Stalked on gc.com

October 17, 2011

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week. You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are round, but that's where the comparison ends.

100% incorrect. Facebook and Google can be just as anonymous as GC. You don't have use your real information on any of the three sites.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Team Firenze

October 17, 2011

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

And this would all happen with or without this website. When things like this happen, you call law enforcement when appropriate, not complain about the fact that data you've posted on the internet is publicly available.

I am not sure how it is in other countries but all calling law enforcement is going to do is get you some suggestions. There is no law against "stalking". A person can sit in your car, follow you, 24/7. If they don't actually commit a crime there is nothing law enforcement can do.

http://www.baddteddy.com/stalkers/stalker_laws.htm

I shouldn't have use such a blanket phrase but if you unbold that sentence and read the next two sentences the point is valid. If you read any of the stalking laws on that site you can see that most of them have to include an outward threat before it becomes breaking the law.

2.1k · October 17, 2011

the suggestion to me that a "friend" can only see a friends logs is crazy. So, if you are on that cache page and say it has 300 finds and I have 15 friends, I can only read 10 of the logs because I only have 10 of my 15 friends who have logged it? Perhaps you are not suggesting that, but rather at the profile level.

Correct. I suspect that most are simply suggesting this at the profile level. I don't believe there is a push to keep you from reading logs that have been posted to a cache page, from that cache page.

In that case, blocking them from the profile level would be useless.

For example, I can easily find all of your logs without visiting your profile. All I have to do is go to Google, and in the search box enter this:

site:geocaching.com addisonbr

It's not as neatly organized as the list in your profile, but that's no problem for a dedicated stalker. It also has the bonus of showing me your notes and DNF logs, and not just your Found It logs.

2.1k · October 17, 2011

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

how do we know its not an overreaction or obsession?

Further: The OP says that the alleged stalker hasn't hidden any caches or logged any finds recently, but logs in every day.

The only way the OP could know that is if the OP is looking at this person's profile every day.

Does that make the OP a stalker?

Wouldn't that take just one look at the stalkers profile? It doesn't have to be every day.

One look tells me that alleged stalker logged in today, or yesterday. To know that he was logging in every day, I'd have to look every day.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

I just think Groundspeak may want to keep an eye on it and if there is a way to make a something private then they may want to think about it.

Currently, they have a way to make the link to various statistics on your profile page either public or private. Folks can get to the settings here:

http://www.geocaching.com/my/statistics_edit.aspx

There has also been some engineering that integrates your friends list into some of what you see on the site. For example, if you click the "View Logbook" link for a cache, you will see three tabs - "All Logs", "Your Logs" and "Your Friends' Logs". Here is the link to the Logbook for the Original Stash Tribute Plaque:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_logbook.aspx?guid=a79d6f50-74a6-4c85-b18c-86dd8b7313ab

That certainly doesn't mean that all of the required code work exists, of course. Only that some of the architecture does seem to be working, without too many complaints (that I've seen).

More importantly individual users need to be aware of what they post. 99% of people do this but then again some don't.

Completely agree that showing good judgment is always important and never a bad idea.

October 17, 2011

Someone turned me on to the real story of this thread...

OP found a cache that he didn't like because someone logged they "chased off" some seals from GZ. That finder later said that by "chased off" they meant the seals left when they approached from over the horizon (70meters I think they said).

Anyway, it became quite the drama. OP wanted the cache archived. CO instead changed the description. That didn't satisfy the OP so he filled out an NA log and contacted the DOC (government agency having jurisdiction) and property owners (site technically on private land) in an attempt to get it shut down. The CO seemed pretty reasonable in their posts and said the DOC and property owners were okay with the cache location. In an attempt to further mitigate any possible wild life disturbance they made an alternate logging procedure of just taking a picture of the area if a seal is in fact on the cache so people would be even less inclined to disturb the wild life. Their local reviewer was okay with this as there was, in fact, a cache with a log.

That didn't suit the OP well so he took a new tact and tried to get the cache shut down on the grounds that now it's a virtual and virtuals are no longer allowed. All of this drama went down on forums:

Chased off seals forum.

It's a Virtual forum.

My guess is that with all this drama over what the CO, Reviewer, DOC, and property owner all seemed okay with the OP ticked off a few people and now perceives that one of his detractors are stalking him. I'm inclined to think it's a case of you reap what you sow, but that's just my observation.

