Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
The Blorenges

SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

Recommended Posts

deal with it to avoid disappointing (many) trackables-hunters

That's not what the idea does. People still must go to the caches, find no listed trackables, and be disappointed. Then they must go to the extra effort of making proper logs. With the premise that people will inventory caches and log Trackables correctly, don't wait for a [FEATURE] to be implemented first, go ahead and start doing that now.

 

If this feature were implemented, I think we'd end up with the same problems, except they'd be more complicated.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

i think The Blorenges idea is GREAT.

 

and i REALLY appreciate Moun10bike's offer to "bump it up in the queue"

Share this post


Link to post

while we're waiting for the suggestion to be implemented, maybe someone with good writing skills can pen a Form Letter that can be sent to the cache owner and another for the trackable owner.

 

this way everyone will be sending the nicely worded form letter rather than having to come up with something on their own.

 

the Form Letters can be pinned to to top of the trackables forums so that they will be seen and can easily be 'cut and pasted' and passed along.

 

 

 

How about something like.....

 

Just a quick note to advise you that trackable/s XYZ... have been reported as missing from the cache. To 'log them as missing' is not a bad thing to do, as any future logging of the trackable/s will immediatly place it back into circulation. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

The side conversation about how to contact cache owners and trackable owners should take place in the Travel Bug forum. Reserve this thread for discussing the main feature suggestion. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I sure hope this feature is introduced soon. Just today I posted 25 notes today to TBO that their travelers were not in the cache where it is listed. Some had not been logged since 2008, 2009 etc. I was looking for travelers to take on a trip and out of 27 listed in the caches that I visited I found 2. Very frustrating, I also made a note in the cache logs that maybe some of these travelers could be marked missing too, Hopefully someone will do something. Took a lot of time to post all those extra logs but I have been doing this for months now and when I check back on some of them they still are listed in the caches so neither the cache owners or the TBO are taking care of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
That's not what the idea does. People still must go to the caches, find no listed trackables, and be disappointed. Then they must go to the extra effort of making proper logs. With the premise that people will inventory caches and log Trackables correctly, don't wait for a [FEATURE] to be implemented first, go ahead and start doing that now.

 

Yes it is some extra effort involved to log that trackables are missing, but clearly there are many dedicated geocachers out there that would be happy to do this extra legwork to clean up the system. Just look at all the responses to this forum thread. This would allow those who do care about accurate inventories to log items as appropriate to make it better for everyone.

 

'Ghosted' TB's could appear similar to disabled caches, where they have the strikethrough text style, until they are marked missing, similar to an archived cache... Although as many have pointed out, a TB can be easily grabbed and continue moving if they are later found. I do agree that it would be nice to still have the option to retrieve from the last known cache if it has been marked missing / moved to an 'unknown location' for less confusion when logging a lost TB.

 

I love this idea, hope to see something soon. Happy Caching!

Share this post


Link to post

"

Suggestion for stages:

 

A cacher visits a cache where a trackable is listed, but it's not in the cache. They log this on the trackable's page using a new logtype: Not in Cache. This notification goes to the TO and CO.

 

Additionally, this logging action automatically "greys out" that trackable from that cache inventory. (Not removes it completely, just greys out the text a bit - It could even be referred to as "ghosting the trackable". That would be enough to alert everyone that the trackable is not there.)"

 

I think this is a great idea. I hope it makes it to the update list soon.

Edited by tumbleweed2

Share this post


Link to post

I sure hope this idea comes into play. Went on trip to Florida and cached all along the way looking for caches with trackables. I logged over 100 notes to travel bug pages that their traveler was not in the cache and suggested on many of them that they should be marked missing as alot of them had been missing for a year or more. Out of that 100 plus logs only about 4 were marked missing. grrrrr Posted notes on most of the caches too that travelers were missing and probably the inventory should be corrected for the pleasure of other cachers so they wouldn't be disappointed and I don't think that a single cache owner has corrected the inventory or marked any travelers missing. I sure wouldn't want my cache to be that way. I just don't understand the lack of concern over trackables. Afterall it is part of this game and to me a very big part of the game. One of the caches had like 13 listed and not a single one in the cache. Grrrrrr. I was soooo disappointed.

 

Is this feature being strongly considered? Is there a place to vote on it?

Share this post


Link to post

I love the idea. The sooner, the better! I am more surprised when I actually find a listed trackable in the correct cache theses days, which is sad.

