.

[+ThePetersTrio]

I don't know for certain but this sounds like a relationship gone bad. You know, a couple used to cache together, they broke up, now the one who can't quite let go is "stalking" the OP. (I wouldn't call it stalking, though if there were other ways they were monitoring the OPs movements, it might be part of a bigger pattern.)

 

Sounds annoying more than anything but I don't think anything can or should be done about it. At least how it is presented in this scenario.

[knowschad]

I don't know for certain but this sounds like a relationship gone bad. You know, a couple used to cache together, they broke up, now the one who can't quite let go is "stalking" the OP. (I wouldn't call it stalking, though if there were other ways they were monitoring the OPs movements, it might be part of a bigger pattern.)

 

Sounds annoying more than anything but I don't think anything can or should be done about it. At least how it is presented in this scenario.

 

I tend to agree with you on all points. Scary, huh?

[+ThePetersTrio]

I don't know for certain but this sounds like a relationship gone bad. You know, a couple used to cache together, they broke up, now the one who can't quite let go is "stalking" the OP. (I wouldn't call it stalking, though if there were other ways they were monitoring the OPs movements, it might be part of a bigger pattern.)

 

Sounds annoying more than anything but I don't think anything can or should be done about it. At least how it is presented in this scenario.

 

I tend to agree with you on all points. Scary, huh?

 

Naw. Not scary. I like dogs.

[+ncfinn]

How do you know who's been reading your logs? I really would like to know.

 

What kind of personal info do you provide? That you will be out of town caching all weekend and that all your valuables are in the freezer?

[+Team Hugs]

why is it that people never see the other side of a situation like this, and always assume the "accuser" is the victim?

the OP came here and made quite a serious accusation against someone without any supporting facts, we are 3 pages later and yet the OP has not made one single additional post

 

Sure, we don't know anything. But what is the OP asking for? The OP isn't asking that the stalker be banned from using geocaching.com. All the OP is asking is for a feature to hide logs from another user. I'm not sure how the other person would be materially harmed by such a feature, regardless of who's at fault.

 

But I really have a hard time accepting that reading logs is stalking, if so we are all are guilty of stalking.

 

With respect ... you're thinking too narrowly about what stalking is.

 

Here's a definition: "a constellation of behaviours in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications" (Wikipedia). Notice: a "constellation" of behaviors. Any individual behavior (a phone call, an observation on the street, viewing on a webpage) might be innocent. It's the cumulative effect that defines stalking.

 

If there were privacy controls, those who wish to use them could, and those who don't wish to use them could refrain. I may not use some of them myself, but neither would I hold it against (or mock) anyone who did. Sometimes I come across people with Facebook or Twitter or Letterbox accounts who have availed themselves of some of the privacy controls, and it doesn't seem like an unreasonable choice to me.

 

Precisely.

 

I would agree with some folks who posted to just try to include minimal information in your logs that you feel will bite you.

 

And then they'll get yelled at in the other thread here for lack of creativity in their log entries, right?

 

Hey, I realize I'm relatively new to this world. I've learned that one of the "rules" (if there are any) of geocaching is "play the game the way you want". The OP is asking for website features that will allow him/her to play the game in a different way. Honestly, is that so bad?

[+SwineFlew]

Instill GS give us more privacy, all my logs will be blank logs from here on out.

[AZcachemeister]

Instill GS give us more privacy, all my logs will be blank logs from here on out.

 

I don't think that is possible anymore. Even the loophole in the iPhone app has been plugged.

So you can still log a (.), which doesn't say much, but we will still know you were at 'CACHE X' at one time or another.

 

Mixing up the dates on your 'Found It' logs will probably do as much good as any other privacy measure that could be implemented.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a thread in the feedback section asking for privacy controls that was 'Prioritized in the system' nine months ago, and nothing has been done since.

 

Actually I see three that are somewhat related, the most relevant one was 'Prioritized' on 28 Feb 2011. (Only eight months ago )

[+SwineFlew]

Instill GS give us more privacy, all my logs will be blank logs from here on out.

 

I don't think that is possible anymore. Even the loophole in the iPhone app has been plugged.

So you can still log a (.), which doesn't say much, but we will still know you were at 'CACHE X' at one time or another.

