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

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

 

While this is a long overdue feature to be implemented, I don't think it'll have any effect on TB theft nor is it designed to.

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

 

While this is a long overdue feature to be implemented, I don't think it'll have any effect on TB theft nor is it designed to.

 

I was infering that Groundspeak's lack of action on this issue is a 'slap in the face' to those of us that enjoy trackables,

and that trackables not being in the caches that they're listed in is just one more issue driving us away from that aspect of the game.

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

 

While this is a long overdue feature to be implemented, I don't think it'll have any effect on TB theft nor is it designed to.

 

I was infering that Groundspeak's lack of action on this issue is a 'slap in the face' to those of us that enjoy trackables,

and that trackables not being in the caches that they're listed in is just one more issue driving us away from that aspect of the game.

 

Is it really a slap in the face, or could it be that 1. They don't agree that it's a good idea or 2. They like the idea but have other priorities at this time ?

Share this post


Link to post

Is it really a slap in the face, or could it be that 1. They don't agree that it's a good idea or 2. They like the idea but have other priorities at this time ?

 

Were your questions rhetorical? If not, they won't be answered without more process transparency. The most documentation I have seen was earlier in this thread:

 

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.

 

Implicit in that text is that the unnamed "part of Groundspeak that listens to community suggestions" is separate from the development team. We have no idea what happened when the former "advocated for this enhancement" to the latter. It might have been major drama and that's why they cannot get into specifics on the user-facing forums.

 

Also, I wouldn't consider it a slap in the face; this is more of a Wet Willie.

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

 

While this is a long overdue feature to be implemented, I don't think it'll have any effect on TB theft nor is it designed to.

 

I was infering that Groundspeak's lack of action on this issue is a 'slap in the face' to those of us that enjoy trackables,

and that trackables not being in the caches that they're listed in is just one more issue driving us away from that aspect of the game.

 

Is it really a slap in the face, or could it be that 1. They don't agree that it's a good idea or 2. They like the idea but have other priorities at this time ?

 

If they DON"T LIKE THE IDEA why don't they just tell us, so we can stop wasting our time trying to reason with a brick wall.

Share this post


Link to post
If they DON"T LIKE THE IDEA why don't they just tell us, so we can stop wasting our time trying to reason with a brick wall.

Maybe you would prefer "This suggestion has been approved and submitted to the development team. It will be implemented sometime in the next 10 years. Thank you to all who suggested and discussed it."

Share this post


Link to post

I had exactly the same idea!

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=297009&st=0&p=5058663&fromsearch=1entry5058663

 

I am sick to death of

  1. My trackables going missing
  2. Hoping to find a trackable in a cache, only to discover it's not been there for over a year!

 

While I totally appreciate the two are not related, I agree with the sentiments recently expressed.

The fact that Groundspeak have failed to act on the suggestion is a slap in the face (or wet willie if you prefer) to the cachers that enjoy the trackable side of the sport.

 

I think it is clear that Groundspeak have their priorities - and they are anything that brings in more money.

Adding this functionality is not a money maker, so it will not be a priority. Plain and simple.

 

It is short-sighted of them, however, for while it is not a direct moneymakerm it WILL make many cachers considerably happier to have this functionality, and encourage greater participation over all.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe you would prefer "This suggestion has been approved and submitted to the development team. It will be implemented sometime in the next 10 years. Thank you to all who suggested and discussed it."

 

Erm.... YES!! Something like that would be perfect actually! Less the 10 year timeframe of course! ;)

 

Common courtesy no less.

 

Which is sadly an oxymoron, being none-too-common these days!

Edited by FluffyRAM

Share this post


Link to post

I had exactly the same idea!

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=297009&st=0&p=5058663&fromsearch=1entry5058663

 

I am sick to death of

  1. My trackables going missing
  2. Hoping to find a trackable in a cache, only to discover it's not been there for over a year!

 

While I totally appreciate the two are not related, I agree with the sentiments recently expressed.

The fact that Groundspeak have failed to act on the suggestion is a slap in the face (or wet willie if you prefer) to the cachers that enjoy the trackable side of the sport.

 

I think it is clear that Groundspeak have their priorities - and they are anything that brings in more money.