Share this post


Link to post

Only recently started hunting me some trackables, but I would really like to see this idea implemented. I end up having to do a lot of work before I set out to figure out which caches are likely to actually have the trackables still there, and this would make it a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post

This idea has my support. I normally post a note on the traveler page if I don't find it in the cache, and also mention it in my cache log. Just posting a note doesn't seem sufficient. It shouldn't be too hard to add a "report missing" log option.

I've wondered before why the only log options are "retrieve", "grab", "discover", and "write note".

I would support leaving it in the cache inventory, with a strikethrough in the name.

Share this post


Link to post

This idea has my support. I normally post a note on the traveler page if I don't find it in the cache, and also mention it in my cache log. Just posting a note doesn't seem sufficient. It shouldn't be too hard to add a "report missing" log option.

I've wondered before why the only log options are "retrieve", "grab", "discover", and "write note".

I would support leaving it in the cache inventory, with a strikethrough in the name.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

"We" can vote forever and ever. In the old system this idea was number 3 in the top 500 list, and yet it still is not implemented. Somehow Groundspeak are extremely against this idea.

 

Hello fellow cacher!

 

This is a note from somebody who has visited a geocache recently. According to geocaching.com a TB/coin you own should be in that cache. Unfortunately I did not find it.

 

Please keep an eye out if next finders also log your TB as not being in the cache. You asd TB-owner have the ability to mark your TB as missing. This way we can keep the inventory of this cache "clean"

 

Thank you very much, and enjoy the hunt!

 

Hello fellow cacher!

 

This is a note from somebody who has visited a geocache recently. According to geocaching.com a TB/coin you own should be in that cache. Unfortunately I did not find it.

 

Since this is the second time it has been noted your TB is not in the cache, I ask that you please mark your TB as missing. This way we can keep the inventory of this cache "clean"

 

Thank you very much, and enjoy the hunt!

 

Hello fellow cacher!

 

I visited one of your caches today, and I have noticed a TB/coin that should be in the cache is not. You as cache owner have the power to remove the TB/coin from the online inventory. Please do so, so we can keep the inventory of this cache "clean"

 

Thank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post

I am one of them trackable hunters, if there is a few caches in a new area i visit

and limited time (no time for all of them) I often select to visit them with trackables,

but I very often get disapointed !

I realize it is a TO / CO job to mark an item missing, this will remove it from a cache

and offcourse this must be done after resonable time to let the last visitor come home and log what he moved.

 

first of all we can try to teach/educate cachers to log trackables before they log cache finds,

and we can ask CO's to mark missing, and also the TO,

it is really ignoring to see so many errors out there, and they stay wrong for SOOO long,

see how many logs with nags about content not correct out there, it is all over !!

so if visitors (who actually give a darn about this) could repport it as missing,

it will be VERY nice.. offcourse it must be used correctly, like wait a few days/weeks so people can get home and log.

Share this post


Link to post

Any update on this from Groundspeak?

Share this post


Link to post

<rant mode on>

 

ofcourse not. This is a user based idea, and when has Groundspeak ever listened to their userbase?

 

FYI, a few years ago "we" had some sort of special ideas webboard. There were 1000's of ideas from the players. The number 2 (!!!) on the list was "mark missing trackables as missing". It gathered a few thousand (!) votes from us, the people. Has Groundspeak listened? Has this been implemented?

 

Hey, here is a novel idea: tak all trackables you can get your hands on, and leave them in your home. Maybe when thousands and thousands and thousands of trackables go missing in a short period of time, Groundspeak will isten? Nah,

<rant mode off>

 

we would probably hurt the wrong people. So +1 on this grey out suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post

ofcourse not. This is a user based idea, and when has Groundspeak ever listened to their userbase?

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a democracy. Groundspeak is a private business, and they can do whatever they want with it. If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice. If you don't like the way they do things, vote with your feet.

Share this post


Link to post

ofcourse not. This is a user based idea, and when has Groundspeak ever listened to their userbase?

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a democracy. Groundspeak is a private business, and they can do whatever they want with it. If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice. If you don't like the way they do things, vote with your feet.

 

Just so we know who we're speaking to.....

are 'you' a part of the Groundspeak organization or are you just one of us ?

Share this post


Link to post

Just so we know who we're speaking to.....

are 'you' a part of the Groundspeak organization or are you just one of us ?

Just one of us.