 

Mixing up the dates on your 'Found It' logs will probably do as much good as any other privacy measure that could be implemented.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a thread in the feedback section asking for privacy controls that was 'Prioritized in the system' nine months ago, and nothing has been done since.

 

Actually I see three that are somewhat related, the most relevant one was 'Prioritized' on 28 Feb 2011. (Only eight months ago )

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

[knowschad]

Instill GS give us more privacy, all my logs will be blank logs from here on out.

 

I don't think that is possible anymore. Even the loophole in the iPhone app has been plugged.

So you can still log a (.), which doesn't say much, but we will still know you were at 'CACHE X' at one time or another.

 

Mixing up the dates on your 'Found It' logs will probably do as much good as any other privacy measure that could be implemented.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a thread in the feedback section asking for privacy controls that was 'Prioritized in the system' nine months ago, and nothing has been done since.

 

Actually I see three that are somewhat related, the most relevant one was 'Prioritized' on 28 Feb 2011. (Only eight months ago )

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

 

Oh, wonderful.

[AZcachemeister]

 

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

 

Well I suppose you haven't updated to the latest version then?

 

Hang onto it as long as you can, but rest assured you WILL be forced to update sooner or later.

[+pppingme]

I have known 2 caching acquaintances who started doing their logs as "notes" instead of logs due to supposedly stalking issues.

I don't get it, how does logging as notes instead of finds prevent "stalking" (not that I buy you can stalk based on logs anyway).

 

Notes are still easily available on every page.

 

If you do a PQ daily (something I guess an aggressive stalker would do) then you will pick up the notes.

 

If you add a notify, you'll get emailed for notes posted on all caches within 50 miles.

 

I don't see that the notes prevent any kind of stalking (if you even buy that logs can help a stalker).

[+dakboy]

 

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

 

Well I suppose you haven't updated to the latest version then?

They plugged the hole in the app, instead of on the server? Web architecture 101 failure.

[+lamoracke]

Man, I am horrible at quoting people properly with the right HTML. I surrender for the moment.

Edited October 16, 2011 by lamoracke

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

It seems to me that unless one has personal experience with a stalking issue, it is difficult to relate to this thread. That's pretty much where I am with it. However, just like with any social media, if you have a stalker, rethink your personal actions. I see no reason to expect the site to make things stalker proof at the expense of resources needed for game enhancements.

[jholly]

 

But I really have a hard time accepting that reading logs is stalking, if so we are all are guilty of stalking.

 

With respect ... you're thinking too narrowly about what stalking is.

 

Here's a definition: "a constellation of behaviours in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications" (Wikipedia). Notice: a "constellation" of behaviors. Any individual behavior (a phone call, an observation on the street, viewing on a webpage) might be innocent. It's the cumulative effect that defines stalking.

 

With due respect you don't have a clue if I read your logs or not. I might have read all your logs, but then I might not have read any your logs. We were talking about being stalked by have the logs read. I take the position that you don't have the slightest clue that I read your logs or not. We were not talking about me following you around or calling you on the phone. Quite simply you don't know if I read your logs or not unless I provide some information in a note or a forum post or email you directly. Narrow thinking? Yes, but that is what the OP's post was about. So I maintain that if there is a constellation of behavior that defines stalking, reading your logs is not in that constellation for the simple reason you don't know if I am or not.

[AZcachemeister]

 

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

 

Well I suppose you haven't updated to the latest version then?

They plugged the hole in the app, instead of on the server? Web architecture 101 failure.

 

[jholly]

Instill GS give us more privacy, all my logs will be blank logs from here on out.

 

I don't think that is possible anymore. Even the loophole in the iPhone app has been plugged.

So you can still log a (.), which doesn't say much, but we will still know you were at 'CACHE X' at one time or another.

 

Mixing up the dates on your 'Found It' logs will probably do as much good as any other privacy measure that could be implemented.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a thread in the feedback section asking for privacy controls that was 'Prioritized in the system' nine months ago, and nothing has been done since.

 

Actually I see three that are somewhat related, the most relevant one was 'Prioritized' on 28 Feb 2011. (Only eight months ago )

 

It still work for me. I can still give blank logs. I just tested it five mins ago.

 

Oh, wonderful.

