+cwgrizz Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Just noticed that some had logged finds on my caches with today's date, but when I looked at their profiles the date listed for the "Last Date Visited" is as much as three months in the past. Not using a smart phone or any of the apps myself, is this a result of logging using a smart phone? Or is there another explanation for the discrepancy in dates? Thanks in advance for educating me. Quote Link to comment
+JesandTodd Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Probably. I know I don't show up on audit logs of PM caches when I view them on my iPhone... Quote Link to comment
kanchan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 How does that matter to you? Quote Link to comment
+justmeg Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 If their name is on your log at the cache at that date, then everything is ok, isn't it? I haven't logged with my smartphone so I don't know but as long as the log is signed on the right date then I don't see a problem Quote Link to comment
+Mitragorz Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 How does that matter to you? Why do you care? Quote Link to comment
ao318 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yes, if a person logs from their phone it does not directly access the site as if you were doing it from your computer. Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 is this a result of logging using a smart phone? A premium member can look at the GPX (if it is one of the 20 most recent log) and examine the log time. If the log time is anything other than 1900 hrs during daylight saving time in Pacific timezone, or 2000 hrs during standard time, it is very likely logged from a smartphone. Quote Link to comment
+Glenn Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 How does that matter to you? Isn't the "Last Date Visited" how everyone determines if a cacher is "active" or not. I can foresee some negative consequences if the "Last Date Visited" is incorrect. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 And let's not forget we can now post logs via GSAK V8.1.0.10, which would also eliminate the need to visit the site directly. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 How does that matter to you? Isn't the "Last Date Visited" how everyone determines if a cacher is "active" or not. I can foresee some negative consequences if the "Last Date Visited" is incorrect. This is correct. I hast seen reviewers archive caches, or threaten to do the same, based on last log-in date. Quote Link to comment
+cwgrizz Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why do I care?? After noticing the discrepancy, it made me wonder if I should ever post a NA on a cache that has a series of DNF's and the CO is shown in their profile as not visiting for a year. I am usually very hesitant to post a NA unless I see the signs of inactivity. Also if it looks like they are not active, I will mark that cache off of my list to look for again, but if the date is not correct it may lead to false assumptions. Thanks for the possible reasons for this-------------Hope GS finds a fix for the discrepancy. Quote Link to comment
+Totem Clan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why do I care?? After noticing the discrepancy, it made me wonder if I should ever post a NA on a cache that has a series of DNF's and the CO is shown in their profile as not visiting for a year. I am usually very hesitant to post a NA unless I see the signs of inactivity. Also if it looks like they are not active, I will mark that cache off of my list to look for again, but if the date is not correct it may lead to false assumptions. Thanks for the possible reasons for this-------------Hope GS finds a fix for the discrepancy. That's why you post an NM and then send an email first. Then if there is no contact you can post an NA. Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Why do I care?? After noticing the discrepancy, it made me wonder if I should ever post a NA on a cache that has a series of DNF's and the CO is shown in their profile as not visiting for a year. I am usually very hesitant to post a NA unless I see the signs of inactivity. Also if it looks like they are not active, I will mark that cache off of my list to look for again, but if the date is not correct it may lead to false assumptions. Thanks for the possible reasons for this-------------Hope GS finds a fix for the discrepancy. I'd suggest starting a thread in the Website Bugs forum http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8 Sounds like something GS needs to address, with the increasing number of smartphone-only cachers. Quote Link to comment
+cwgrizz Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Thanks for the possible reasons for this-------------Hope GS finds a fix for the discrepancy. I'd suggest starting a thread in the Website Bugs forum http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8 Sounds like something GS needs to address, with the increasing number of smartphone-only cachers. Now that this has been explained as the reason, I have started a thread in the Website Bugs forum. Thanks, Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.