Adding this functionality is not a money maker, so it will not be a priority. Plain and simple.

 

It is short-sighted of them, however, for while it is not a direct moneymakerm it WILL make many cachers considerably happier to have this functionality, and encourage greater participation over all.

 

 

BRAVO !!!

Share this post


Link to post

+1 this idea.

 

In fact, even simplify it and allow anybody to mark any trackable as missing at any time. No need to make a complicated system change when we can do this simply and easily.

Share this post


Link to post

+1 this idea.

 

In fact, even simplify it and allow anybody to mark any trackable as missing at any time. No need to make a complicated system change when we can do this simply and easily.

 

sounds good to me.

we'd probably get a lot of backlash from COs that think "that's My cache and i don't want anyone messing with it."

but these people are the same ones that won't maintain their trackables inventory list.

 

just like the the cachers that are SOOOOOOOOOOO against PROXYS for geocoins.

These are probable the ones that are PO'd when they find a proxy because they were expecting the "real thing" so they could steal it.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently 9 months isn't the appropriate gestation period for a brilliant idea like this.

 

We haven't even seen a mommy bump yet so don't expect them to "push' something out any time soon.

I actually think they "aborted" this idea a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there should be a trackable inventory at all on the cache page.

 

eh?!!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

The idea in general, or the specific details posted by MrsB in her original post? There absolutely needs to be a system to remove missing trackables from caches, because, as you pointed out, there are lazy COs out there. When I can look at all the caches in my area listed as containing trackables, and only ~10-15% of the trackables are actually there, that's a problem that needs a solution. Many different specific methods have been suggested and tweaked throughout this discussion, so if you haven't read through them all, I recommend you do so and see if any of those seem more acceptable. Invariably, there will be some level of abuse, but if someone marks a trackable as missing when it really isn't, then the next person to log it will fix it. It isn't something permanent and irreversible, so it isn't the end of the world if there is the occasional abuse. I think the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

The idea in general, or the specific details posted by MrsB in her original post? There absolutely needs to be a system to remove missing trackables from caches, because, as you pointed out, there are lazy COs out there. When I can look at all the caches in my area listed as containing trackables, and only ~10-15% of the trackables are actually there, that's a problem that needs a solution. Many different specific methods have been suggested and tweaked throughout this discussion, so if you haven't read through them all, I recommend you do so and see if any of those seem more acceptable. Invariably, there will be some level of abuse, but if someone marks a trackable as missing when it really isn't, then the next person to log it will fix it. It isn't something permanent and irreversible, so it isn't the end of the world if there is the occasional abuse. I think the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

 

............WELL SAID !............

Edited by EXMAN

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

The idea in general, or the specific details posted by MrsB in her original post? There absolutely needs to be a system to remove missing trackables from caches, because, as you pointed out, there are lazy COs out there. When I can look at all the caches in my area listed as containing trackables, and only ~10-15% of the trackables are actually there, that's a problem that needs a solution. Many different specific methods have been suggested and tweaked throughout this discussion, so if you haven't read through them all, I recommend you do so and see if any of those seem more acceptable. Invariably, there will be some level of abuse, but if someone marks a trackable as missing when it really isn't, then the next person to log it will fix it. It isn't something permanent and irreversible, so it isn't the end of the world if there is the occasional abuse. I think the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

 

The general idea, the reason for me is it comes down to ownership and responsibility. The administration abilities of a cache or a trackable, or a trackable in a cache should belong to the owners.

 

Should we start giving these abilities to all geocachers? If a person finds that a cache has been destroyed do they have the ability to archive or disable the cache? No, they have the ability to notify, why? Because it is not their cache, ergo it is not their responsibility to archive or disable, nor do they have the rights to.

 

I seek out trackables myself, and am also disappointed when they aren't where they're advertised to be.

 

There is a system to remove missing trackables, the cache owner can or the TB owner can mark as missing.

 

You do have a problem if only 10-15% of trackables are where they should be in your area, that sucks.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

Having read the entire thread, I don't see any indication that this feature would actually create any kind of log entry against the trackable item. But if it had to work that way, false log entries could be deleted.

 

Abuse of the current system is a fact -- misrepresentation of the presence of trackables due to the physical abuse (loss or theft) of the items.

 

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

 

Do you REALLY think the current method works fine? Can you show an example? If so, wouldn't it be fair to say that there are far more examples of missing trackables that set false expectations?

 

 

I don't support this idea.

The idea in general, or the specific details posted by MrsB in her original post? There absolutely needs to be a system to remove missing trackables from caches, because, as you pointed out, there are lazy COs out there. When I can look at all the caches in my area listed as containing trackables, and only ~10-15% of the trackables are actually there, that's a problem that needs a solution. Many different specific methods have been suggested and tweaked throughout this discussion, so if you haven't read through them all, I recommend you do so and see if any of those seem more acceptable. Invariably, there will be some level of abuse, but if someone marks a trackable as missing when it really isn't, then the next person to log it will fix it. It isn't something permanent and irreversible, so it isn't the end of the world if there is the occasional abuse. I think the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

 

The general idea, the reason for me is it comes down to ownership and responsibility. The administration abilities of a cache or a trackable, or a trackable in a cache should belong to the owners.

 

Should we start giving these abilities to all geocachers? If a person finds that a cache has been destroyed do they have the ability to archive or disable the cache? No, they have the ability to notify, why? Because it is not their cache, ergo it is not their responsibility to archive or disable, nor do they have the rights to.

 

I seek out trackables myself, and am also disappointed when they aren't where they're advertised to be.

 

There is a system to remove missing trackables, the cache owner can or the TB owner can mark as missing.

 

You do have a problem if only 10-15% of trackables are where they should be in your area, that sucks.

 

All geocachers already have the ability to indicate that a cache has been destroyed; this is called a Needs Maintenance or a Needs Archived log and it indicates that there is a problem with the cache. This information is useful for setting expectations regarding what you will possibly find when you get to GZ. Can it be abused? Yes -- false NA or NM logs probably happen -- but the NM attribute can be cleared by the CO with an Owner Maintenance log then the offending logs deleted.

 

There needs to be an equivalent system to manage expectations around trackables. Could it be abused? Depends on how it is set up, but the action of someone logging the TB subsequent to a false Trackable Missing log would likely clear it, just like the Owner Maintenance log does to NA or NM.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

The idea in general, or the specific details posted by MrsB in her original post? There absolutely needs to be a system to remove missing trackables from caches, because, as you pointed out, there are lazy COs out there. When I can look at all the caches in my area listed as containing trackables, and only ~10-15% of the trackables are actually there, that's a problem that needs a solution. Many different specific methods have been suggested and tweaked throughout this discussion, so if you haven't read through them all, I recommend you do so and see if any of those seem more acceptable. Invariably, there will be some level of abuse, but if someone marks a trackable as missing when it really isn't, then the next person to log it will fix it. It isn't something permanent and irreversible, so it isn't the end of the world if there is the occasional abuse. I think the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

 

 

The general idea, the reason for me is it comes down to ownership and responsibility. The administration abilities of a cache or a trackable, or a trackable in a cache should belong to the owners.

 

Should we start giving these abilities to all geocachers? If a person finds that a cache has been destroyed do they have the ability to archive or disable the cache? No, they have the ability to notify, why? Because it is not their cache, ergo it is not their responsibility to archive or disable, nor do they have the rights to.

 

I seek out trackables myself, and am also disappointed when they aren't where they're advertised to be.

 

There is a system to remove missing trackables, the cache owner can or the TB owner can mark as missing.

 

You do have a problem if only 10-15% of trackables are where they should be in your area, that sucks.

 

.......The current system isn't working. It needs to be changed, and the submitted suggestion WILL WORK.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

 

Lazy COs, lazy trackable owners...regardless, something needs to be done.

 

What 'abuse'? It's not like the trackable is being removed from the system. If someone makes a mistake, or decides to 'get cute', the next person can fix the error...no harm, no foul.

Share this post


Link to post

mmm, some good points made, i agree that a system can always be improved, and on reflection, although it could be abused (as most things can), on the whole the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with some of the more recent statements. Any cacher should be able to mark any trackable missing. Not even any cacher who's logged a find on a cache they're logged into should have that ability.

 

Currently the system is that a trackable owner, a cache owner, and a reviewer can do so. And I think as far as the power to actually mark them missing goes, that's fine as is. Anything more, and you'd have potential for confusion, or even abuse.

 

We still should have a "should be marked missing" option for every trackable, just as we have a "should be archived" option for every cache. And just like unavailable caches display differently from available ones, potentially missing trackables should display differently in a cache inventory from those that may actually be in there.

Share this post


Link to post

I had exactly the same idea!

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=297009&st=0&p=5058663&fromsearch=1entry5058663

 

I am sick to death of

  1. My trackables going missing
  2. Hoping to find a trackable in a cache, only to discover it's not been there for over a year!

 

While I totally appreciate the two are not related, I agree with the sentiments recently expressed.

The fact that Groundspeak have failed to act on the suggestion is a slap in the face (or wet willie if you prefer) to the cachers that enjoy the trackable side of the sport.

 

I think it is clear that Groundspeak have their priorities - and they are anything that brings in more money.

Adding this functionality is not a money maker, so it will not be a priority. Plain and simple.

 

It is short-sighted of them, however, for while it is not a direct moneymakerm it WILL make many cachers considerably happier to have this functionality, and encourage greater participation over all.

It could be seen as a money maker, because if more trackables are accounted for that could get rid of some of the confusion of if the cache that you are going to has the correct inventory and people are more likely to find a trackable where they expect which could lead to the purchasing of more trackables.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

 

They have the ability to do so, but not the responsibility to do so. So do not call them 'lazy'.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

 

They have the ability to do so, but not the responsibility to do so. So do not call them 'lazy'.

 

Regardless of whether the owning of cache's responsibility list includes marking missing trackables or not, the fact is that many (most?) CO's are not exercising their ability to do so.

 

If they were, this feature request would not exist, and the topic would not see the traffic it does.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't support this idea.

 

To be able to add a log to a trackable's page you have to have the unique secret code it carries with it, that's the whole point of being able to prove you've found it and then have the ability to post a log, if anyone could post these logs it's open to abuse.

 

The current method of the CO having the power to mark as missing works fine. I do wish more COs would utilise that power though when several people have mentioned there are no trackables in the cache, but that's not a system fault, that's a lazy CO fault <_<

 

They have the ability to do so, but not the responsibility to do so. So do not call them 'lazy'.

 

I disagree. Part of cache ownership is maintaining the integrity of your cache listing on this site. If the area changes and the cache description isn't accurate, I'd expect a CO to update their listing. Similarly, if A dropped B's geocoin in C's cache some time ago and both B and C keep getting logs saying that it ain't there, then I'd call it lazy for either B or C not to take the simple step of marking it missing.

Share this post


Link to post

p.s. Any Groundspeak employee out there, can you give us a status update on this?

Share this post


Link to post

I can't give you any specifics or a timeframe, but an overhaul of the trackables system is currently in the brainstorming phase.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't give you any specifics or a timeframe, but an overhaul of the trackables system is currently in the brainstorming phase.

 

Oh heck. :blink:

 

:huh:

 

:unsure:

 

Well...

 

Thanks for the info, Moun10Bike.

 

 

MrsB :)

Share this post


Link to post

One year to get to the 'brainstorming phase'.

 

Once implemented, will this be compatible with Windows 12?

 

<_<

Or Firefox 149?

Share this post


Link to post

I guess my phrasing was a bit underwhelming. However, as a longtime cacher, I can tell you that I am very excited about the changes being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post

One year to get to the 'brainstorming phase'.

 

Once implemented, will this be compatible with Windows 12?

 

<_<

Or Firefox 149?

 

There has been no commitment to put it on the schedule to develop, so there's no real status update to offer you.

Share this post


Link to post
I can't give you any specifics or a timeframe, but an overhaul of the trackables system is currently in the brainstorming phase.

 

Thanks for that. I look forward to it.

 

One of the ways that Geocaching.com distinguishes itself from other listing services is that listing maintenance is done. Both as instigated by the community and by reviewers. The listings aren't too badly littered with dead stuff.

 

But the trackable info is littered with the dead/missing.

 

In admin mode, did a trackables sweep for Florida in 2009. I marked just over half of all the trackables listed in caches in the state missing. (I queried only caches more than one year old.) More were missing, but there was no definitive log to make that call.

In general, based on that experience, I'd guess that at least half of all trackable inventory is false.

 

I also routinely mark numbers of trackables missing, just about every time I visit an oldest cache in state/area, or a highly favorited cache. Anytime you see a big trackable inventory, most of those items are long gone...

 

This is inordinately time consuming, and I don't plan to do it again, ever. Some kind of user generated mechanism for this is needed.

Share this post


Link to post

I did the same thing in a trackables sweep for the state of Ohio, looking at every listing that showed a trackable in the inventory. It's a fun task while watching TV or listening in on a conference call.

 

Over a period of 11 months, I marked nearly 2200 trackable items missing. That's for just one state. If there were no logs on either an active cache listing or the trackable page from an actual visitor saying the item was not in the cache, I skipped that trackable. So, the actual number is a fair bit higher. This illustrates the importance of mentioning the status of trackables when logging finds. How about TNLN TFTC NT? (for "No trackables")

Share this post


Link to post

I did the same thing in a trackables sweep for the state of Ohio, looking at every listing that showed a trackable in the inventory. It's a fun task while watching TV or listening in on a conference call.

 

Over a period of 11 months, I marked nearly 2200 trackable items missing. That's for just one state. If there were no logs on either an active cache listing or the trackable page from an actual visitor saying the item was not in the cache, I skipped that trackable. So, the actual number is a fair bit higher. This illustrates the importance of mentioning the status of trackables when logging finds. How about TNLN TFTC NT? (for "No trackables")

In that sweep, Keystone found and marked as missing about a dozen of my coins. I appreciate his efforts!

 

--Larry

Share this post


Link to post

In admin mode, did a trackables sweep for Florida in 2009. I marked just over half of all the trackables listed in caches in the state missing. (I queried only caches more than one year old.) More were missing, but there was no definitive log to make that call.

Out of curiosity, I looked at all the caches in this area that say they have trackables, regardless of age, making a determination of whether each trackable is likely missing or present (borderline cases ended up roughly cancelling each other out). I came up with the following numbers:

Total caches: 1881

Caches with trackables listed: 300

Total trackables: 436

Missing trackables: 300

Percentage of trackables that are missing: 68.8%

 

That is, more than 2 out of 3 trackables aren't where they're listed, at least for this area.

Sad. Very sad. :sad:

Share this post


Link to post

I ran a trackables sweep only after reading that Keystone does it, so kudos to Keystone for the idea. I do occasionally clean up the Florida Keys listings, vacation spots are a deathbed for trackables.

 

This thread got me to thinking about doing it again. Definite maybe on that.

 

I did just query for older caches with trackables and the NM icon set. Went through 40 of those, and marked trackables missing at almost a 100% rate.... sad really.

Share this post


Link to post

In admin mode, did a trackables sweep for Florida in 2009. I marked just over half of all the trackables listed in caches in the state missing. (I queried only caches more than one year old.) More were missing, but there was no definitive log to make that call.

Out of curiosity, I looked at all the caches in this area that say they have trackables, regardless of age, making a determination of whether each trackable is likely missing or present (borderline cases ended up roughly cancelling each other out). I came up with the following numbers:

Total caches: 1881

Caches with trackables listed: 300

Total trackables: 436

Missing trackables: 300

Percentage of trackables that are missing: 68.8%

 

That is, more than 2 out of 3 trackables aren't where they're listed, at least for this area.

Sad. Very sad. :sad:

This and the results from Isonzo Karst is why I don't put out trackables anymore. One or two hops and they are gone. Not fun. I would rather promote the Monopoly game explosion. At least I don't expect those to go any where or be tracked.

Share this post


Link to post

Since you've mentioned it, this attitude of not being interested in trackables seems to be prevalent in the caching community.

Cachers aren't even interested in my past offers to make FREE replacements for their 'trackables gone missing', and this lack of some kind of a "GHOST" system is probably a part of what has turned us away from trackables.

 

I'm guessing that the majority of trackables that are sold today, are purchased by newbie cachers that have no idea how quickly their cute little friends will disappear, nor have they yet experienced the disappointment of not finding trackables that are advertised as being in the cache.