I wonder what the frogs position is on deleting blank logs? I mean, after all, there is nothing in the log so could I maintain it is a bogus log and being deleted under the cache maintenance guideline. Any lawyers wish to opine an opinion?

[+Team Hugs]

Quite simply you don't know if I read your logs or not unless I provide some information in a note or a forum post or email you directly.

 

Of course. On the other hand, if I could prohibit you from reading my logs, then I would know whether or not you're reading my logs --- because I'd know you weren't.

 

I see no reason to expect the site to make things stalker proof at the expense of resources needed for game enhancements.

 

You mean like other vital game features like emoticons in the forum and user icon images in log postings? Not every expenditure of resources has to be about game enhancements. Some expenditures are made just to make this a nice place to live in.

 

Frankly, I'd see privacy settings as a game enhancement. But I can see that I'm in the minority here, and I'll move on. (Sancho, hand me my lance, please ...)

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

[Not every expenditure of resources has to be about game enhancements. Some expenditures are made just to make this a nice place to live in.

 

Frankly, I'd see privacy settings as a game enhancement.

 

I can respect that point. However, I also think that a certain amount of public exposure keeps us responsible for how we use the site an therefore helps maintain our standard of living here.

[+t4e]

 

Frankly, I'd see privacy settings as a game enhancement. But I can see that I'm in the minority here, and I'll move on. (Sancho, hand me my lance, please ...)

 

please enlighten me because i honestly don't see how is going to improve my enjoyment

[jholly]

Quite simply you don't know if I read your logs or not unless I provide some information in a note or a forum post or email you directly.

 

Of course. On the other hand, if I could prohibit you from reading my logs, then I would know whether or not you're reading my logs --- because I'd know you weren't.

 

I see no reason to expect the site to make things stalker proof at the expense of resources needed for game enhancements.

 

You mean like other vital game features like emoticons in the forum and user icon images in log postings? Not every expenditure of resources has to be about game enhancements. Some expenditures are made just to make this a nice place to live in.

 

Frankly, I'd see privacy settings as a game enhancement. But I can see that I'm in the minority here, and I'll move on. (Sancho, hand me my lance, please ...)

You can get those privacy features today without any one expending any effort or resource.

 

Keep your logs in Word, Excel, or GSAK on your computer. Then nobody can see them. Very simple and easy to implement. Nobody said you have to log online and nobody is forcing you to log online. If you want a few select folks to have access then email them the summaries every now and then.

[+Bamilbis]

You people who advocate privacy do understand you're advocating giving up a valuable resource right? When you look up "recent logs" you want to see them, right? You want to know if the dang cache has been found in the last week or decade, right? If everyone blocked their logs because of some crazy fear that some stranger could look up where they WERE then we as a group lose that functionality.

 

As I've posted, it's a risk reward equation. We all benefit when people post. If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid a stalker might find out where they used to be then we all lose. Wing nuts should either not post anything or not play this harmless game....or identify a real reason why it's a problem to post where you WERE. Nobody can harm you if they know for fact you used to be at a specific location.

 

Let's interject some sanity here...please.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reason to block where you USED to be. ( calling in sick and boss finding out excluded. I don't care about that guy.)

[AZcachemeister]

You people who advocate privacy do understand you're advocating giving up a valuable resource right? When you look up "recent logs" you want to see them, right? You want to know if the dang cache has been found in the last week or decade, right? If everyone blocked their logs because of some crazy fear that some stranger could look up where they WERE then we as a group lose that functionality.

 

As I've posted, it's a risk reward equation. We all benefit when people post. If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid a stalker might find out where they used to be then we all lose. Wing nuts should either not post anything or not play this harmless game....or identify a real reason why it's a problem to post where you WERE. Nobody can harm you if they know for fact you used to be at a specific location.

 

Let's interject some sanity here...please.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reason to block where you USED to be. ( calling in sick and boss finding out excluded. I don't care about that guy.)

 

I agree...If you don't want someone to know what you were doing, then don't log.

But, if they don't log, you (I, me, we) still loose the information abut their experience and/or results. Not a big deal if only a few are doing it, but a lot of cache owners could/would/might archive caches if they don't think anyone is interested anymore.

 

Let's don't forget about the guy who is 'caching on the clock', possibly even more serious than calling in sick to go caching.