It took me a good couple hours to get through all the forums but it was a pretty good read. The above account is simply my take away from reading those two threads and the cache logs. YMMV.

Edited October 17, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

1.8k · October 17, 2011

The issue is not about sending requests. Getting accepted as "friend" often means belonging to a clique of friends in real life. Those not belonging to such cliques will have a difficult life in your concept. That already holds locally, but even more on a larger scale. If I am travelling to another country, it would be quite annoying for both sides if I am sending out tons of friend requests and others have to react to them. That might have worked in the early phase of geocaching with a very small number of cachers, but does not work now. It is quite absurd to put someone on one's friend list one never has heard about before. This does not even fit to the friend concept of Facebook etc which is already absurd as it is very often not about real friendship.

I also need to admit that I would not like to have to reply to friendship requests on a regular basis. There are simply too many cachers and denying some and accepting others will create angry cachers.

BTW: Whether the finds are sorted or not, does not play any role for me. I just want to see e.g. which harder terrain caches I am familiar with this person has found and at which season or read the logs of cachers whose logs I enjoy (regardless of whether they like me).

I try to do as much research on what I have to expect at a specific cache as possible on my own without disturbing anyone else. Sometimes I try to ask some friends if they have already found the cache I have in mind, but I try to keep the number of such questions low and often I do not know anyone I know well who has been there already anyway. It is not that easy to select caches when being handicapped in some ways where the separation 1* vs. >1* does not help.

I suspect that by far the most useful information for hunting a cache - the logs on the cache page itself - would still be visible under any proposed plan.

But I can't deny that if a cacher asked that a link to their sorted finds / photos be restricted to those willing to ask permission first, you would have a harder time assembling that list if you find asking permission annoying or uncomfortable. It's absolutely true.

7.3k · October 17, 2011

Someone turned me on to the real story of this thread...

OP found a cache that he didn't like because someone logged they "chased off" some seals from GZ. That finder later said that by "chased off" they meant the seals left when they approached from over the horizon (70meters I think they said).

Anyway, it became quite the drama. OP wanted the cache archived. CO instead changed the description. That didn't satisfy the OP so he filled out an NA log and contacted the DOC (government agency having jurisdiction) and property owners (site technically on private land) in an attempt to get it shut down. The CO seemed pretty reasonable in their posts and said the DOC and property owners were okay with the cache location. In an attempt to further mitigate any possible wild life disturbance they made an alternate logging procedure of just taking a picture of the area if a seal is in fact on the cache so people would be even less inclined to disturb the wild life. Their local reviewer was okay with this as there was, in fact, a cache with a log.

That didn't suit the OP well so he took a new tact and tried to get the cache shut down on the grounds that now it's a virtual and virtuals are no longer allowed. All of this drama went down on forums:

Chased off seals forum.

It's a Virtual forum.

My guess is that with all this drama over what the CO, Reviewer, DOC, and property owner all seemed okay with the OP ticked off a few people and now perceives that one of his detractors are stalking him. I'm inclined to think it's a case of you reap what you sow, but that's just my observation.

It took me a good couple hours to get through all the forums but it was a pretty good read. The above account is simply my take away from reading those two threads and the cache logs. YMMV.

Quick click on the OP's name, and up comes the forum history.

Guess you missed these posts back on page 2:

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.

October 17, 2011

Lol, I never do anything the easy way! That's why I geocache...

6.8k · October 17, 2011

I suspect that by far the most useful information for hunting a cache - the logs on the cache page itself - would still be visible under any proposed plan.

For me quite often the most useful information is not found on the cache page itself. Knowing which caches the hider of a cache has found and what he/she writes about the terrain there is something which plays a big role for me, in particular if the hider is not yet known to me. For some caches I would have to wait a few years until they get enough logs to provide sufficient information for me.

But I can't deny that if a cacher asked that a link to their sorted finds / photos be restricted to those willing to ask permission first, you would have a harder time assembling that list if you find asking permission annoying or uncomfortable.

Ignoring the issue how the asking person feels about having to ask and the asked person feels about being asked, there is another key issue:

You seem to assume that permission is granted upon asking, but that's pretty unrealistic. While the statistics of cachers are not important for my geocaching activity, this is not true for the logs. When introducing a system of making logs private, it somehow gets close to a system where each group of friends is having their own geocaching site. Around here such a system as you propose would end up in lots of small cliques. In order to become accepted to many cliques one would need to write exclusively friendly, very positive found it logs.

