Jump to content

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


The Blorenges
Followers 15

Recommended Posts

If the trackable isn't really missing it will return to circulation soon enough and no harm is done. If it is missing it gets marked missing automatically so if either or both of the CO and TO are inactive (or unregistered, or whatever) the cache doesn't continue to show trackables that have long since vanished.

 

What I see is an upside with no downside at all.

There is definitely no downside at all. You (and everyone who fails to understand just what it is a small minority finds so objectionable about it), please immediately go log your glowing support for my recently submitted [New Feature] which is the same idea, greatly simplified:

 

"Geocachers see a Trackable accurately listed, and take it from a cache and don't log doing so. The next cacher intends to do the same thing, but the Trackable is already taken. Many times, it's a valuable Geocoin, but is gone already, thus a wasted trip.

 

These takers are waiting impatiently for the Trackables to be marked “Missing”, but many Cache Owners and Trackable Owners won't mark the items “Missing”, which is a problem mentioned frequently around these Forums. It can take years for the TO to give up on the item, and future takers don't have a convenient list from which to harvest Trackables.

 

There are several complicated “Inventory Removal” ideas in this Forum. I propose a simple one: One day per year, Groundspeak is to set every Trackable “Missing”, a “Delisting Day”. The next log on each (if any) will return each active Trackable to play, the Inventories will be correct, and all the taken ones will be gone forever."

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

There are several complicated “Inventory Removal” ideas in this Forum. I propose a simple one: One day per year, Groundspeak is to set every Trackable “Missing”, a “Delisting Day”. The next log on each (if any) will return each active Trackable to play, the Inventories will be correct, and all the taken ones will be gone forever."

 

Make it quarterly and it'll fall closer in line with the OP's idea. :anibad:

 

Problem I see with that idea, though, is associating it with a cache. Say it is marked missing, then the cacher must either "grab" it or somehow associate it with the cache they found it in then "retrieve" it. How does that usually work for trackables marked missing? Is it automatically reinserted into the cache's inventory?

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

There are several complicated “Inventory Removal” ideas in this Forum. I propose a simple one: One day per year, Groundspeak is to set every Trackable “Missing”, a “Delisting Day”. The next log on each (if any) will return each active Trackable to play, the Inventories will be correct, and all the taken ones will be gone forever."

 

Make it quarterly and it'll fall closer in line with the OP's idea. :anibad:

 

Problem I see with that idea, though, is associating it with a cache. Say it is marked missing, then the cacher must either "grab" it or somehow associate it with the cache they found it in then "retrieve" it. How does that usually work for trackables marked missing? Is it automatically reinserted into the cache's inventory?

 

It's no different to the current situation if a cache is missing from cache A and turns up in cache B. If you just "grab" it then the mileage from A to B is lost.

 

Some folks would grab it, drop it into B, then retrieve it from B. I sometimes do that if the mileage is significant. If it's just been a few miles up the road I usually cba to do that sort of faffing around.

Link to comment

I really struggle to understand just what it is you find so objectionable about it. If the trackable isn't really missing it will return to circulation soon enough and no harm is done. If it is missing it gets marked missing automatically so if either or both of the CO and TO are inactive (or unregistered, or whatever) the cache doesn't continue to show trackables that have long since vanished.

I'm in the same boat. Some people on here seem to think the universe would implode if this feature were implemented. I can assure you, it won't. Trust me.

 

It seems like most of the objections surround improper use of the feature, like people flagging a trackable that has only recently been picked up from a popular cache. What about putting a waiting period on a trackable before it can be flagged? For example (pulling numbers out of the air), if a trackable was dropped in the cache within the last month, you can't flag it. You might even want to include the Discover log, too, because people will sometimes discover a trackable instead of picking it up. Once 1 month has passed since it was dropped in the cache and if it hasn't been discovered, any cacher can then flag it as possibly missing, at which point the feature in question kicks in. Having the waiting period gives cachers a window in which they can submit the proper logs with there being no risk of the trackable being incorrectly flagged as possibly missing. I suspect most people do log their trackables within a month, and even if they don't, there's still the 90 day period before the trackable actually gets marked as missing.

 

Are there any other major objections surrounding this proposal? This discussion is pretty long and has gone off on a few tangents, so it's hard to remember what everyone has been saying. If you can detail something you don't like about it (not just "I don't like it" or "It will break everything"), maybe we can come up with possible solutions.

 

Edit to add: I just remembered there were some concerns about performance due to the automated process of marking the flagged trackables as missing. This process needn't run continuously. I'm sure Groundspeak knows of a time of day when the site is most quiet, and they could schedule the process to run each day at that time. It's only marking a trackable as missing that has already gone at least 90 days without a log, so there's no hurry to have it done at exactly the 90 day mark. I'm sure a few hours late would be fine.

