[FEATURE] Add date and time to Publish logs

[+frinklabs]

I saw something interesting the the new-style feature request forum, where someone indicated that reviewers in Finland manually time-stamp their publication logs.

 

I had a look at the first cache that appeared when I typed "Finland" in the search-with-google-maps page, and it seems to be true:

 

http://coord.info/GL6JQ32J

 

Would it be possible for that to happen here?

 

The FTF crowd here almost always adds a time stamp to their find log -- it'd be cool to see elapsed time from publication.

[+Flintstone5611]

It might be useful, but I don't see it being necessary. If it is for validation purposes it can still be faked like anything else. As a *coughcough* 'finder of newly published caches' I do usually post a time with my log for the sake of clarity. Neat idea.

[+t4e]

I saw something interesting the the new-style feature request forum, where someone indicated that reviewers in Finland manually time-stamp their publication logs.

 

I had a look at the first cache that appeared when I typed "Finland" in the search-with-google-maps page, and it seems to be true:

 

http://coord.info/GL6JQ32J

 

Would it be possible for that to happen here?

 

The FTF crowd here almost always adds a time stamp to their find log -- it'd be cool to see elapsed time from publication.

 

this is not the right section to post this, nothing will be done about it

 

Dr.House gave you the correct link in the other thread

 

This is slightly off-topic, but directed at the Ontario reviewers so here I shall post.

 

I saw something interesting the the new-style feature request forum, where someone indicated that reviewers in Finland manually time-stamp their publication logs.

 

I had a look at the first cache that appeared when I typed "Finland" in the search-with-google-maps page, and it seems to be true:

 

http://coord.info/GL6JQ32J

 

Would it be possible for that to happen here?

 

The FTF crowd here usually time stamps their find -- it'd be cool to see elapsed time from publication.

 

EDIT: fix spelling, embed link

 

I wonder if this off-topic post might best be served as a feature request? While it's not my cup of tea, clearly there is a subset of players who enjoy the race for FTF and this request may benefit more than just Ontario.

 

You may find the Geocaching.com feature request thread here.

[+northernpenguin]

My first impression here is, why make the reviewers manually do something. This should either be:

 

A - Automatic

B - The start of more interesting manual reviewer processes. For example, we could ask that whenever a reviewer posts a reviewer note, they are required to upload an interesting photo of themselves while posing with a cat.

 

As for the timestamping, it doesn't tell you squat about the FTF log, as that just tells you when the person finally got around to logging it. In the case of smartphones, I've been waiting 16 months for them to get smartphone log timestamps correct to begin with. My logs in the field have been 6-8 hours out, sometimes coming back in the "My Finds" as the next day.

[+frinklabs]

It might be useful, but I don't see it being necessary. If it is for validation purposes it can still be faked like anything else. As a *coughcough* 'finder of newly published caches' I do usually post a time with my log for the sake of clarity. Neat idea.

Thanks! Mostly it was for fun and education. The majority of the FTF crowd does post their find time both written in the physical log and online. It would be within the spirit of fun, and the lack of any upside for doing so, that fakery would be unlikely.

 

 

this is not the right section to post this, nothing will be done about it

 

Dr.House gave you the correct link in the other thread

 

Like I said already, this is not a website feature request, it is a reviewer feature request. This section is the forum for the reviewers at whom this request is directed. The [FEATURE] tag in the subject line was a joke but that doesn't always transmit properly it seems. I tried to figure out how to change the subject of the thread to [REVIEWER FEATURE] but I couldn't see where to edit the topic title.

 

I am certain that had I made this request in the other forum as suggested, the fact that it is NOT a website feature request would have been rapidly pointed out. Likely it would have been indicated that I should probably go to my regional forum to post a reviewer-specific request. I guess I can't win!

 

My first impression here is, why make the reviewers manually do something. This should either be:

 

A - Automatic

B - The start of more interesting manual reviewer processes. For example, we could ask that whenever a reviewer posts a reviewer note, they are required to upload an interesting photo of themselves while posing with a cat.

 

As for the timestamping, it doesn't tell you squat about the FTF log, as that just tells you when the person finally got around to logging it. In the case of smartphones, I've been waiting 16 months for them to get smartphone log timestamps correct to begin with. My logs in the field have been 6-8 hours out, sometimes coming back in the "My Finds" as the next day.

If you read carefully, you will see that the request is for a manual timestamp, by the reviewer, on the published log. The suggestion of automating the process, and subsequent perils, is yours. In fact, it would seem that manually timestamping a log might mitigate some of the temporal disparity described.

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

Meanwhile, I would have no problem whatsoever with pictures of reviewers with cats - I love cats!

 

[+Dr. House]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

Edit: for emphasis.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Dr. House

[+northernpenguin]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

Edit: for emphasis.