Cezanne

Edited October 17, 2011 by cezanne

1.8k · October 17, 2011

In that case, blocking them from the profile level would be useless.

For example, I can easily find all of your logs without visiting your profile. All I have to do is go to Google, and in the search box enter this:

site:geocaching.com addisonbr

I may simply have a different working definition of useless. I think can be useful to make something more difficult, even if it doesn't make it literally impossible.

2k · October 17, 2011

not commenting on the actual details of the cache in question just brought up. If the OP feels stalked, right or wrong, I would imagine having the whole story brought up will not help their opinion. I would sincerely hope no lackey ever really considers the idea of allowing another user to block another user as an accepted easy to do practice. True, maybe there is a 1 in 25,000 case where an individual has been given a no contact order and has a judicial permission to block someone (never mind the reality that someone could circumvent this with sock puppets, going to google, or just searching random logs on caches in home territory to find what they said if they get their jollies reading the logs or seeing their pictures attached), I think allowing any user to just click a button and block someone is a bad idea. There are some folks who would block everyone in their home area as they do not like anyone seeing anything. There are some who block anyone they don't like or not one of their selected best buds. Eventually the site will fall into a clique system even more than it is now.

4.2k · October 17, 2011

some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

Fair enough. People who want to read sorted and chronologically organized lists of logs by individual cachers with enabled privacy controls, but who are unwilling to send a simple electronic request asking for permission and identifying themselves, would lose a bit of functionality.

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week. You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are round, but that's where the comparison ends.

100% incorrect. Facebook and Google can be just as anonymous as GC. You don't have use your real information on any of the three sites.

and when did Facebook change that?...i know for a fact they closed accounts because the person registering used aliases

it has been by biggest dislike of Facebook right from the get go

Edited October 17, 2011 by t4e

1.8k · October 17, 2011

For me quite often the most useful information is not found on the cache page itself. Knowing which caches the hider of a cache has found and what he/she writes about the terrain there is something which plays a big role for me, in particular if the hider is not yet known to me.

Well... I still think the information on the cache page itself is probably more useful, no? If given a choice between reading a dozen logs on the cache page itself, or a dozen logs the CO left on other caches, wouldn't you choose the logs on the cache page?

But really that's quibbling. What you're saying is that you find pulling up lists of individual cacher logs to be useful. And what I'm saying is that you're right to suspect that with privacy controls you'd have less ability to do that for a few COs (especially if you don't like to ask permission). Yes, for you, this would result in a bit of decreased utility. It's true.

Ignoring the issue how the asking person feels about having to ask and the asked person feels about beeing asked, there is another key issue:
You seem to assume that permission is granted upon asking, but that's pretty unrealistic.

I'm absolutely not assuming that at all. I think that if someone doesn't want to give you permission to pull up a sorted, organized list of her caching logs, she should have the right not to. You could still happily read those logs and learn what you'd like to learn if you come across them on other nearby caches that you're looking at. But, no, I'm absolutely not assuming that permission is automatically granted.

4.2k · October 17, 2011

Guess you missed these posts back on page 2:

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.

i still prefer GeotaggedBloger's post, makes a lot more sense than just a simple comment that there seemed to have been some drama in the past

tbh i didn't even take those posts too serious in the absence of a link to support them

1.8k · October 17, 2011

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

I'm assuming that the request itself identifies the requester automatically. That's how it seems to work for the current friends list, anyway.

If a cacher were the kind of person who felt more comfortable with a few privacy controls, I'm guessing she would only grant permission to people she felt she knew well enough to give that kind of access to. If she was granting permission blindly and willy-nilly, I'd gently suggest that she's not doing it right.

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

It's true that someone who urgently needs to pull up a sorted list of another cacher's logs 24/7 or when the cacher is not herself available, could be temporarily out of luck. That is the flip side of having some control over your profile information - if someone to whom you've never granted access to suddenly needs 24/7 access to your data, he might not be immediately satisfied.

4.1k · October 17, 2011

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week.

I live in an area where it seems that stalking is not a major concern. You can find out a lot more information about us through this site than where we cached last week, It is not too hard to find out who many of us are. I list my hometown on my profile. And if you are really bored, you can probably find out plenty of information about my dog, long lost loves, professional darts, the music that I like, and the type of errands I tend to run. You can see pictures of my family and friends if you look at the gallery. But all of that is my choice and I am not complaining about any of it.