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment
Say it is marked missing, then the cacher must either "grab" it or somehow associate it with the cache they found it in then "retrieve" it. How does that usually work for trackables marked missing? Is it automatically reinserted into the cache's inventory?

If it actually was still in that cache (marked Missing in error), that would be a problem, since it's not automatically corrected. If it was found elsewhere, they should not log it into that cache, since it was previously removed from there. There will be a bunch of such mistakes, causing automatic marks of Missing, if the New Feature is implemented. There will be a dramatic increase of questions about not being able to log a "drop", and more cachers will give up on trying to do the drop. It becomes more complicated to do. TBs will be more likely to never surface again. But takers have the convenience of knowing which caches have the few remaining TBs to take (and keep since the item gets automatically marked Missing), so it's perfect.

 

Geocaching is personal enrichment. Take whatever you want, the enablers will cover for you.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Wouldn't it just be easier if Groundspeak just added a new user privilege "Trackable Moderator" - a group of individuals around the world keen to keep trackable inventories correct. These users have the ability to mark trackables missing, but are otherwise ordinary users just like the rest of us.

 

Concerned users can contact a "TB Mod" and let them know about a trackable they think is missing, and when that "TB Mod" gets around to it, they can look at it and, using their human judgement, mark it as missing if they feel that is the correct course of action.

 

This way, if there is no response from the CO or TO, an already busy reviewer doesn't need to be bothered by this. Additionally, there is no automated system to make automated mistakes and no TB owners getting "Your TB is possibly missing" messages every other day.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it just be easier if Groundspeak just added a new user privilege "Trackable Moderator" - a group of individuals around the world keen to keep trackable inventories correct. These users have the ability to mark trackables missing, but are otherwise ordinary users just like the rest of us.

 

Concerned users can contact a "TB Mod" and let them know about a trackable they think is missing, and when that "TB Mod" gets around to it, they can look at it and, using their human judgement, mark it as missing if they feel that is the correct course of action.

 

This way, if there is no response from the CO or TO, an already busy reviewer doesn't need to be bothered by this. Additionally, there is no automated system to make automated mistakes and no TB owners getting "Your TB is possibly missing" messages every other day.

 

Except the TB mod would end up with a few reports that they couldn't verify and would end up having to manually do what this automated system is proposed to do.

 

The automated system wouldn't make any more automated mistakes than a manual system, and TB owners wouldn't get a notification every single time their trackable was marked "possibly missing". I'd suggest they got an email when it was marked as missing, just so they knew what had happened.

 

Honestly, it seems like you're taking a really good idea and adding silly strawman features to break it.

Link to comment

-snipped-

 

Except the TB mod would end up with a few reports that they couldn't verify and would end up having to manually do what this automated system is proposed to do.

 

The automated system wouldn't make any more automated mistakes than a manual system, and TB owners wouldn't get a notification every single time their trackable was marked "possibly missing". I'd suggest they got an email when it was marked as missing, just so they knew what had happened.

 

Honestly, it seems like you're taking a really good idea and adding silly strawman features to break it.

 

+1

Link to comment

Except the TB mod would end up with a few reports that they couldn't verify and would end up having to manually do what this automated system is proposed to do.

No, that's what human judgement is for. A TB Mod would mark a TB missing if it's been that way for a long time - none of this silly "possibly missing" status to confuse the system.

 

Honestly, it seems like you're taking a really good idea and adding silly strawman features to break it.

Honestly, it seems like *a couple* of people here are just trying to discredit those with an opposing opinion instead of debating the pros and cons of the system(s) being proposed. We could all play that game, but it would be better to try and be constructive.

 

Anyway, that'll teach me for coming back after I said I was finished debating this topic.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
If you can detail something you don't like about it (not just "I don't like it" or "It will break everything"), maybe we can come up with possible solutions.

 

1) There is something glaringly Missing (and not even Marked Missing) from this whole discussion. The fact that nobody noticed and nobody cares is disturbing. Gold star to whoever even mentions it. Hint: No way it would be part of the New Feature, so it's definitely a deal-breaker to honest Geocachers.

 

2) Thieves wait for the item to be Marked Missing, a sign that the TO gave up on it, considering it permission to keep it. Some TOs rightfully refuse, and would rather leave it at the last honest log than give up. That’s none of your business. Buzz off. As it were. :anicute:

 

3) My objection is that nobody demands that it’s the Taker’s responsibility to make a decent log. The scorn upon TO/CO and requirements upon GS to reprogram the site, are misplaced. Make the Takers go fix the logs.

 

4) How come although “There Are No Rules”, and “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”, there’s this strict requirement to have correct Trackable Logs? Why the selective application of “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”?