As much as I'd like to see Groundspeak implement this feature, I certainly don't expect them to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Just so we know who we're speaking to.....

are 'you' a part of the Groundspeak organization or are you just one of us ?

Just one of us.

As much as I'd like to see Groundspeak implement this feature, I certainly don't expect them to do so.

 

well, there's NO DOUBT that they're dragging their feet on the issue.

 

why do you think that they'll never do it?

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I'd like to see Groundspeak implement this feature, I certainly don't expect them to do so.

 

well, there's NO DOUBT that they're dragging their feet on the issue.

 

why do you think that they'll never do it?

Sorry, I can see how you could misinterpret my post. I didn't mean that I don't think they would ever do it, but rather that I don't expect them to implement every feature the community suggests. They can do whatever they want with their site, and it's a bonus if they choose to implement something the community suggests.

Share this post


Link to post

I say just give all finders of a cache the ability to mark the trackables in its inventory as missing. That should be easier to develop, shouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

I say just give all finders of a cache the ability to mark the trackables in its inventory as missing. That should be easier to develop, shouldn't it?

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

Share this post


Link to post

I support this 100%. I hate trying to search for travel bugs only to get there and nothing be in the cache! It's super frustrating!! My area has about a 5% success rate of actually finding something in the cache. Out of the 50 or so that I have gone to I have only gotten 2 travel bugs(from the same cache). We need something that tells us if there is something going on!

Share this post


Link to post

If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice.

If the left hand (development team) is going to choose not to spend time on it, then they should probably let the right hand know not to post stuff like this:

 

We have this story in our database for consideration. I'll see about bumping it up in the queue.

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

 

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

If you read through the thread from the beginning, you will see how the feature could be implemented to minimize or even eliminate the possibility of abuse by a single cacher.

Share this post


Link to post

If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice.

If the left hand (development team) is going to choose not to spend time on it, then they should probably let the right hand know not to post stuff like this:

 

We have this story in our database for consideration. I'll see about bumping it up in the queue.

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

This is an inappropriate conclusion. The part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions has advocated for this enhancement and made it an official "user story" for the development team. That's what "SUBMITTED" means. The development team then needs to assess each of the many requests, prioritizing them, and eventually assigning winning suggestions to a development sprint. At that time, the status would be updated from SUBMITTED to STARTED. Since that hasn't happened, Moun10Bike's posts are accurate.

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

If you read through the thread from the beginning, you will see how the feature could be implemented to minimize or even eliminate the possibility of abuse by a single cacher.

The A-Team was responding to a different suggestion, quoted in his post but edited out of your quote. It is inappropriate to quote The A-Team out of context. The A-Team was correct to point out that an unchecked right by any geocacher to mark a trackable item "missing" would expose trackables to abuse.

 

Meanwhile, I've marked nearly 100 trackable items missing so far this month, and my total is above 2,000 marked missing.

Share this post


Link to post

If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice.

If the left hand (development team) is going to choose not to spend time on it, then they should probably let the right hand know not to post stuff like this:

 

We have this story in our database for consideration. I'll see about bumping it up in the queue.

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

This is an inappropriate conclusion. The part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions has advocated for this enhancement and made it an official "user story" for the development team. That's what "SUBMITTED" means. The development team then needs to assess each of the many requests, prioritizing them, and eventually assigning winning suggestions to a development sprint. At that time, the status would be updated from SUBMITTED to STARTED. Since that hasn't happened, Moun10Bike's posts are accurate.

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

If you read through the thread from the beginning, you will see how the feature could be implemented to minimize or even eliminate the possibility of abuse by a single cacher.

The A-Team was responding to a different suggestion, quoted in his post but edited out of your quote. It is inappropriate to quote The A-Team out of context. The A-Team was correct to point out that an unchecked right by any geocacher to mark a trackable item "missing" would expose trackables to abuse.

 

Meanwhile, I've marked nearly 100 trackable items missing so far this month, and my total is above 2,000 marked missing.

 

So we can subit missing trackables to you for removal from inventory lists.

I 'always' research the lists before i decide to go to a cache.

So can i submit trackables that have been missing for extended periods of time even though i haven't visited the cache ?

Share this post


Link to post

Meanwhile, I've marked nearly 100 trackable items missing so far this month, and my total is above 2,000 marked missing.

 

So we can subit missing trackables to you for removal from inventory lists.

I 'always' research the lists before i decide to go to a cache.