[knowschad]

Quite simply you don't know if I read your logs or not unless I provide some information in a note or a forum post or email you directly.

 

Of course. On the other hand, if I could prohibit you from reading my logs, then I would know whether or not you're reading my logs --- because I'd know you weren't.

 

I see no reason to expect the site to make things stalker proof at the expense of resources needed for game enhancements.

 

You mean like other vital game features like emoticons in the forum and user icon images in log postings? Not every expenditure of resources has to be about game enhancements. Some expenditures are made just to make this a nice place to live in.

 

Frankly, I'd see privacy settings as a game enhancement. But I can see that I'm in the minority here, and I'll move on. (Sancho, hand me my lance, please ...)

 

Please explain to all of us just how this website as it is currently operating can be used to stalk somebody. I'd love to hear it, because at this point, this discussion is sounding very absurd to me!

[+Bamilbis]

Yes, that's my point too. How is this site enabling stalking? If I know, to the exact lat / long where you were an hour ago how is that a threat to you? You're an hour ahead of me and I have ZERO idea which way you went. So far all we've heard is the "bad man" has read your logs...the same logs you posted on the Internet for anyone to read. (as a side note, I have not checked the OP profile as I don't care.)

 

Please answer this or I'm done with the thread.

Edited October 16, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[+terrkan78]

What I'm envisioning is a situation where every time the OP logs a find, the "stalker" says something to him (e-mail, IM, etc.) that makes it sound as though they've read his log. The "trap" probably entailed something mentioned in the log that the "stalker" couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Not dangerous stalking, but annoying stalking.

 

A little bit like when someone you stupidly friended on Facebook starts commenting on every single thing you post. You put up a post, two seconds later they comment. Over and over again. I've heard people call that "stalking." But it's not dangerous, just annoying (and you can easily do something about it on Facebook).

 

If someone started sending me (for example) an e-mail every single time I found a cache, commenting on my find ("Hey, I found that one two weeks ago" "Did you like it?" "Your log was really terse, didn't you like it?" Etc.), and they kept it up day in and day out, eventually I'd get annoyed. Actually, I'd be annoyed by about day three.

 

There's been some good suggestions on here of what to do to foil the "stalker." I'm sure the OP would rather Groundspeak added in some privacy controls, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

[jholly]

You people who advocate privacy do understand you're advocating giving up a valuable resource right? When you look up "recent logs" you want to see them, right? You want to know if the dang cache has been found in the last week or decade, right? If everyone blocked their logs because of some crazy fear that some stranger could look up where they WERE then we as a group lose that functionality.

 

As I've posted, it's a risk reward equation. We all benefit when people post. If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid a stalker might find out where they used to be then we all lose. Wing nuts should either not post anything or not play this harmless game....or identify a real reason why it's a problem to post where you WERE. Nobody can harm you if they know for fact you used to be at a specific location.

 

Let's interject some sanity here...please.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reason to block where you USED to be. ( calling in sick and boss finding out excluded. I don't care about that guy.)

 

I agree...If you don't want someone to know what you were doing, then don't log.

But, if they don't log, you (I, me, we) still loose the information abut their experience and/or results. Not a big deal if only a few are doing it, but a lot of cache owners could/would/might archive caches if they don't think anyone is interested anymore.

 

Let's don't forget about the guy who is 'caching on the clock', possibly even more serious than calling in sick to go caching.

And this could be useful information. If a cache were to have a recent history of four or five DNF's and that was three or four months ago with no finds since I'm not likely to include it on the days outing. But during that three or four months six non logging cachers found the cache. A cache I would have otherwise included is excluded based on the incorrect history. An no, since I drive 30 to 50 miles and probably go on a ferry for a days outing I'm not likely to include a cache that looks like there is a problem with it. Maybe if the cache was a couple miles away I might look and if I DNF'ed, no big deal and I would also file a NM.

[+Team Hugs]

I had intended to leave this alone, but people asked questions, so ...

 

please enlighten me because i honestly don't see how is going to improve my enjoyment

 

Does every feature here have to improve your personal enjoyment? Can't we have features that improve some people's experience while only marginally affecting everyone else?

 

I can't use the Field Notes feature; my hardware doesn't support it. Should others with more advanced hardware be denied the chance to use Field Notes because not everyone chooses to purchase compatible hardware?