 

5) The exact same people who cannot produce a proper log are suddenly diligent enough to perform this [New Feature]? Wrong.

 

6) And why is it such a necessity to have accurate Inventories in this one area only? Has anybody ever demanded accuracy in Swag trade logs (to overwhelming support)?

 

7) Someone takes a TB then forgets, then it’s automatically Marked Missing. They want to show they Retrieved it from that cache, but can’t. They’ve kind of scrambled the logs while trying to figure it out. Prepare for more cachers arriving in the Forums asking how to fix it.

 

8) This [New Feature] will result in even more Missing Trackables. Thieves get an accurate menu, and honest (OK, the ones who delay logs for a long time) cachers get a confusing system.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Except the TB mod would end up with a few reports that they couldn't verify and would end up having to manually do what this automated system is proposed to do.

No, that's what human judgement is for. A TB Mod would mark a TB missing if it's been that way for a long time - none of this silly "possibly missing" status to confuse the system.

 

Not a 'silly' status, imo. First GS would have to approve a new generation of 'specific issue' mods. Then the TB mods would need an assigned territory (?) and a 'limited' mod authority for a new set of functions. The OP suggestion didn't complicate anything. We've just added 350+ posts to confuse the initial proposal. Also, active cachers now need a new instruction section on 'HOW TO' report suspected TB issues.

 

There's been some resistance here to an 'automated' system. If going automated were a bad thing, we would still be sticking our finger in a round hole and dialing an operator to initiate telephone calls and sending wire-telegrams to receiving teletype operators to give messages to bicycle delivery boys .......

 

Someone suggested making it 30 days before a cache inventoried trackable could be placed in ghost status ... not unlike a 'disabled cache'. Good idea add-on.

 

Honestly, it seems like you're taking a really good idea and adding silly strawman features to break it.

Honestly, it seems like *a couple* of people here are just trying to discredit those with an opposing opinion instead of debating the pros and cons of the system(s) being proposed. We could all play that game, but it would be better to try and be constructive.

 

Anyway, that'll teach me for coming back after I said I was finished debating this topic.

 

Cheers.

 

The only opposing opinion I can recall is that we would be enabling thieves. How about suggestions on HOW TO do it ??? The only other opposing opinion and 'debate' I've seen seems to be ... 'do nothing'.

Link to comment

1) There is something glaringly Missing (and not even Marked Missing) from this whole discussion. The fact that nobody noticed and nobody cares is disturbing. Gold star to whoever even mentions it. Hint: No way it would be part of the New Feature, so it's definitely a deal-breaker to honest Geocachers.

I don't know what you're talking about. Why not enlighten us rather than post such a cryptic comment?

 

2) Thieves wait for the item to be Marked Missing, a sign that the TO gave up on it, considering it permission to keep it. Some TOs rightfully refuse, and would rather leave it at the last honest log than give up. That’s none of your business. Buzz off. As it were. :anicute:

I see two points here.

First, thieves will keep a trackable, period. That's what thieves do. The level of activity or awareness of the TO will have no effect on the actions of thieves.

Second, that's a point that I don't think has been mentioned yet, so thanks for bringing it up. Personally, I'd say to that TO that having it remain listed in a cache is basically lying, but that's just me. I'm not sure how to deal with these situations as far as this feature is concerned.

 

3) My objection is that nobody demands that it’s the Taker’s responsibility to make a decent log. The scorn upon TO/CO and requirements upon GS to reprogram the site, are misplaced. Make the Takers go fix the logs.

This assumes that the only people that remove trackables from caches are cachers, but that certainly isn't the case. Muggles take them. Caches go missing/get destroyed and get replaced. Thieves steal them. Yes, it's the responsibility of a cacher to properly log the movements of a trackable, but not every trackable movement is performed by a cacher, so there will always be improperly-tracked trackables. A better/easier logging method and education might help, but won't stop all the problems.

 

4) How come although “There Are No Rules”, and “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”, there’s this strict requirement to have correct Trackable Logs? Why the selective application of “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”?

The people who like moving trackables need to look at it. Rather than just give up on moving trackables, we'd rather fix the problem.

 

5) The exact same people who cannot produce a proper log are suddenly diligent enough to perform this [New Feature]? Wrong.

This is related to my answer on point 3 above. Also keep in mind my waiting period idea, which would cut down on the "it's been missing for a day, so it should be marked as missing!" people.

 

6) And why is it such a necessity to have accurate Inventories in this one area only? Has anybody ever demanded accuracy in Swag trade logs (to overwhelming support)?