Still, for many of us, there are issues relating to how much much choice should people have when there is information that goes beyond logging a specific cache. Earthcaches, for instance, commonly used to require people to post pictures of themselves, but privacy concerns were raised in regard to that.

I hid my stats because I did not think it was anybody's business but my own to know particular details -- how many days my longest caching streak might happen to me, what days of the year I have cached, or what states I have cached. I would probably hide my souvenirs for much the same reason -- whether I have cached in Illinois is only relevant to me. Privacy is not the only issue relating to this kind of information, but perhaps it is part of it.

In some ways, the detailed list of cache information on my profile raises similar things. I don't know why anybody would want to know what cache I found in 2004; I do not know how anybody could misuse that information; but is it something that needs to be shown to anybody but my friends? I can see where at least a short-term list can be useful -- it has helped uncover the use of bots or those who will log 600 caches from around the world in one day -- so the benefits of knowing where we have cached in the past week might be useful. Does this extend to knowing where we have cached in the past five or ten years. And if not, is it something that we should at least have a choice before it is made completely public?

If given a choice, I probably would keep the list public. But it is sometimes nice to have that option.

6.8k · October 17, 2011

For me quite often the most useful information is not found on the cache page itself. Knowing which caches the hider of a cache has found and what he/she writes about the terrain there is something which plays a big role for me, in particular if the hider is not yet known to me.

Well... I still think the information on the cache page itself is probably more useful, no? If given a choice between reading a dozen logs on the cache page itself, or a dozen logs the CO left on other caches, wouldn't you choose the logs on the cache page?

As I found most caches that are reachable for me, I am happy about each new cache that shows up that seems reachable and which fits my preferences at the same time. Until such caches get enough logs to be of help for me, my troubles might have increased so that I am not any longer able to visit a cache that would be visitable for me right now.

As most of the hiders from old times are frustrated and do not hide any caches any longer, many new hiders are incoming that are not yet well known to me.

But really that's quibbling. What you're saying is that you find pulling up lists of individual cacher logs to be useful.

And what I'm saying is that you're right to suspect that with privacy controls you'd have less ability to do that for a few COs (especially if you don't like to ask permission). Yes, for you, this would result in a bit of decreased utility. It's true.

A few corrections: It would result for me in a massively decreased utility. I am pretty sure that if these type of privacy settings are introduced, the majority will use them just to follow the example of the first few who will use them.

I'm absolutely not assuming that at all. I think that if someone doesn't want to give you permission to pull up a sorted, organized list of her caching logs,

As I mentioned it is not about getting a sorted list. I could get lots of logs by googling, but not in the needed way that allows me to look e.g. only at multi caches and quickly look through the list if some higher terrain caches I am familiar with occur in this typically not too long list. Those who really want to get data for stalking purposes, can easily obtain them also by using google etc. and they will not be scared off by having to look at all entries the search results. It is the type of usage of logs that I have in mind that is seriously inconvenienced by the sort of privacy settings you propose and not the type of use stalkers might have in mind.

But, no, I'm absolutely not assuming that permission is automatically granted.

Not automatically, but you seem to assume that the majority of cachers will grant permission to the majority of people asking for permission while I believe that we talk about a minority.

October 17, 2011

This has been an interesting thread to say the lest. But you do realize that we got sea-gulled on this one?

Best post on here. :laughing:

October 17, 2011

some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

Fair enough. People who want to read sorted and chronologically organized lists of logs by individual cachers with enabled privacy controls, but who are unwilling to send a simple electronic request asking for permission and identifying themselves, would lose a bit of functionality.

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week. You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are round, but that's where the comparison ends.

100% incorrect. Facebook and Google can be just as anonymous as GC. You don't have use your real information on any of the three sites.

and when did Facebook change that?...i know for a fact they closed accounts because the person registering used aliases

it has been by biggest dislike of Facebook right from the get go

Got me, I know for a fact that I have both accounts with completely false information. As far as I know, all you ever needed was a good email address.

7k · October 17, 2011

Got me, I know for a fact that I have both accounts with completely false information. As far as I know, all you ever needed was a good email address.

Just don't let them know...

1.2k · October 17, 2011

That would be keeping close tabs on where somebody by the name of "Clan Riffster" WAS on those particular days. What good is that going to do you? And who is "Clan Riffster"?

I don't think either one of us (Clan Riffster or me) buy that you can stalk via gc profile, but I was breaking down his "notes vs found log" idea, that some people somehow think is safer.