 

My sentiments exactly. Let them concentrate on reviewing, and if there's something to be added, like a timestamp, that should be automatic. We're talking about posting a log - adding an entry to an online database ... remembering to tack the time on the end is precisely the sort of task humankind invented computers for in the first place.

 

I certainly don't require a detailed "published" log from the reviewer, giving me an attaboy for my listing. The attaboy is the job of the FTF

[+Tequila]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

Edit: for emphasis.

 

My sentiments exactly. Let them concentrate on reviewing, and if there's something to be added, like a timestamp, that should be automatic. We're talking about posting a log - adding an entry to an online database ... remembering to tack the time on the end is precisely the sort of task humankind invented computers for in the first place.

 

I certainly don't require a detailed "published" log from the reviewer, giving me an attaboy for my listing. The attaboy is the job of the FTF

 

+1. I gave up worrying about FTF's a long time ago. So I am probably a bit biased but I agreed with my two esteemed friends (and viewers of Seinfeld) that the VR's time is better spent on reviewing.

 

.

[+frinklabs]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

It wasn't a statement -- it was a question.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

If there is concern regarding the reviewer's time, then my suggestion will actually help. Typing the the time instead of "Published" will reduce each log entry's keystrokes to 55% of what they were before.

 

Not asking for flowery -- just hh:mm -- that's all. And it is a request, not an expectation.

 

My work email confidentiality disclaimer is a haiku:

 

Email not for you?

Inform us then disregard

Delete forever.

[+Tequila]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

It wasn't a statement -- it was a question.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

If there is concern regarding the reviewer's time, then my suggestion will actually help. Typing the the time instead of "Published" will reduce each log entry's keystrokes to 55% of what they were before.

 

Not asking for flowery -- just hh:mm -- that's all. And it is a request, not an expectation.

 

My work email confidentiality disclaimer is a haiku:

 

Email not for you?

Inform us then disregard

Delete forever.

 

Did your 55% allow for the time required to look at the clock to get the correct time? ")

 

.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Also, I am not suggesting we "make" the reviewers do anything - it was a request. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a curt (and redundant) "Published" is the "TFTC" of the new-cache-log?

 

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect.

It wasn't a statement -- it was a question.

 

The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO.

 

If there is concern regarding the reviewer's time, then my suggestion will actually help. Typing the the time instead of "Published" will reduce each log entry's keystrokes to 55% of what they were before.

 

Not asking for flowery -- just hh:mm -- that's all. And it is a request, not an expectation.

 

My work email confidentiality disclaimer is a haiku:

 

Email not for you?

Inform us then disregard

Delete forever.

 

Did your 55% allow for the time required to look at the clock to get the correct time? ")

 

.

 

Well, if it was *automatic* time stamp, then it becomes a 98% time reduction since they only gotta click once ....

Oh, wait. More like 0.2% time reduction, if you factor in the entire process of pulling cache from review queue, looking it over, checking for land owner issues, reading and interpreting the listing, emailing the CO a few times ....

[CacheShadow]

Here is a link to the Groundspeak Help Centre, specifically the "Instant Notifications - Chasing First to Finds" item.

 

This site feature allows you to create custom notifications to send to any email address you choose - even your email-enabled mobile phone.

You will be alerted immediately when a new cache is published in your area.

We can't promise that you will be first to find (some people just don't sleep) but it will make chasing the goal easier."

 

This existing feature of Geocaching.com will allow you to check the timestamps of "Published" e-mails should you wish to determine which Reviewer has insomnia when a cache is published.

[+CacheDrone]

I'd be willing to do it for special occasion, infrequently. Just like exceptions to the guidelines, if the justification for the request made sense and wasn't being abused then I would do it on a one-off basis.

 

CD

[+Tequila]

Here is a link to the Groundspeak Help Centre, specifically the "Instant Notifications - Chasing First to Finds" item.

 

This site feature allows you to create custom notifications to send to any email address you choose - even your email-enabled mobile phone.

You will be alerted immediately when a new cache is published in your area.

We can't promise that you will be first to find (some people just don't sleep) but it will make chasing the goal easier."

 

This existing feature of Geocaching.com will allow you to check the timestamps of "Published" e-mails should you wish to determine which Reviewer has insomnia when a cache is published.

 

Works great. One caveat: Make sure you set up a notification for each cache type. Wherigo's and Letterboxes are infrequent and it is easy to think you have everything working, only to miss the odd chance at a rarer cache type.

 

.

[+frinklabs]

If it isn't done all the time then there's no point in doing it at all; forget I asked.

 

Since I get the notifications, I can include the time myself. Maybe if I start doing it, the other FTF crowd will follow.

 

Have fun!

 

EDIT: Go ahead and lock this thread.

Edited December 7, 2011 by frinklabs

[+Avernar]

Meanwhile, I would have no problem whatsoever with pictures of reviewers with cats - I love cats!

 

"Reviewer with cats". So, which one in the picture is the reviewer?

[+Avernar]

I was mistaken. Those ARE the reviewers!