Swag isn't tracked on a cache listing. Trackables are. If there was a similar inventory feature for the swag in a cache, I'd be demanding the same level of accuracy. Thankfully, there isn't such a thing, because that would be an even bigger mess. :laughing:

 

7) Someone takes a TB then forgets, then it’s automatically Marked Missing. They want to show they Retrieved it from that cache, but can’t. They’ve kind of scrambled the logs while trying to figure it out. Prepare for more cachers arriving in the Forums asking how to fix it.

I agree, the current system of logging trackable movements leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe that should be the next long discussion in this forum?

 

8) This [New Feature] will result in even more Missing Trackables. Thieves get an accurate menu, and honest (OK, the ones who delay logs for a long time) cachers get a confusing system.

Thieves don't need an accurate menu. If they want to go stealing trackables, I'm sure they'll take the time to wade through the lists of trackables to determine which ones are likely there.

Sure, there would probably be some trackables that would go missing as a result of wacky logs caused by this feature, but I don't think it would be a massive increase. Also, I think my idea of having a waiting period before being able to flag a trackable could significantly cut down on the incorrectly-flagged trackables, meaning fewer trackables with confusing logs.

 

Keep in mind, no solution will be perfect. If it significantly improves things, this feature could be a good thing. If trackable inventories are kept more accurate and new cachers are better educated about trackable movement, I think the entire trackable side-game could get a lot better. Of course, all this has to start with Groundspeak making some changes, so nothing will change until they do.

Link to comment

1) There is something glaringly Missing (and not even Marked Missing) from this whole discussion. The fact that nobody noticed and nobody cares is disturbing. Gold star to whoever even mentions it. Hint: No way it would be part of the New Feature, so it's definitely a deal-breaker to honest Geocachers.

I don't know what you're talking about. Why not enlighten us rather than post such a cryptic comment?

Because there's a ton of enthusiasm and not much thought going into the New Feature. And any issue other than one suggesting enacting the New Feature with no further discussion, is immediately poo-pooed. There's absolutely no room in here for anything but high praise for the New Feature, so why bother.

 

Personally, I'd say to that TO that having it remain listed in a cache is basically lying, but that's just me. I'm not sure how to deal with these situations as far as this feature is concerned.

Not at all. If there's a log, there's a log, as close to truth as it gets in this case. If the TO wants to leave the log forever, he leaves it. The Taker is the one who lies (and by a strange coincidence, also the thief).

 

4) How come although “There Are No Rules”, and “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”, there’s this strict requirement to have correct Trackable Logs? Why the selective application of “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”?

The people who like moving trackables need to look at it. Rather than just give up on moving trackables, we'd rather fix the problem.

So there are no rules until they become automatically enforced rules. Got it.

 

As long as the record of the proponents is still in view, say, 3 months after this New Feature is established, there's no need to worry about what's Missing. Fifty thousand Gecocachers will arrive in the Forums to tell you how much they appreciate the idea. And, soon after that, it will get even more exciting. :ph34r:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Wouldn't it just be easier if Groundspeak just added a new user privilege "Trackable Moderator" - a group of individuals around the world keen to keep trackable inventories correct. These users have the ability to mark trackables missing, but are otherwise ordinary users just like the rest of us.

 

Concerned users can contact a "TB Mod" and let them know about a trackable they think is missing, and when that "TB Mod" gets around to it, they can look at it and, using their human judgement, mark it as missing if they feel that is the correct course of action.

 

This way, if there is no response from the CO or TO, an already busy reviewer doesn't need to be bothered by this. Additionally, there is no automated system to make automated mistakes and no TB owners getting "Your TB is possibly missing" messages every other day.

That would be good, especially of a CO and TO is contacted in advance. Many Geocachers seem to have zero respect for property rights, and your idea would show due respect to the property owners, who are the CO and to the TO. Either or both may wish to leave the Ghost in place, for any of a bunch of valid reasons. If it were my TB and I wished for its Ghost to remain, I'd be pretty torqued if unrelated parties "automatically" deleted it for their convenience.

 

But I don't know how or if Groundspeak would enlist Volunteers for this purpose. You'd need someone who is thoughtful and balanced about it, not merely enforcing rules.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
If you can detail something you don't like about it (not just "I don't like it" or "It will break everything"), maybe we can come up with possible solutions.

 

1) There is something glaringly Missing (and not even Marked Missing) from this whole discussion. The fact that nobody noticed and nobody cares is disturbing. Gold star to whoever even mentions it. Hint: No way it would be part of the New Feature, so it's definitely a deal-breaker to honest Geocachers.

 

2) Thieves wait for the item to be Marked Missing, a sign that the TO gave up on it, considering it permission to keep it. Some TOs rightfully refuse, and would rather leave it at the last honest log than give up. That’s none of your business. Buzz off. As it were. :anicute:

 

I don't honestly think thieves really care about permission to keep a stolen bug, implied or otherwise. What's the point of insisting a trackable remains forever marked in a place where it hasn't been seen in months?