2k · October 17, 2011

I personally cannot understand why folks would want to block this from other geocache users to be able to see.

Maybe some people feel it's not really anyone's business where you go or what caches you find. I personally have seen too many people judged based on their number of finds when posting in the forums. The first thing a lot of people do is hop over to the poster's profile and start digging through their finds looking for ammo to use against them here.

I think that alone is enough reason to allow us to hide that information in our profile.

And just as addisonbr, I don't think logs need to be hidden on cache pages. Just make those that want to compile information on you work a little harder at it. Don't provide all the data in a nicely packaged format on your profile page.

This is just the way I feel about it and I am entitled to my opinion. I will not argue for or against it nor will I try to justify it. It is what it is.

2k · October 17, 2011

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

And this would all happen with or without this website. When things like this happen, you call law enforcement when appropriate, not complain about the fact that data you've posted on the internet is publicly available.

I am not sure how it is in other countries but all calling law enforcement is going to do is get you some suggestions. There is no law against "stalking". A person can sit in your car, follow you, 24/7. If they don't actually commit a crime there is nothing law enforcement can do.

http://www.baddteddy.com/stalkers/stalker_laws.htm

I shouldn't have use such a blanket phrase but if you unbold that sentence and read the next two sentences the point is valid. If you read any of the stalking laws on that site you can see that most of them have to include an outward threat before it becomes breaking the law.

Perhaps you should have said "There is no law against a person sitting in his car, following you, 24/7. If they don't actually commit a crime there is nothing law enforcement can do."

But then you would still be wrong since sitting in a car outside someone's house, following them 24/7 can be considered stalking without you assaulting your victim.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

A few corrections: It would result for me in a massively decreased utility. I am pretty sure that if these type of privacy settings are introduced, the majority will use them just to follow the example of the first few who will use them.
...

you seem to assume that the majority of cachers will grant permission to the majority of people asking for permission while I believe that we talk about a minority.

...

I could get lots of logs by googling, but not in the needed way that allows me to look e.g. only at multi caches and quickly look through the list

Judging from the number of people who have made their statistics private, I suspect that the vast majority of cachers would keep their profiles open. Unless I'm reading it wrong, people in this thread seem to be running mostly against the use of privacy controls. So, I think that most would leave their logs open, just as the vast majority have left their statistics. I could be wrong.

Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised. Maybe with a couple of small privacy controls a few folks would feel more comfortable, and leave more logs for you to enjoy and glean clues from (from the cache pages, of course). Speaking only for myself, I know if I could have some control over my photos, I'd post more photos to cache pages for COs and other cachers to enjoy.

I make zero assumptions about permission requests. I don't have very much experience with it, as I have never sent a friend request, and I make absolutely no assumptions about the behavior of folks who have asked for a little control over their data.

I can't deny that if a cacher asks for some controls over her information, and you find requesting access annoying or if she denies your request, you could still try to google for it but would have to work harder. I completely agree that would be the result.

4.2k · October 17, 2011

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

I'm assuming that the request itself identifies the requester automatically. That's how it seems to work for the current friends list, anyway.

If a cacher were the kind of person who felt more comfortable with a few privacy controls, I'm guessing she would only grant permission to people she felt she knew well enough to give that kind of access to. If she was granting permission blindly and willy-nilly, I'd gently suggest that she's not doing it right.

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

It's true that someone who urgently needs to pull up a sorted list of another cacher's logs 24/7 or when the cacher is not herself available, could be temporarily out of luck. That is the flip side of having some control over your profile information - if someone to whom you've never granted access to suddenly needs 24/7 access to your data, he might not be immediately satisfied.

i'm sorry but i still don;t see the benefits of such a feature, to me is just bordering paranoia

like someone said earlier, if you're being stalked your logs on GC.com are the least of your worries

I personally cannot understand why folks would want to block this from other geocache users to be able to see.

Maybe some people feel it's not really anyone's business where you go or what caches you find. I personally have seen too many people judged based on their number of finds when posting in the forums. The first thing a lot of people do is hop over to the poster's profile and start digging through their finds looking for ammo to use against them here.

I think that alone is enough reason to allow us to hide that information in our profile.

and what you might write in a log that could be used as an ammo?

personally i am certain that there is no such thing in my logs

18.9k · October 17, 2011

I've always enjoyed the free flow of information that is so easy to poke through on this website. It would be a shame (to me) if folks started blocking access to any of thier data.