If you are geocaching in my review territory (Ohio and Pennsylvania, then yes, you can contact me. Better yet, just record your findings in your log to the cache and/or trackable page.

So can i submit trackables that have been missing for extended periods of time even though i haven't visited the cache ?

It's always better to rely on reports from logs by actual visitors. But, it's fine for someone else (like me) to read those logs and take action when a CO or TO fails to do so. For example, baack40 is active in this thread, and leaves extremely helpful logs that enable me to take action in response to his observations.

Share this post


Link to post

The A-Team was responding to a different suggestion, quoted in his post but edited out of your quote. It is inappropriate to quote The A-Team out of context. The A-Team was correct to point out that an unchecked right by any geocacher to mark a trackable item "missing" would expose trackables to abuse.

I see what you are saying -- my bad. My parsing of the quotes is for brevity and not inaccuracy. Let me try again:

 

I say just give all finders of a cache the ability to mark the trackables in its inventory as missing. That should be easier to develop, shouldn't it?

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

If any one finder of a cache were allowed to mark a trackable as missing, it would absolutely be subject to abuse. There are suggestions in past posts within this thread that describe a consensus system where more than one finder would have to mark it as missing before the attribute took effect.

 

 

If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice.

If the left hand (development team) is going to choose not to spend time on it, then they should probably let the right hand know not to post stuff like this:

 

We have this story in our database for consideration. I'll see about bumping it up in the queue.

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

This is an inappropriate conclusion. The part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions has advocated for this enhancement and made it an official "user story" for the development team. That's what "SUBMITTED" means. The development team then needs to assess each of the many requests, prioritizing them, and eventually assigning winning suggestions to a development sprint. At that time, the status would be updated from SUBMITTED to STARTED. Since that hasn't happened, Moun10Bike's posts are accurate.

I am not seeing any conclusion being drawn or where the accuracy of Moun10Bike's posts are being questioned; in fact it is precisely their legitimacy that I was using to illustrate that this is a feature that the development team has not specifically REJECTED, which was a possibility that it appeared The A-Team was proposing.

 

That being said, I am sure it is fair to say that the development process ("user story" and "development sprint") is something that could use more transparency which would negate guesswork and supposition.

 

Note the date the last official communication, which is Moun10Bike's post regarding the possible queue-bumping. There is nothing with which we can compare timeframes and we have no way of knowing if this is a typical development cycle or if something has slipped through the cracks.

Share this post


Link to post

The A-Team was responding to a different suggestion, quoted in his post but edited out of your quote. It is inappropriate to quote The A-Team out of context. The A-Team was correct to point out that an unchecked right by any geocacher to mark a trackable item "missing" would expose trackables to abuse.

I see what you are saying -- my bad. My parsing of the quotes is for brevity and not inaccuracy. Let me try again:

 

I say just give all finders of a cache the ability to mark the trackables in its inventory as missing. That should be easier to develop, shouldn't it?

I wouldn't think it would be any easier to develop, but it would definitely be a lot easier to abuse. A vandal/disgruntled cacher could easily do a lot of damage if it worked that way.

If any one finder of a cache were allowed to mark a trackable as missing, it would absolutely be subject to abuse. There are suggestions in past posts within this thread that describe a consensus system where more than one finder would have to mark it as missing before the attribute took effect.

 

 

If they decide a feature isn't needed/worth the development time, that's their choice.

If the left hand (development team) is going to choose not to spend time on it, then they should probably let the right hand know not to post stuff like this:

 

We have this story in our database for consideration. I'll see about bumping it up in the queue.

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

This is an inappropriate conclusion. The part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions has advocated for this enhancement and made it an official "user story" for the development team. That's what "SUBMITTED" means. The development team then needs to assess each of the many requests, prioritizing them, and eventually assigning winning suggestions to a development sprint. At that time, the status would be updated from SUBMITTED to STARTED. Since that hasn't happened, Moun10Bike's posts are accurate.

I am not seeing any conclusion being drawn or where the accuracy of Moun10Bike's posts are being questioned; in fact it is precisely their legitimacy that I was using to illustrate that this is a feature that the development team has not specifically REJECTED, which was a possibility that it appeared The A-Team was proposing.

 

That being said, I am sure it is fair to say that the development process ("user story" and "development sprint") is something that could use more transparency which would negate guesswork and supposition.

 

Note the date the last official communication, which is Moun10Bike's post regarding the possible queue-bumping. There is nothing with which we can compare timeframes and we have no way of knowing if this is a typical development cycle or if something has slipped through the cracks.

 

 

 

They should also not add things like SUBMITTED (21313) to the subject line of the thread.

 

This is an inappropriate conclusion. The part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions has advocated for this enhancement and made it an official "user story" for the development team. That's what "SUBMITTED" means. The development team then needs to assess each of the many requests, prioritizing them, and eventually assigning winning suggestions to a development sprint. At that time, the status would be updated from SUBMITTED to STARTED. Since that hasn't happened, Moun10Bike's posts are accurate.

 

 

I am not seeing any conclusion being drawn or where the accuracy of Moun10Bike's posts are being questioned; in fact it is precisely their legitimacy that I was using to illustrate that this is a feature that the development team has not specifically REJECTED, which was a possibility that it appeared The A-Team was proposing.

 

That being said, I am sure it is fair to say that the development process ("user story" and "development sprint") is something that could use more transparency which would negate guesswork and supposition.

 

Note the date the last official communication, which is Moun10Bike's post regarding the possible queue-bumping. There is nothing with which we can compare timeframes and we have no way of knowing if this is a typical development cycle or if something has slipped through the cracks.

 

 

BRAVO !!!

VERY WELL SAID!!

Share this post


Link to post

I say just give all finders of a cache the ability to mark the trackables in its inventory as missing. That should be easier to develop, shouldn't it?

If any one finder of a cache were allowed to mark a trackable as missing, it would absolutely be subject to abuse. There are suggestions in past posts within this thread that describe a consensus system where more than one finder would have to mark it as missing before the attribute took effect.

Then restrict each finder to marking a trackable missing once. If their mark was accurate, then the trackable will stay missing. But if it was inaccurate, the next log will bring the trackable back and they won't be able to mark it missing again.

Share this post


Link to post

...in fact it is precisely their legitimacy that I was using to illustrate that this is a feature that the development team has not specifically REJECTED, which was a possibility that it appeared The A-Team was proposing.

I never proposed that at all. What I said earlier was that I don't come to the site with the expectation that every suggestion will be implemented. If they are, then great, but I also understand that they can't all be implemented right away. There aren't many cases in this forum where suggestions have been outright rejected. They're left open, and if the development team some day has some time, they can choose to draw from these ideas and implement them. Otherwise, they'll just sit there, gradually building support (or not), waiting to maybe be implemented some day.

Share this post


Link to post

In MY opinion it's REALLY sad that they haven't acted on this yet.

 

Trackables are a BIG part of this game and i'm SURE it accounts for a nice little chunk of change in Groundspeak's pockets.

They are also going EXTINCT.

 

Cachers are sick of losing their trackables to THEFT

and to their being at the mercy of cachers that aren't educated in the trackables part of the game.

And it will only get worse now, with the 'smart phone' crowd joining in the hunt.

 

I have some thoughts on what you should do.

- Implement this (21313) Feature ASAP.... like tomorrow.

- Included with trackables purchases should be laminated card's explaining what trackables are and how to properly handle them.

- Reduce the price

Share this post


Link to post

...in fact it is precisely their legitimacy that I was using to illustrate that this is a feature that the development team has not specifically REJECTED, which was a possibility that it appeared The A-Team was proposing.

I never proposed that at all. What I said earlier was that I don't come to the site with the expectation that every suggestion will be implemented. If they are, then great, but I also understand that they can't all be implemented right away. There aren't many cases in this forum where suggestions have been outright rejected. They're left open, and if the development team some day has some time, they can choose to draw from these ideas and implement them. Otherwise, they'll just sit there, gradually building support (or not), waiting to maybe be implemented some day.

 

I don't think that anyone has an expectation that every suggestion will be implemented. In fact, it would be impossible as there are suggestions that are contradictory, like getting rid of the audit log altogether versus applying it to non-PMO caches.

 

I fail to see the difference between official or tacit rejection. Many threads have no status and ticket number assigned and I can't see how this could be interpreted as anything other than an uncommitted DECLINE.

 

Certainly there is an expectation that something will happen with a suggested feature when there is an indication it has been accepted into the queue. As an IT professional, I am embarrassed for them when I see a ticketed issue like this one stagnate with no official updates for eight months.

 

If the development team is going to wait to maybe implement features some day, there should probably be NO expectations set by refraining from altering the topic subject lines with ephemeral statuses and ticket numbers. That way, we can only be happy if they choose to implement a community-suggested feature.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

×