 

But hey, if it's considered acceptable to demand a listing remains long after it's known to be false, maybe cache owners should do the same thing and demand their caches remain active even when they have clearly been missing for months?

 

3) My objection is that nobody demands that it’s the Taker’s responsibility to make a decent log. The scorn upon TO/CO and requirements upon GS to reprogram the site, are misplaced. Make the Takers go fix the logs.

 

A little education would work, this idea is to fill the gaps when people get it wrong. Some time back I suggested an addition to the base proposal that would hopefully make it easier to log bugs out of caches. But it's been so long I don't suppose Groundspeak are ever going to do anything about it.

 

4) How come although “There Are No Rules”, and “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”, there’s this strict requirement to have correct Trackable Logs? Why the selective application of “If You Don’t Like It, Don’t Look At It”?

 

Strawman. There's a big difference between deciding that I'm too fat to attempt the cache at the top of a tall tree, and deciding to look for a cache that has a travel bug in it.

 

5) The exact same people who cannot produce a proper log are suddenly diligent enough to perform this [New Feature]? Wrong.

 

Strawman. The people who can't figure how to log a trackable, and the people who steal trackables, are not the same as the people who will use the new feature.

 

6) And why is it such a necessity to have accurate Inventories in this one area only? Has anybody ever demanded accuracy in Swag trade logs (to overwhelming support)?

 

Strawman. Swag isn't trackable. Nobody pays a visit to a cache to find a McToy. The fact Pocket Queries have an option to find caches that have travel bugs suggest people may visit caches to retrieve bugs, so it's not a huge ask that bug inventories be kept at least reasonably accurate.

 

7) Someone takes a TB then forgets, then it’s automatically Marked Missing. They want to show they Retrieved it from that cache, but can’t. They’ve kind of scrambled the logs while trying to figure it out. Prepare for more cachers arriving in the Forums asking how to fix it.

 

So they "grab" the bug, and the problem goes away.

 

8) This [New Feature] will result in even more Missing Trackables. Thieves get an accurate menu, and honest (OK, the ones who delay logs for a long time) cachers get a confusing system.

 

Nonsense. There's no point worrying what thieves might or might not do - if you're worried about thieves you shouldn't release bugs. Cachers get a less confusing system because when a cache says there's a bug in the inventory there's more chance that there actually is a bug in the inventory.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it just be easier if Groundspeak just added a new user privilege "Trackable Moderator" - a group of individuals around the world keen to keep trackable inventories correct. These users have the ability to mark trackables missing, but are otherwise ordinary users just like the rest of us.

 

Concerned users can contact a "TB Mod" and let them know about a trackable they think is missing, and when that "TB Mod" gets around to it, they can look at it and, using their human judgement, mark it as missing if they feel that is the correct course of action.

 

This way, if there is no response from the CO or TO, an already busy reviewer doesn't need to be bothered by this. Additionally, there is no automated system to make automated mistakes and no TB owners getting "Your TB is possibly missing" messages every other day.

That would be good, especially of a CO and TO is contacted in advance. Many Geocachers seem to have zero respect for property rights, and your idea would show due respect to the property owners, who are the CO and to the TO. Either or both may wish to leave the Ghost in place, for any of a bunch of valid reasons. If it were my TB and I wished for its Ghost to remain, I'd be pretty torqued if unrelated parties "automatically" deleted it for their convenience.

 

But I don't know how or if Groundspeak would enlist Volunteers for this purpose. You'd need someone who is thoughtful and balanced about it, not merely enforcing rules.

 

Just out of interest, what reason is there for wanting a trackable to continue to appear in a cache inventory when it's known to not be in that cache? You refer to "a bunch of valid reasons" but I'm struggling to think of very many.

Link to comment

I think this feature, as described in the first post, is the perfect way to enhance the trackable experience for the cacher, the CO, and the trackable owners. I am the type of person who posts a note on each trackable's page that I don't find inside geocaches. I let the owner know that their trackable is missing and kindly give them instructions on how to mark it as missing. And while I cut and paste this reply, it still takes a lot of my time out of the week. A process that ghosts the text at a glance while also giving a 90 day action deadline takes all that extra effort off of people like me. And there are a lot of people like me that post these helpful notes.

Link to comment

I was going to post a new thread for an idea around trackables and log entries. Since it incorporates this thread's proposed (obviously-advantageous and excellent) feature, I will use it as plausible deniability for the bump.