19k · October 17, 2011

Possibly so, but if so, that is the OP's doing. If you want to be anonymous, you have to remain anonymous.

Obviously, but we aren't talking about being anonymous. We are talking about someone who already knows the party in question GC name

That is my point. Yes, it is too late now (aside from the OP changing user name, which is possible). He should have kept that information private if his privacy is that valuable to him.

2k · October 17, 2011

Guess you missed these posts back on page 2:

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.

i still prefer GeotaggedBloger's post, makes a lot more sense than just a simple comment that there seemed to have been some drama in the past

tbh i didn't even take those posts too serious in the absence of a link to support them

It matters not why someone is stalked. The question is what, if anything, can be done to prevent it?

4.2k · October 17, 2011

some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

Fair enough. People who want to read sorted and chronologically organized lists of logs by individual cachers with enabled privacy controls, but who are unwilling to send a simple electronic request asking for permission and identifying themselves, would lose a bit of functionality.

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week. You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are round, but that's where the comparison ends.

100% incorrect. Facebook and Google can be just as anonymous as GC. You don't have use your real information on any of the three sites.

and when did Facebook change that?...i know for a fact they closed accounts because the person registering used aliases

it has been by biggest dislike of Facebook right from the get go

...and Google+ has been "real name only" since the beginning. Just last week a cacher using an alias was asked to change their account name or have the account locked. While it's possible that you could exist on either site with a fake name, the vast majority of the userbase does not and the hosting websites encourage (or force) you not to. That's a far cry from "100% incorrect" by my math.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

i'm sorry but i still don;t see the benefits of such a feature, to me is just bordering paranoia

Which I understand. I would only support privacy controls if their use was optional, and if cachers were allowed to keep everything open should they choose.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

...and Google+ has been "real name only" since the beginning. Just last week a cacher using an alias was asked to change their account name or have the account locked. While it's possible that you could exist on either site with a fake name, the vast majority of the userbase does not and the hosting websites encourage (or force) you not to. That's a far cry from "100% incorrect" by my math.

This is my understanding as well. I believe both Facebook and Google have a real-name-only policy and have spent non-zero resources trying to enforce that.

6.8k · October 17, 2011

Judging from the number of people who have made their statistics private, I suspect that the vast majority of cachers would keep their profiles open.

Many cachers in my area have not even become aware of the option to make the statistics private as they are not interested into others statistics and thus do not end up at blocked statistics. With the logs the situation is different. Many cachers in my area read frequently the logs of some other caches and if some blocked lists would show end, this very quickly would become a well known option and many would feel that if A does not show me their logs, they shall not see my logs .....

Who knows, maybe you'll be surprised. Maybe with a couple of small privacy controls a few folks would feel more comfortable, and leave more logs for you to enjoy and glean clues from (from the cache pages, of course).

Speaking only for myself, I know if I could have some control over my photos, I'd post more photos to cache pages for COs and other cachers to enjoy.

For photos this might be true, but I do not think that the sort of information I am interested into is influenced by privacy settings in a positive way.

I can't deny that if a cacher asks for some controls over her information,

gc.com certainly can. In my opinion, gc.com is based on the open availablity of the logs. Logs have been present since the very beginning and everyone who started to cache on gc.com has been aware of that. The statistics is something that has been added much later when most cachers have already been active.

Cezanne

9.3k · October 17, 2011

I took a stab at where you lived, and here's what I derived (remember, PQ's include "note" logs):

If I wanted to watch every single day, I could get every cache within 44.1 miles of you by running 5 PQ's.

Or, if I was OK with every other day, I could get every cache within 69.7 miles by running 10 PQ's.

Or three days for 89.9 miles with 15 PQ's.

By adding your found PQ's to my ignore list, and modifying the PQ's accordingly, those radius's would go up quite a bit (side note, this is actually a good trick for running PQ's from a 2nd account if you want to get more PQ's).

So by spending thirty bucks a year, I can keep tabs on you for just shy of a 90 mile circle pretty easily. If I'm in your area, I'm probably pulling these PQ's anyway, so costing me nothing extra.

As I mentioned, it requires sume presumptions that may, or may not be accurate.

I'm not a PQ ninja, so one thing you mentioned looked a bit out of place.