 

\

Keep your logs in Word, Excel, or GSAK on your computer. Then nobody can see them. Very simple and easy to implement. Nobody said you have to log online and nobody is forcing you to log online. If you want a few select folks to have access then email them the summaries every now and then.

 

That seems to me to be an alternative that addresses many of the issues. I don't know if it's preferable to the original proposal or not ... this debate got too heated long ago.

 

If everyone blocked their logs because of some crazy fear that some stranger could look up where they WERE then we as a group lose that functionality.

 

Who said anything about everyone blocking their logs? People who are concerned will block their logs; people who aren't, won't. I suspect that most people will see the value in public logs and continue to post publicly.

 

It's not like we're talking about re-inventing the wheel. Facebook allows users to block individuals from reading their postings, on a global or a case-by-case basis. I don't see Facebook falling apart because nobody wants to share anymore.

 

If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid ...

 

And now that we've descended into name-calling, I'm out.

[tttedzeins]

WOW. This opens up a whole can of worms. I have never used my personal information on the internet, I started using BBS in the 80's and, as stated, never reveal personal information. Yes, you can deduce what town I live in (unfortunately there are no other cities for about 1600KM), you can deduce where I have been, but that is it. Not even my facebook account has any personal information.

 

I am curious as to the methods you employed to discover this stalking.

 

THEN, would not you logging in every day and checking out their profile to see if they have logged in and what they are upto constitute you also stalking them ? Just curious.

[+6NoisyHikers]

What I'm envisioning is a situation where every time the OP logs a find, the "stalker" says something to him (e-mail, IM, etc.) that makes it sound as though they've read his log. The "trap" probably entailed something mentioned in the log that the "stalker" couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Not dangerous stalking, but annoying stalking.

 

A little bit like when someone you stupidly friended on Facebook starts commenting on every single thing you post. You put up a post, two seconds later they comment. Over and over again. I've heard people call that "stalking." But it's not dangerous, just annoying (and you can easily do something about it on Facebook).

 

 

Okay, that makes sense to me because I did have a similar issue on Facebook. Fortunately you can block people on Facebook (even more fortunately, I keep a separate Facebook account for work so this guy wasn't viewing my personal life). I can see that if someone sent me an email every time I logged a find, I'd be creeped out.

 

I guess the pre-emptive course of action is to link your geocaching account to a hotmail or gmail address so it's no big deal to give it up if necessary. In this situation I would change my user name and create a new email address. Then I would stop logging for a few weeks and give my name a chance to fade away down the log list. Maybe if there is nothing to stalk about, they'll move on to something (or someone) else.

 

Even though the OP seems to be AWOL from this conversation, it's still a concept worth discussing - not just about geocaching, but our lives online as a whle. It's not about someone knowing where you were. It can still be unnerving, annoying, time-consuming, frightening, inconvenient, (insert your own adjective here) to have to deal with someone who insists on intruding on your life - virtual or otherwise.

 

I like wingnuts. They're handy.

[+paleolith]

Stalking comes in all varieties.

 

There seem to be a couple of different issues here.

 

4wheelin_fool and a couple of others, like jkhuggins, understand that stalking does not necessarily involve physical danger, real or perceived. Creating detrimental psychological conditions is also referred to as stalking. If someone creepy is gathering information about you and making it known to you that they are doing so, that's creepy. Unless you have even thicker skin than most here, that WILL affect your behavior in bad ways. Those who think it doesn't, mostly have not experienced these situations or seen it happen to a family member or close friend.

 

In addition, asking the OP to disclose more information misses the point that more disclosure is exactly what is to be avoided in a stalking situation.

 

OTOH, reviewing the OP's past posts to the forums, and logs to at least one cache, tells me that the OP has exhibited aggressive and inflexible behavior towards other cachers. This person's logs and postings indicate someone with a lot of difficulty figuring out how to get along with others. The basic intentions appear to be fine, but then the inflexibility in working through the situation causes the real problems.

 

So it's even more complex than it appears.

 

Edward

[+lamoracke]

dont see how someone having the ability to block one cacher's ability to read their logs would be that useful. They could just make a sock puppet account over and over, would be a cat and mouse operation how long it takes the person to figure it out its that person each and every time. I personally concur that its a public website, you choose to put your logs there, folks see it. Its a community hobby, not a bubble with a few semi porous holes that you control who gets to come in and who does not.