 

I would like the section of the log page that deals with trackables to look like this:

 

c7c813d3-8639-4bd8-9435-6a05012ff6d5.png

Link to comment

I was going to post a new thread for an idea around trackables and log entries. Since it incorporates this thread's proposed (obviously-advantageous and excellent) feature, I will use it as plausible deniability for the bump.

 

I would like the section of the log page that deals with trackables to look like this:

 

 

Domo!!!

 

I love this idea. Yet, even better, I would rather put the "Picked up any Trackables?" ABOVE the "Dropped off any Trackables?"!

 

Sadly, although listed as SUBMITTED (21313), and me posting on both cache logs AND the TB page about it's "Missing" for every unfound TB I did not encounter, I do not have much hope of this to improve...

Link to comment

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

+1. But hey, lost TBs are replaced by new TBs, which need to be purchased. So I suspect the economics are not on our side :(. I urge all TB owners to send out "replacements" that recycle the original tracking code, once the initial TB/coin hasn't been heard of for 2 years. If the original turns up, all the better, in my experience, the current holder of the duplicate won't mind one bit if he/she is asked to take it out of circulation. That's the only way (I guess) that we can tilt the economics of this to our favour. Less sales of new TBs -> more interest in lost TBs by The Powers Who Rule

Link to comment

I left notes on 27 TBs today that were missing. Most have been gone for over a year.

 

So far I've left a total of around 800 such notes.

 

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

Me too. ;)

 

Today, on the Geocaching facebook page Groundspeak have a post which starts, "Didya know... you can search for nearby Geocoins on Geocaching.com?"

 

Guess what?

 

One comment - "Which would be fine if 90% of the trackables listed in caches wereactually there" has already got 24 'likes'.

 

MrsB :)

Link to comment

I left notes on 27 TBs today that were missing. Most have been gone for over a year.

 

So far I've left a total of around 800 such notes.

 

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

Me too. ;)

 

Today, on the Geocaching facebook page Groundspeak have a post which starts, "Didya know... you can search for nearby Geocoins on Geocaching.com?"

 

Guess what?

 

One comment - "Which would be fine if 90% of the trackables listed in caches wereactually there" has already got 24 'likes'.

 

MrsB :)

 

Here too ...

 

[X] LIKE

Link to comment

Make trackables travel is one of the funniest thing for me in GeoCaching it's a shame that:

- trackable info has been remove from search results recently

- the poor way they are "manageable" on gc.com. I suggest : any user that has logged a cache as find can mark TB has "not seen in the cache" and then after 3 kind of this mark => the TB should be removed from the cache inventory and the owner informed.

 

What do you thing?

Link to comment

We only found 100+ caches so far but we already had the experience that an automatic ghost TB removal feature is really missing. Half of the caches indicating TBs did not have one or at least had an inaccurate much too high number of items listed.

 

Sometimes the last TB-Logs happend many month ago and with a lot of remarks that the TBs are missing.

 

I like the idea of the original post and ask Groundspeak as well to implement such a mechanism.

 

The named downsides are easy to prevent:

  • No static timeframe for caches with little traffic. Just count a certain number of visitors. If noone discovered a TB, grabbed it or marked it as missing, it's obviously missing.
  • Missing is no harm at all since anyone is able to rediscover the TB.

No more disappointed faces of our little GeoCachers after a challenging hike should be worth the implementation. Please, Groundspeak ... look at these many comments. How can we all be wrong?

 

Thanks in advance, B51s

Link to comment

...No more disappointed faces of our little GeoCachers... who think trackables are swag, is probably in the top five on why they turn up missing.

- With trackables being the only treasure left in the "real-world treasure hunt" of caches today...

 

Improve swag. Save the trackables. :)

Link to comment

The named downsides are easy to prevent:

  • No static timeframe for caches with little traffic. Just count a certain number of visitors. If noone discovered a TB, grabbed it or marked it as missing, it's obviously missing.
  • Missing is no harm at all since anyone is able to rediscover the TB.

 

 

Good idea on the first one...though that could also be problematic if a group comes through, many of whom don't actually sign it. Suddenly you have a trackable being "ghosted" after a group of five cachers goes through on a busy day of caching. In reality it probably ought to be a combination of time and number of cachers...say once five cachers have logged a find on it, but no sooner than 30 days after being placed inside the cache.

Link to comment
Good idea on the first one...though that could also be problematic if a group comes through, many of whom don't actually sign it. Suddenly you have a trackable being "ghosted" after a group of five cachers goes through on a busy day of caching. In reality it probably ought to be a combination of time and number of cachers...say once five cachers have logged a find on it, but no sooner than 30 days after being placed inside the cache.
Or maybe instead of counting finds, and instead of counting days, the system could count days on which find(s) occurred.

 

So if 5 logs are posted on the same day, that is only one day on which find(s) occurred. And if 5 logs are posted on different days, then that is 5 days on which find(s) occurred. And so on.

Link to comment

Too many time frames posted above. The purpose seems to be to give cachers a way to ghost trackables. The suggestion (iirc) asks for a 90 day 'waiting period' from the date of ghosting until the item goes into 'missing' status. PLENTY of time for it to be recorded correctly.

 

Besides GS having issues trying to fix searches that didn't need 'fixing' ... it seems their only concern is that trackables are shown as active in a cache to attract cachers - even if they aren't there.

 

This has been a problem for years - and getting worse each month. This suggestion has been revived over and over for years now - yet GS does nothing. Hard to understand. They will fix what isn't broken and won't address what IS broken ... :(

Link to comment

Too many time frames posted above. The purpose seems to be to give cachers a way to ghost trackables. The suggestion (iirc) asks for a 90 day 'waiting period' from the date of ghosting until the item goes into 'missing' status. PLENTY of time for it to be recorded correctly.

 

Besides GS having issues trying to fix searches that didn't need 'fixing' ... it seems their only concern is that trackables are shown as active in a cache to attract cachers - even if they aren't there.

 

This has been a problem for years - and getting worse each month. This suggestion has been revived over and over for years now - yet GS does nothing. Hard to understand. They will fix what isn't broken and won't address what IS broken ... :(

 

Yeah...these days it seems like the only time I see trackables is at events when people carry around bags full of them to "share". The trackables game is slowly being taken out of physical caches and is almost exclusive to events now.

Link to comment

Too many time frames posted above. The purpose seems to be to give cachers a way to ghost trackables. The suggestion (iirc) asks for a 90 day 'waiting period' from the date of ghosting until the item goes into 'missing' status. PLENTY of time for it to be recorded correctly.

 

Besides GS having issues trying to fix searches that didn't need 'fixing' ... it seems their only concern is that trackables are shown as active in a cache to attract cachers - even if they aren't there.

 

This has been a problem for years - and getting worse each month. This suggestion has been revived over and over for years now - yet GS does nothing. Hard to understand. They will fix what isn't broken and won't address what IS broken ... :(

 

Yeah...these days it seems like the only time I see trackables is at events when people carry around bags full of them to "share". The trackables game is slowly being taken out of physical caches and is almost exclusive to events now.

And I think most wouldn't mind that - if they were only trackables belonging to them.

Link to comment

 

Yeah...these days it seems like the only time I see trackables is at events when people carry around bags full of them to "share". The trackables game is slowly being taken out of physical caches and is almost exclusive to events now.

 

I send out the TBs but take my coins to events to be discovered.

Link to comment

I left notes on 27 TBs today that were missing. Most have been gone for over a year.

 

So far I've left a total of around 800 such notes.

 

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

Closing in on 900, and that's despite having the least finds to date of any year since we started.

 

Perhaps this feature will be added before we reach 1,000 missing TBs encountered.

Link to comment

I left notes on 27 TBs today that were missing. Most have been gone for over a year.

 

So far I've left a total of around 800 such notes.

 

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

Closing in on 900, and that's despite having the least finds to date of any year since we started.

 

Perhaps this feature will be added before we reach 1,000 missing TBs encountered.

 

We post 'em when we find 'em missing. Wish it really MEANT something.

Link to comment

Just a note of demonstration that something needs to be done.

 

I stopped by a TB Hotel cache in MN yesterday that listed 9 trackable. I found none. I had a trackable that I was going to drop, but I refuse drop someone's TB and have it become #10.

 

I just checked out the cache and some of them have been logged as missing for up to 5 YEARS! I had always personally thought that marking missing trackables as such was part of maintaining a cache.

Link to comment

Just a note of demonstration that something needs to be done.

 

I stopped by a TB Hotel cache in MN yesterday that listed 9 trackable. I found none. I had a trackable that I was going to drop, but I refuse drop someone's TB and have it become #10.

 

I just checked out the cache and some of them have been logged as missing for up to 5 YEARS! I had always personally thought that marking missing trackables as such was part of maintaining a cache.

If they were marked missing, it would be a lot harder to tell which cache to not drop a TB into.

Link to comment

Just a note of demonstration that something needs to be done.

 

I stopped by a TB Hotel cache in MN yesterday that listed 9 trackable. I found none. I had a trackable that I was going to drop, but I refuse drop someone's TB and have it become #10.

 

I just checked out the cache and some of them have been logged as missing for up to 5 YEARS! I had always personally thought that marking missing trackables as such was part of maintaining a cache.

The cache description alone would have kept us from placing any.

Out of only five sentences, one is, "PLEASE--if you take a coin or TB out you need to put a Coin or TB back in."

Odd that it's skipped by the Reviewer all this time...

 

I kinda agree with kunarion on this one. :huh:

If it wasn't for the trackables still listed, there could be some who wouldn't realize that cache has issues.

Link to comment
The cache description alone would have kept us from placing any.

Out of only five sentences, one is, "PLEASE--if you take a coin or TB out you need to put a Coin or TB back in."

Odd that it's skipped by the Reviewer all this time...

On the optimistic side, maybe someone organized a TB prison break and didn't log the TB movements to avoid retaliation from the TB prison owner. The TBs might be sitting in other caches waiting for someone to retrieve and grab them.

 

But I wouldn't leave a TB in a TB prison either. I might free a few TBs if I could help them with their goals though.

Link to comment
If they were marked missing, it would be a lot harder to tell which cache to not drop a TB into.

 

In the discussion of this (excellent) feature suggestion, there was talk of showing the trackable inventory as it is now, but with the "ghosted" trackable names in a strike-out font which I believe would make it much easier to tell which are the traveller-dangerous caches.

Link to comment
If they were marked missing, it would be a lot harder to tell which cache to not drop a TB into.

 

In the discussion of this (excellent) feature suggestion, there was talk of showing the trackable inventory as it is now, but with the "ghosted" trackable names in a strike-out font which I believe would make it much easier to tell which are the traveller-dangerous caches.

 

I support that. Marking it missing can be reserved only for the CO and TO, but marking it with a strikethrough could be for anyone who logs the cache and does not see the trackable inside. It could be as simple as a new log type. Instead of 'Write Note' that nobody reads unless they go the trackable's page, it could be 'Not seen in...' which would be similar to disabling in that it adds the strikethrough to the name. Only difference would be that anyone who then discovers or picks up the trackable would be able to clear it out and re-enable it.

Link to comment
It could be as simple as a new log type.

 

Even easier might be incorporating the functionality into the posting of an existing log type, like this:

 

I was going to post a new thread for an idea around trackables and log entries. Since it incorporates this thread's proposed (obviously-advantageous and excellent) feature, I will use it as plausible deniability for the bump.

 

I would like the section of the log page that deals with trackables to look like this:

 

c7c813d3-8639-4bd8-9435-6a05012ff6d5.png

Link to comment
It could be as simple as a new log type.

 

Even easier might be incorporating the functionality into the posting of an existing log type, like this:

 

I was going to post a new thread for an idea around trackables and log entries. Since it incorporates this thread's proposed (obviously-advantageous and excellent) feature, I will use it as plausible deniability for the bump.

 

I would like the section of the log page that deals with trackables to look like this:

 

c7c813d3-8639-4bd8-9435-6a05012ff6d5.png

Doubtful you'll ever get the "report missing" part in, but since you already have to scroll through trackables in inventory just to log, "Picked up" I guess can't hurt.

Link to comment

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

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.

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.

 

 

I am wondering if we could get some indication from TPTB regarding any changes, or if this is still the status quo?

Link to comment

I love it too, the OP's idea is perfect. It is abuse-proof - what could be abused? Yes, someone might intentionally mark the item as missing (although it still is in the cache) so it would go into the "ghosted" state. But the next cacher after him who discovers or retrieves that trackable will bring it back to the normal state.

 

The idea is very well described and I think it would work perfectly. Many caches would finally get rid off missing trackables.

Link to comment

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

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.

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.

 

 

I am wondering if we could get some indication from TPTB regarding any changes, or if this is still the status quo?

 

Now I am wondering if we could get an update on the progress of indicating to us whether or not there has been a commitment to put this on the development schedule?

 

Its OK to say no -- that way we know you are reading these threads and will stop bumping them.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

I applaud the sustained effort by those wanting this implemented, but the cynical side of me says that after years of no communication at all, it's pretty clear that GS has no intention of doing anything to systematically clear cache inventories of trackables that have long since vanished. I also would not be shocked if GS decided to dump the entire trackable concept and let someone else manage it (like pathtags). Then it makes sense that they have not done anything.

 

Otherwise, this seems like a good solution to the missing trackable issue and doesn't seem to be terribly hard to implement...so, yeah, a simple yes or no would be nice.

Link to comment

I left notes on 27 TBs today that were missing. Most have been gone for over a year.

 

So far I've left a total of around 800 such notes.

 

This feature is still needed -- and I still request it.

 

Closing in on 900, and that's despite having the least finds to date of any year since we started.

 

Perhaps this feature will be added before we reach 1,000 missing TBs encountered.

We are now over 1,000 notes for missing TBs.

 

Still waiting on an answer from Groundspeak. It would be nice to have one, one of these days.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 15
×
×
  • Create New...