You mention using my "Your Finds" PQ to your mix. Is the average premium member able to get PQs for other player accounts? Perhaps I misread what you were discussing? A possibly related question: Assume I am posting all my finds as notes, instead of finds, as I suggested. These won't show up in my "Your Finds" PQ would they? With my limited understanding of all things high tech, it still looks to me like you would have to scour through all the caches in all your PQs to see which ones I've logged notes to... Maybe? Or is there a monkeyscript that would pull this data for you? (Search all caches in all PQs for notes by user Clan Riffster?) I hope this doesn't sould like an obtuse question, but being dumber than a bag of hammers, I know there is a lot of stuff that's outside my skill set.

Edit to add: I just saw this post from GeoGeeBee, who is obviously much smarter than a bag of hammers. :lol:

For example, I can easily find all of your logs without visiting your profile. All I have to do is go to Google, and in the search box enter this:
site:geocaching.com addisonbr

It's not as neatly organized as the list in your profile, but that's no problem for a dedicated stalker. It also has the bonus of showing me your notes and DNF logs, and not just your Found It logs.

I tested it out on myself, and I only had to dig back four pages of search results to find a note I had posted. So, if we acceept as a given that someone knowing where you were, and what you did, in the past, that you posted to the Internet, can be useful to a stalker, (not something I'm convinced of), then my idea of using notes instead of finds would not help. It would just make the job harder for the presumed stalker.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Clan Riffster

2k · October 17, 2011

identify myself?...and how would you be able to discern between a genuine request and one from a stalker?

I'm assuming that the request itself identifies the requester automatically. That's how it seems to work for the current friends list, anyway.

If a cacher were the kind of person who felt more comfortable with a few privacy controls, I'm guessing she would only grant permission to people she felt she knew well enough to give that kind of access to. If she was granting permission blindly and willy-nilly, I'd gently suggest that she's not doing it right.

further more unless you are available 24/7 to grant me access, doing so even an hour later can be totally useless

It's true that someone who urgently needs to pull up a sorted list of another cacher's logs 24/7 or when the cacher is not herself available, could be temporarily out of luck. That is the flip side of having some control over your profile information - if someone to whom you've never granted access to suddenly needs 24/7 access to your data, he might not be immediately satisfied.

i'm sorry but i still don;t see the benefits of such a feature, to me is just bordering paranoia

like someone said earlier, if you're being stalked your logs on GC.com are the least of your worries

I personally cannot understand why folks would want to block this from other geocache users to be able to see.

Maybe some people feel it's not really anyone's business where you go or what caches you find. I personally have seen too many people judged based on their number of finds when posting in the forums. The first thing a lot of people do is hop over to the poster's profile and start digging through their finds looking for ammo to use against them here.

I think that alone is enough reason to allow us to hide that information in our profile.

and what you might write in a log that could be used as an ammo?

personally i am certain that there is no such thing in my logs

I write all sorts of horrid details about mutilations, witch craft and sorcery, and fiendish behavior. What does that have to do with my opinion about lamp post caches or asking a question about hiding a micro in the woods?

2.1k · October 17, 2011

In that case, blocking them from the profile level would be useless.

For example, I can easily find all of your logs without visiting your profile. All I have to do is go to Google, and in the search box enter this:

site:geocaching.com addisonbr

I may simply have a different working definition of useless. I think can be useful to make something more difficult, even if it doesn't make it literally impossible.

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users, in order to make a stalker use a couple of extra keystrokes? Thousands lose, and no one gains anything?

Sounds useless to me.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

Many cachers in my area have not even become aware of the option to make the statistics private as they are not interested into others statistics and thus do not end up at blocked statistics. With the logs the situation is different.

I still suspect that if the default setting is "open", that the vast majority of cachers will keep their profiles open. I haven't seen any evidence of what you are describing - the only thing I have to go by is the statistics tab, and also that most of the people in this thread seem to be saying that they would leave their profiles open absolutely no matter what. If I'm wrong, and lots of people take advantage of new settings, I guess it would mean that Groundspeak gave a lot of people what they wanted. I could live with that.

I can't deny that if a cacher asks for some controls over her information,

gc.com certainly can. In my opinion, gc.com is based on the open availablity of the logs. Logs have been present since the very beginning and everyone who started to cache on gc.com has been aware of that. The statistics is something that has been added much later when most cachers have already been active.

I think you may have chopped off part of my quote in a way that didn't make sense. I was actually agreeing with you. The whole thought was: I can't deny that if a cacher sets her profile to friends-only access, and you are too annoyed to make a request (or she declines it), you could still try to google the information but would have to work harder instead of having all of the data organized for you one easy click away from her profile page. I agree with you. It *would* be harder to get that data from her.