[Mr.Yuck]

Stalking comes in all varieties.

 

There seem to be a couple of different issues here.

 

4wheelin_fool and a couple of others, like jkhuggins, understand that stalking does not necessarily involve physical danger, real or perceived. Creating detrimental psychological conditions is also referred to as stalking. If someone creepy is gathering information about you and making it known to you that they are doing so, that's creepy. Unless you have even thicker skin than most here, that WILL affect your behavior in bad ways. Those who think it doesn't, mostly have not experienced these situations or seen it happen to a family member or close friend.

 

 

Edward, that is an outstanding, very well put paragraph. I was probably going to say something along the lines of "haven't experienced it personally or seen it happen to someone they know" eventually. Because I'm not through with you it's the internet, get over it types. Anyone who has been stalked online feels the way Edward describes, I guarantee it. Even a 6' 200 Lb. man like myself. Well, never mind the fact I was like a 6' 180 Lb. man when I was stalked 7 or 8 years ago.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+t4e]

What I'm envisioning is a situation where every time the OP logs a find, the "stalker" says something to him (e-mail, IM, etc.) that makes it sound as though they've read his log. The "trap" probably entailed something mentioned in the log that the "stalker" couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Not dangerous stalking, but annoying stalking.

 

A little bit like when someone you stupidly friended on Facebook starts commenting on every single thing you post. You put up a post, two seconds later they comment. Over and over again. I've heard people call that "stalking." But it's not dangerous, just annoying (and you can easily do something about it on Facebook).

 

 

Okay, that makes sense to me because I did have a similar issue on Facebook. Fortunately you can block people on Facebook (even more fortunately, I keep a separate Facebook account for work so this guy wasn't viewing my personal life). I can see that if someone sent me an email every time I logged a find, I'd be creeped out.

 

 

I like wingnuts. They're handy.

 

i am surprised that everyone mentions facebook and nobody ever mentioned the fact that you can easily rid yourself of annoying email thru a spam filter

 

Stalking comes in all varieties.

 

There seem to be a couple of different issues here.

 

4wheelin_fool and a couple of others, like jkhuggins, understand that stalking does not necessarily involve physical danger, real or perceived. Creating detrimental psychological conditions is also referred to as stalking. If someone creepy is gathering information about you and making it known to you that they are doing so, that's creepy. Unless you have even thicker skin than most here, that WILL affect your behavior in bad ways. Those who think it doesn't, mostly have not experienced these situations or seen it happen to a family member or close friend.

 

 

Edward, that is an outstanding, very well put paragraph. I was probably going to say something along the lines of "haven't experienced it personally or seen it happen to someone they know" eventually. Because I'm not through with you it's the internet, get over it types. Anyone who has been stalked online feels the way Edward describes, I guarantee it. Even a 6' 200 Lb. man like myself. Well, never mind the fact I was like a 6' 180 Lb. man when I was stalked 7 or 8 years ago.

 

i personally know how annoying it is to be stalked online, however if one sits back and thinks about it that's all there is, an annoyance, the major problem is that most people feel compelled to take on those online stalkers and reply to them, or otherwise show them that they are indeed annoyed but their presence and actions and that is what gives the stalker satisfaction

fortunately for me the site where this occurred for me did not allow sock puppet accounts

Edited October 16, 2011 by t4e

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Yeah, I also have a few problems with this "stalking" report. First off, just because someone is logging in daily does not mean they are reading anyone's logs in particular. And how is it that if they log in you know they are reading your logs? I haven't figured out how to get a trace on who is reading my logs. Or are they ogling your galley pictures? The only "fact" presented is that the OP laid some sort of "trap" that apparently tripped. We have no idea what this trap was/is or if there was any interaction between the two parties. Without a lot more information I will not put much credence into the story.

 

If the OP truly believes they are being stalked and has reasonable proof that they are being stalked then they should take it up with GS directly via the contact@geocaching.com avenue. Stalking is expressly prohibited by the terms of use. But I really have a hard time accepting that reading logs is stalking, if so we are all are guilty of stalking.

+1 to jholly. That's all I have to say.

[knowschad]

What I'm envisioning is a situation where every time the OP logs a find, the "stalker" says something to him (e-mail, IM, etc.) that makes it sound as though they've read his log. The "trap" probably entailed something mentioned in the log that the "stalker" couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Not dangerous stalking, but annoying stalking.

 

A little bit like when someone you stupidly friended on Facebook starts commenting on every single thing you post. You put up a post, two seconds later they comment. Over and over again. I've heard people call that "stalking." But it's not dangerous, just annoying (and you can easily do something about it on Facebook).

 

If someone started sending me (for example) an e-mail every single time I found a cache, commenting on my find ("Hey, I found that one two weeks ago" "Did you like it?" "Your log was really terse, didn't you like it?" Etc.), and they kept it up day in and day out, eventually I'd get annoyed. Actually, I'd be annoyed by about day three.

 

There's been some good suggestions on here of what to do to foil the "stalker." I'm sure the OP would rather Groundspeak added in some privacy controls, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

If that was the case, I would set up a rule in my email client to automatically delete those messages. Or perhaps to automatically forward them to contact@Groundspeak.com.

 

[Edit to add that the last part, forwarding them to contact@Groundspeak.com, was intended to be comic relief, and would probably be a bad idea without getting Groundspeak's permission first!)

Edited October 16, 2011 by knowschad

[knowschad]

WOW. This opens up a whole can of worms. I have never used my personal information on the internet, I started using BBS in the 80's and, as stated, never reveal personal information. Yes, you can deduce what town I live in (unfortunately there are no other cities for about 1600KM), you can deduce where I have been, but that is it.

 

Ahhh... but we do know what you LOOK like!

 

[+L0ne.R]

What I'm envisioning is a situation where every time the OP logs a find, the "stalker" says something to him (e-mail, IM, etc.) that makes it sound as though they've read his log. The "trap" probably entailed something mentioned in the log that the "stalker" couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Not dangerous stalking, but annoying stalking.

 

A little bit like when someone you stupidly friended on Facebook starts commenting on every single thing you post. You put up a post, two seconds later they comment. Over and over again. I've heard people call that "stalking." But it's not dangerous, just annoying (and you can easily do something about it on Facebook).

 

If someone started sending me (for example) an e-mail every single time I found a cache, commenting on my find ("Hey, I found that one two weeks ago" "Did you like it?" "Your log was really terse, didn't you like it?" Etc.), and they kept it up day in and day out, eventually I'd get annoyed. Actually, I'd be annoyed by about day three.

 

There's been some good suggestions on here of what to do to foil the "stalker." I'm sure the OP would rather Groundspeak added in some privacy controls, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

+1. It isn't about danger, it's more likely about harassment.

[+L0ne.R]

You meet a geocacher on the trail and strike up a conversation. You've casually met a couple of times before at a couple of events. The guy says "I thought you moved to Vermont?" You look puzzled, "No I still live here in California". He says "I was looking at your profile and saw that you were logging most of your finds in Vermont this winter so I assumed you left the state." Isn't that kind of creepy? Especially if you're woman. If the profile Finds link were private someone couldn't easily get a convenient list of all the places you've been to since you started geocaching.

[+Bamilbis]

 

If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid ...

 

And now that we've descended into name-calling, I'm out.

 

You're right and I'm sorry.

[Pup Patrol]

OTOH, reviewing the OP's past posts to the forums, and logs to at least one cache, tells me that the OP has exhibited aggressive and inflexible behavior towards other cachers. This person's logs and postings indicate someone with a lot of difficulty figuring out how to get along with others. The basic intentions appear to be fine, but then the inflexibility in working through the situation causes the real problems.

 

So it's even more complex than it appears.

 

Yes, there seems to have been a lot of drama in the past involving the OP, so one has to wonder if a full account of what's going on has been presented here.

[+geodarts]

Yes, there seems to have been a lot of drama in the past involving the OP, so one has to wonder if a full account of what's going on has been presented here.

 

Do we ever get a complete picture on the forums? But I still would like to see Groundspeak provide some privacy options (to allow me to choose certain things that can or cannot be viewed through my profile, like they do with stats), even if I recognize that an insane cacher could use information I choose to display to find out where I live.

Edited October 16, 2011 by geodarts