 

I'm not totally convinced that Groundspeak is even aware of the extent of the problem.

 

i also have no idea what kind of profit trackables generates for them, but i've got to believe that it's enough to warrant some action here.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't give you any specifics or a timeframe, but an overhaul of the trackables system is currently in the brainstorming phase.

 

There has been no commitment to put it on the schedule to develop, so there's no real status update to offer you.

 

I appreciate the response from both Moun10Bike and Jeremy but I'm confused. I'm not sure if this on the table or not. From what Moun10Bike said it seems like there's hope but from what Jeremy says, it's like it isn't going to happen. :lostsignal:

Share this post


Link to post
from what Jeremy says, it's like it isn't going to happen.

 

What i read is that it's being talked about, but hasn't been put into the dev schedule. That's not, "it isn't going to happen".

 

I do suppose that it isn't going to happen soon. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

as a longtime cacher, I can tell you that I am very excited about the changes being discussed.

 

I like what I'm reading. Glad to know this is still being discussed, even if it hasn't been scheduled. Thanks to you and Jeremy both for responding.

Share this post


Link to post

I was very pleased to find this thread. I really like the inital suggestion, and am heartened by the responses from Moun10bike and Jeremy. I note that not everyone feels the Groundspeak response has been quick enough, but I do understand that development and implementation do take time. Having said that, such an enhancement can't come too soon!

 

I am quite new to the game, but it didn't take long to learn the ugly truth about both cache inventory accuracy (or deplorable lack thereof) and the appalling survival rate of most trackables. I know the submission is about a method for removing ghost trackables, but the need for such a solution starts with the far-too-frequent disappearances. I feel like it's a minor miracle when I actually find one.

 

I'm now fussy about where I will drop a trackable based on any given cache's history for trackable 'safety', resulting in my hanging onto them too long, and I am even more reluctant to release my own. (I bought the tags before I really understood the scope of the issue, and now wish I hadn't spent the money.)

 

I agree that TB owners bear some responsibility for keeping up with their TBs, moreso than COs, to keep cache inventories accurate, but I also believe that a significant percentage of losses/missing TBs are due to ignorance on the part of many new cachers. (The rest of us newbies are the ones that buy TBs before we know the score...) Better education, and more ways of providing it may help alleviate the problem.

 

Looking forward to the improvements!

 

Signed, Optimistically Hopeful.

(Is that redundant?)

Share this post


Link to post

In our opinion, this feature is WAY overdue!

 

This from us who do write notes for trackables that aren`t in the cache and have marked both our own trackables and those that should be in our caches as missing.

Share this post


Link to post

Only problem i see with the idea is the possible abuse of the system. All the typical complaints we see about trackables not being in the cache will turn into complaints about trackables being ghosted by mistake. But people have to have something to coplain about, right?

 

Overall this sounds like a much better solution then the current system. It takes some of the responsibility off the COs. Now they don't have to feel like they are offending any TOs. I'm all for it!

 

Hard to see how a TO could be offended if their trackable is marked missing. All it means (under the existing system) is that the CO checked their cache (a good thing) and observed that their trackable wasn't there.

 

I like this suggestion. It means that if a trackable has gone missing it gets flagged as such earlier, and if all that has happened is that it got picked up by someone on holiday who didn't log it yet the immediate outcome is that it's marked as being somewhere other than the cache, and then when the cacher logs their finds the cache is marked in its new location.

Share this post


Link to post

I hope this does not get implemented. Only because I have seen unknown 'puzzle' caches use a trackable as a part of the puzzle. It may or may not actually exist but it's placement may be critical to the puzzle.

 

Maybe an opt in system for the owners of the trackables?

 

If the placement of a trackable is critical to the puzzle then the owner of the trackable can simply write a note against it and return it to circulation.

 

Admittedly a minority may use a new facility to cause trouble but that's no different to the chance they have now to post NA logs against caches with nothing wrong with them.

 

An opt-out system would make more sense - I suspect the number of trackables that are strategically placed as part of a puzzle is tiny compared to the number of trackables out there with a mission to move round.

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

×