1.8k · October 17, 2011

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users, in order to make a stalker use a couple of extra keystrokes? Thousands lose, and no one gains anything?

Sounds useless to me.

I look at it as adding controls, and perhaps generating more logs and photos as a result. Perhaps nothing can protect against the stalker-terminators who don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead*... But I don't think it's a waste of time to help protect against the kinda-sorta stalkers. That can also be nice! Not to mention the ones who don't know the google trick that was posted (I didn't know that trick, and I've been caching for years and have a ridiculously high opinion of my own intelligence!).

If someone has part of their profile on this site set to private and you want to see it, nothing wrong with asking them.

* This is a movie quote

2k · October 17, 2011

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users

Wouldn't the individual user be responsible for taking away any functionality should they choose to use whatever privacy controls that might be offered to them?

2.1k · October 17, 2011

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users

Wouldn't the individual user be responsible for taking away any functionality should they choose to use whatever privacy controls that might be offered to them?

Well, the real point was in the half of the sentence that you cut off. The part about how the change wouldn't accomplish anything, because search engines index the cache pages and will find the logs even if they don't show up in your profile.

2k · October 17, 2011

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users

Wouldn't the individual user be responsible for taking away any functionality should they choose to use whatever privacy controls that might be offered to them?

Well, the real point was in the half of the sentence that you cut off. The part about how the change wouldn't accomplish anything, because search engines index the cache pages and will find the logs even if they don't show up in your profile.

Actually, that part was already covered in a previous post stating that privacy controls would make people who want the information work a little harder for it rather than have it neatly packaged for them in someone's profile.

2.1k · October 17, 2011

So you are willing to take away functionality from thousands of innocent users

Wouldn't the individual user be responsible for taking away any functionality should they choose to use whatever privacy controls that might be offered to them?

Well, the real point was in the half of the sentence that you cut off. The part about how the change wouldn't accomplish anything, because search engines index the cache pages and will find the logs even if they don't show up in your profile.

Actually, that part was already covered in a previous post stating that privacy controls would make people who want the information work a little harder for it rather than have it neatly packaged for them in someone's profile.

In other words, it won't stop a stalker from stalking you. It will just give you a false sense of security. Meh.

7.3k · October 18, 2011

The OP should have characterized the behaviour as cyber-bullying:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=283824

where is the OP, by the way?

8.3k · October 18, 2011

The OP should have characterized the behaviour as cyber-bullying:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=283824

where is the OP, by the way?

He flew off, that is the way it is with sea gulls.

2k · October 18, 2011

*** Decided to pm instead.

Edited October 18, 2011 by GeoBain

7.5k · October 18, 2011

the suggestion to me that a "friend" can only see a friends logs is crazy. So, if you are on that cache page and say it has 300 finds and I have 15 friends, I can only read 10 of the logs because I only have 10 of my 15 friends who have logged it? Perhaps you are not suggesting that, but rather at the profile level.

Correct. I suspect that most are simply suggesting this at the profile level. I don't believe there is a push to keep you from reading logs that have been posted to a cache page, from that cache page.

In that case, blocking them from the profile level would be useless.

For example, I can easily find all of your logs without visiting your profile. All I have to do is go to Google, and in the search box enter this:

site:geocaching.com addisonbr

It's not as neatly organized as the list in your profile, but that's no problem for a dedicated stalker. It also has the bonus of showing me your notes and DNF logs, and not just your Found It logs.

GS can do something about that too, if they chose to. It's possible to keep the logs out of a google search.

An advanced google search for "Lone R" within: www.atlasquest.com brings up 5 links to help pages on AQ. Nothing about the over 400 letterboxes I've found. But a "Lone R" search within: www.geocaching.com brings up pages and pages of my visits to caches.

7.9k · October 18, 2011

What is it that seagulls do actually?

They swoop in unannounced.

They raise a big racket, even if there is nothing much to see.

They deposit excrement all over everything as they fly away.

October 18, 2011

4 pages later, and has the OP even posted again?! :rolleyes:

7.9k · October 18, 2011

4 pages later, and has the OP even posted again?!

No.

Therefore the seagull reference.

4.2k · October 18, 2011

4 pages later, and has the OP even posted again?!

you mean "14 pages" or how many posts per page you have? :laughing:

Stalked on gc.com

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment