Why Auto-Visit?

[+kunarion]

If so, then many people don't even realize they are dragging TBs around and auto logging them into every cache they find.

There was (or is) another topic about what causes Auto-Visits, currently about four different things. But the common suggestion was that people doing mass Auto-Visits are doing them on purpose, which surprised me so much, I started this separate topic.

[+kunarion]

maybe we can discuss why it is a real problem

Some people have recently noticed a surprise mass of "X took it to Y" logs on a TB, and asked what was going on. It looked like a computer glitch to me. I couldn't imagine a non-nefarious reason to both hold a TB for months and make robot logs on it without contacting the TB Owner (if the TO had been contacted, they wouldn't need to ask the question). Other people then insisted it's done on purpose, for the great benefit of the TO -- upon reading that, my jaw hit the floor (don't worry, it's fully detachable ).

 

There's a separate topic on "why" and "how" it happens, but one reason it's a problem is, IF the Auto-Visits are Automatic, it's like a PC virus, compounding when more TBs are picked up. You can get a huge list of visits on your TB that never physically happened, and the list keeps growing til the Auto-Visiter himself takes action to stop the "visits". So if you have a list of nothing but "took it to" logs, you 110% cannot be sure the TB is still alive. Contrast that with a TB dropped into a container, then logged by another cacher (even if it only says "retrieved" in the log), in which case you have a track point.

Edited April 15, 2012 by kunarion

[+GoShaz]

Gee I hope I am not going to sound like a dummy here but I will try to explain some things.

 

I am actually really fond of moving on TB's. I do try to move them at least 50 km's on from where I got them but and if the opportunity arises I will move them alot more if I can. I don't like to hang on to them for long unless I write on the log that I will be taking it to a certain place in a certain period of time.

 

My iphone as far as know does not auto vist tb's unless I actually tell it to. Previous to the last Geocaching update there was no option to make any kind of comment in the visit log or take a picture etc. Now when a user decides to visit a bug/coin they can make a comment but I don't think they can take a picture.

 

I can understand frustration at multiple visiting logs. Recently I released a but with a goal of visiting each USA state. Fairly quickly it was picked up by a kind man who proceeded to take it with him while he visited the rest of Australia and when in New Zealand he dropped the bug in a cache and then retrieved it. He did this again in the UK before saying "next stop USA". Now as owner of that bug I am absolutely thrilled with that. At first I wondered why he didn't visit the bug in all the caches he visited but now am glad as he visted heaps and it would have clogged up my bugs page.

[+kunarion]

My iphone as far as know does not auto vist tb's unless I actually tell it to. Previous to the last Geocaching update there was no option to make any kind of comment in the visit log or take a picture etc. Now when a user decides to visit a bug/coin they can make a comment but I don't think they can take a picture.

That's much like my GPSr (Oregon 550). There's no way to send a picture directly. It's at most a Field Note, and so tough to type on the screen, I just use a couple of words in a Field Note. Any photos are usually on a separate camera, and need to be sized, color-corrected, whatever. It's not at all automatic, it's in addition to however the log was made.

 

I have to go out of my way to add a photo into any log, and I do that from my desktop PC, using the website, regardless of how the original log was sent. If I were moving a TB all over the world as a huge favor to the TB holder, I can't imaging not ever adding a jot of text nor a photo especially, even if my smart phone can't send a photo. I'd add the photos the usual way.

 

Most people never add any photo even if doing all the logs manually, and the majority of logs on my TBs have nothing but default text (for all I know most people are annoyed seeing photos in their TB logs, and that's the reason they don't send any to mine). But I would hope that a massive Auto-Visit could be treated as a special case. If someone's holding a TB for a long time and bringing it to hundreds of caches, they should try to make at least some kind of human log at some interval (by PC, editing Auto-Visit logs when the opportunity comes). Otherwise it looks more like a computer error than TB mileage, or frankly, like a psychological disorder.

Edited April 16, 2012 by kunarion

[+U&MeMnt2B]

I have only read about half-way through this topic but decided to respond to the ongoing questions as to why log visits to every cache and why not write a note or upload a picture to each of those logs. If my reply is redundant to someone else's reply after the point I stopped reading, I apologize.

 

I can't speak to the auto-log function of the phone apps seeing as we don't use one. But, another question raised here is, "Why would someone choose to dip in every cache found?"

 

As a couple of posters have indicated, they like to see their TBs gaining miles even if it's just a visit to a cache. It seems others don't care about miles and are just annoyed with any activity in their logs other than drops and picks. Just as it is with cachers playing the game the way they choose, so is it with TB owners. Most of the TBs we pick up don't have an indicated mission or have a very vague mission such as "to travel from cache to cache". Is not the very nature of any TRAVEL bug, regardless of its ultimate mission, to travel? Is a bug only traveling when it is picked up and when it is dropped? If that's the case, then what is it doing during it's time with us when it's not being picked up or dropped? How is the holder of a bug suppose to know the bug's owner does or does not wish to have their travelers gaining miles through visits if they don't specifically indicate their wishes in the description or the mission?

 

We do dip all TBs that we have in our possession into every cache we find. We do actually have them in our possession at the time as we carry them in our "swag bag". Most of the time we try not to keep a traveler for more than a few days to a couple of weeks. However, there are a few factors that may cause us to carry a bug for longer than any of us would like. Similar to an earlier poster's situation, we often find ourselves locating micro after micro after micro (an annoyance for another topic). For that reason, we certainly do not pick up every bug we find. We also try to look at a cache's recent activity level before dropping OR picking up a bug in an effort to not "trap" it for a long period of time. An even more important factor, IMO, is that if a bug's mission is to travel abroad, for instance, we may try to move it nearer to a major airport or at least to a more active caching area (during the "off-season" Cape Cod doesn't see a lot of activity). We are often caching near more major areas while visiting family or conducting business so we may hold a traveler until one of those visits in an effort to help it on its mission. If, during the time we have possession of a TB, any owner was to contact us and indicate that they wanted us to stop dipping, we certainly would accomodate those wishes.

 

Regarding the lack of logs/photos with each of the visit logs... we don't typically write a generic "TFTC" log on our finds. We don't see where that type of log adds any great value to our history or the history of the cache we have found. Likewise, I understand how a blank visited log adds little or no value to a traveler's history. But, if we only found one or two caches during a day it was because our available time for caching was short and often that means our available time for logging is short as well. Other times, we may visit 10-20 caches, or in a few cases even more, in a day which makes for a lot of typing just to log the caches. I suppose we could copy and paste our "Found it" logs to the TB logs. Would that be a better, or at least more acceptable, solution for those who have indicated that they don't mind dipping as long as there is a story? BTW, through one-on-one conversations that I have had, there seems to be a larger percentage of TB owners (at least in our area) than is represented here that would rather see movement of any kind than to have a stagnant bug sitting in a cache or in someones hands not gaining miles.

 

Perhaps a couple of solutions would be revisions to the geocaching site...

1-A flag that a TB owner could set indicating that the bug was not to "visit" any cache or that "visited" logs would be ignored. I, for one, would still take the time to drop and pick up the bug at any cache that I deemed significant to the TBs history or that I thought would be of interest to the TB owner.

2-An auto cross post of logs and pics from any caches that a TB visits. Those logs could still be editted on the TB page to personalize it to the bug if a cacher chose to do so or a note could still be written immediately following the visit log. That would at least give the owner and any other reader of the logs a more detailed history of the traveler's adventures through the experience of the holder.

 

In the end, there is likely always going to be some sort of conflict. As I stated, every cacher may play as they choose and every TB owner may wish to play as they choose... unfortunately, unless someone figures out some way to pair cachers and TBs of similar styles, the individual cacher actually possessing a TB is ultimately calling the shots. Maybe we could color code cachers and travelers to match those who like visits and those who don't.

 

"Me"

 

EDIT: I'm sorry for the novel... it was very late and I guess I rambled.

Edited April 28, 2012 by U&MeMnt2B

[+kunarion]

I can't speak to the auto-log function of the phone apps seeing as we don't use one. But, another question raised here is, "Why would someone choose to dip in every cache found?"

 

But this topic is more than just "why visit". It's "why visit against anything reasonable, against all TB etiquette?". Like this:

 

"In July, a cacher picks it up and carries it around for 9 months logging 13 pages of "took it to" logs that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the mission of the trackable. A note is sent asking him to please release it. The reply is that he's logged over 3000 miles on the trackable and still has more to log." (Is this kind of thing actually fun for the Trackable Owner?)

 

AND there's this:

"had been to Alberta last fall; left it in the cache; forgot he left it there. Thought it was somewhere in his GC bag.

He replied that the cache he had left it in was it's 50th. But he had visited it to 330 more caches in Nova Scotia; when it was in Alberta." (Due to ZERO photos/text logs, the TO could not know the status of the TB). In both of these scenarios, the TB may be long gone, yet is getting all kinds of mileage.

 

How does a TB Owner tell the difference between a TB being moved, and a TB lost, from 13 pages of "took it to" logs? How could a TO know that you're not using an auto-logging phone app? ...and, with this in mind, the unanswered question remains... "In what specific ways are pages & pages of 'took it to' logs a favor to the Trackable Owner?"

Edited April 28, 2012 by kunarion

[HerahL]

We do actually have them in our possession at the time as we carry them in our "swag bag". Most of the time we try not to keep a traveler for more than a few days to a couple of weeks. However, there are a few factors that may cause us to carry a bug for longer than any of us would like.

 

This is perfectly reasonable, and no one has complained at all about this kind of dipping. You have no reason to take anything in this thread personally. It's about a very different kind of behavior.

[+moop]

I have a trackable that's been carried around by a cacher since last July leaving a trail of generic visit logs. Out of curiosity, I checked a few of the cache logs. I was surprised to find that some were DNFs. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it a bug?

[+U&MeMnt2B]

I can't speak to the auto-log function of the phone apps seeing as we don't use one. But, another question raised here is, "Why would someone choose to dip in every cache found?"

 

But this topic is more than just "why visit". It's "why visit against anything reasonable, against all TB etiquette?".

Ok, so what exactly is TB etiquette? Where is it defined? I would think that common sense should say that holding onto a TB for eons goes against any etiquette... not to mention that I've actually seen offical notes somewhere about that. Is is "officially" listed somewhere that it is in bad form to consistently dip a TB in the caches that the holder finds? If not, how would a cacher learn of this etiquette if he/she is not one to troll the forums and doesn't attend enough events for the topic to have come up in conversation with other cachers? Believe me, having read many of the posts in this thread I understand why persistent dipping would be annoying if the TB is held for an extended period of time by a very active cacher... at this point, I'm somewhat (only somewhat) playing devils advocate.

 

"In July, a cacher picks it up and carries it around for 9 months..... A note is sent asking him to please release it. The reply is that he's logged over 3000 miles on the trackable and still has more to log."

 

"had been to Alberta last fall; left it in the cache; forgot he left it there. Thought it was somewhere in his GC bag."

 

The first is just plain rude and the second is just plain irresponsible behavior.

[+U&MeMnt2B]

We do actually have them in our possession at the time as we carry them in our "swag bag". Most of the time we try not to keep a traveler for more than a few days to a couple of weeks. However, there are a few factors that may cause us to carry a bug for longer than any of us would like.

 

This is perfectly reasonable, and no one has complained at all about this kind of dipping. You have no reason to take anything in this thread personally. It's about a very different kind of behavior.

I'm not taking anything personally. I'm merely questioning, first, how is it a different kind of behavior just because I actually click to visit at each and every cache? As kunarion asked...

 

How could a TO know that you're not using an auto-logging phone app?

 

And, second, for my own benefit as well as for those who may be lurking, I'm curious if the visits are legit is the consistent dipping really bad form regardless of whether they are auto-visits or manual visits? The question has been posed multiple times in the thread as to how are numerous "took it to" logs, especially blank logs, beneficial to the TO. I do understand at least a part of the sentiment behind the question. Which is why I've asked if it would be any better if the cache logs auto-cross posted to the "took it to" logs?

 

I recognize another concern being raised is not knowing whether the cacher actually still has possession of the TB, but again the same concern should be there whether auto-visiting or manually visiting. This one is all about the integrety of the individual cacher. If a TB is in my online inventory but I no longer have physical possesion of it, every time I click "All visited" a "took it to" log will still be generated. No amount of discussion or guideline revision will ever cause certain people to act more responsibly.

[+kunarion]

"In July, a cacher picks it up and carries it around for 9 months..... A note is sent asking him to please release it. The reply is that he's logged over 3000 miles on the trackable and still has more to log."

 

"had been to Alberta last fall; left it in the cache; forgot he left it there. Thought it was somewhere in his GC bag."

 

The first is just plain rude and the second is just plain irresponsible behavior.

Looks like you already understand TB etiquette.

 

Most people move TBs soon, communicate with TOs, and just do it in a way that the TOs will enjoy. The other people are the reason I started the topic.

Edited April 30, 2012 by kunarion

[+U&MeMnt2B]

"In July, a cacher picks it up and carries it around for 9 months..... A note is sent asking him to please release it. The reply is that he's logged over 3000 miles on the trackable and still has more to log."

 

"had been to Alberta last fall; left it in the cache; forgot he left it there. Thought it was somewhere in his GC bag."

 

The first is just plain rude and the second is just plain irresponsible behavior.

Looks like you already understand TB etiquette.

Ugh, I can't have you thinking that... I'm going to hunt down one of your TBs just so I can have it visit all my finds retroactively

[+BlueDeuce]

n the end, there is likely always going to be some sort of conflict. As I stated, every cacher may play as they choose and every TB owner may wish to play as they choose... unfortunately, unless someone figures out some way to pair cachers and TBs of similar styles, the individual cacher actually possessing a TB is ultimately calling the shots.

 

I don't buy that for a second. Let me ask you this, If there wasn't a visit option would you be logging bugs through every cache?

[HerahL]

We do actually have them in our possession at the time as we carry them in our "swag bag". Most of the time we try not to keep a traveler for more than a few days to a couple of weeks. However, there are a few factors that may cause us to carry a bug for longer than any of us would like.

 

This is perfectly reasonable, and no one has complained at all about this kind of dipping. You have no reason to take anything in this thread personally. It's about a very different kind of behavior.

I'm not taking anything personally. I'm merely questioning, first, how is it a different kind of behavior just because I actually click to visit at each and every cache?

 

If you are making a deliberate choice to click on each bug...you are probably not doing it hundreds of times. If you are actually carrying the bugs with you...you probably don't visit hundreds of caches without dropping them. On those unfortunate occasions when you are forced to carry a bug for an extended period, you probably aren't caching much. Yes, these are assumptions, but I don't think you are generating hundreds of empty logs.

 

It's not the visit log in and of itself that raises concerns; it's page after page of visits, without any sign of rational awareness, that suggests something is wrong. If a bug gets four or five visits, then a drop -- I think that's how it was designed to work. If I saw a visit log with a note, "still looking for a suitable cache -- this one was full of water," then I know my bug is alive and in very good hands.

[+kunarion]

It's not the visit log in and of itself that raises concerns; it's page after page of visits, without any sign of rational awareness, that suggests something is wrong.

+1

 

There's a separate topic about why lots of blank "visits" would be a problem -- for one thing the TO can't tell the difference between accidental or deliberate (whether the current holder even has the TB, or even knows the logs are happening), and probably must take some action at some point (20 pages? 50 pages?).

 

But this topic was spun off when I was told "of course all auto-visits are deliberate", and I was like, "No way", and they were all like, "Way", and so I made this topic to ask what the deal is. And then I found out while some are on purpose (caused by ...very focused cachers), most are unintentional (as I'd suspected). "Auto-Visits" in this case meaning "hundreds of plain "took it to" logs when a stranger's TB is carried around indefinitely, robotically".

Edited April 30, 2012 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

Any one with a smart phone that can confirm or refute this?

Yes, it is confirmed. It is well-documented on this forum by myself. Some rogue Apps (not the Official Geocaching APP) can and do get accidentally or deliberately set to "auto-visit" caches.

 

Cachers claim that people love doing auto-visits because "it proves the TB is still alive", which is in no way proof. It proves that there are a lot of logs, that is all. If a cacher is in fact carrying my TB around with them, doing me a favor by logging everywhere, please do me the favor of placing it into a cache -- or make an occasional human log or photo. Endless "visits" look like a computer glitch, and in some cases, they are.

Edited January 22, 2013 by kunarion

[+maxx borchovski]

I use an android app (not the GS one) and it has the option to auto visit, but this is set to off by default. With regards to TBs and auto visting, when I find a TB I read the critters story, if the cacher wants to specifically move in a direction or in a particular fashion then I set my app accordingly, if not then they auto visit with me and rack up some mileage for the TB.

[+Governor Worf]

I didn't even know that auto-visit was available. How is it done?? Also, is it possible to make it retro??

 

Thanx in advance for any help.

 

GovernorWorf

Edited February 1, 2013 by GovernorWorf

[+kunarion]

I didn't even know that auto-visit was available. How is it done?? Also, is it possible to make it retro??

It's a selection in some Apps. And it's not difficult to log all TBs in your Inventory, each time you log a cache, using the Geocaching website. You could almost certainly do retroactive visits, using PC software like GSAK.

Edited February 1, 2013 by kunarion

[+storchburp]

I'm still new to logging TBs and have only done a few, but have considered logging at every cache in order to add up the miles when its mission is to visit certain kinds of caches. My route may not be the shortest distance between two points.

[+shellbadger]

Does anyone have the date geocaching apps appeared for smartphones? If we can come up with one, I will check into compiling some information on the frequency and duration of serial visits in a sample of my bugs. It may be a bigger job than I would want to tackle, but I'll have a look anyway.

[+kunarion]

Does anyone have the date geocaching apps appeared for smartphones? If we can come up with one, I will check into compiling some information on the frequency and duration of serial visits in a sample of my bugs. It may be a bigger job than I would want to tackle, but I'll have a look anyway.

The main suspect was released on Sept. 30, 2010. But I can't tell exactly when it developed an "auto-visit" option.

 

But "Auto-Visit" is a whole lot more than just a button on an App designed pretty much as an attack on Groundspeak. It's that and oh-so-much more. If you haven't read this whole thread, give it a shot, since it matters to any stats you'd create. This thread is a jaw-dropping thrill-ride through the minds of some people. I try not to think about it.

Edited February 2, 2013 by kunarion

[+shellbadger]

Does anyone have the date geocaching apps appeared for smartphones? If we can come up with one, I will check into compiling some information on the frequency and duration of serial visits in a sample of my bugs. It may be a bigger job than I would want to tackle, but I'll have a look anyway.

The main suspect was released on Sept. 30, 2010. But I can't tell exactly when it developed an "auto-visit" option.

 

But "Auto-Visit" is a whole lot more than just a button on an App designed pretty much as an attack on Groundspeak. It's that and oh-so-much more. If you haven't read this whole thread, give it a shot, since it matters to any stats you'd create. This thread is a jaw-dropping thrill-ride through the minds of some people. I try not to think about it.

 

OK, I have finished a survey of visits of 156 travel bugs. There were 1189 Retrieve/Drop intervals during which 8232 Took-It-To logs were recorded. The data are tabulated at http://tbserialvisits.weebly.com/ I offer no conclusions, just information for discussion.

[+aka Momster]

OK, I have finished a survey of visits of 156 travel bugs. There were 1189 Retrieve/Drop intervals during which 8232 Took-It-To logs were recorded. The data are tabulated at http://tbserialvisits.weebly.com/ I offer no conclusions, just information for discussion.

 

[Regretably the numbers are small because the table is large and there are constraints on the width available for publication. However, there is an option to view the table in full screen, or the table may be printed. These options do not increase the font size by much, but there is some relief.]

 

Shellbadger, regarding the font size, which was still too small for my eyes, the zoom at the bottom did the trick.

 

[+allirab]

(This topic is specifically for TB holders who are making the large numbers of Auto-Visit logs, or intend to. I'm not asking a general question to everyone about the feature. And, though people may not like a lot of auto-logs on their TB pages, no flaming the responders, please. I ask because I truly want to know).

 

If you carry found Travel Bugs and make logs that "automatically visit" every cache you find, please tell us about it.

 

There are many Trackables with pages of "took it to" logs with no photos nor info in the logs, on bugs that have been in your posession for a long time. WHY do you do that? I want to join the fun. Tell me the benefits of doing that. And tell me HOW you do that (is there a setting?).

 

Although I have been geocaching for a year, I have only recently been reading the forums. I had no idea that visiting caches was a problem! Ihave been logging visits (individually and manually) for several reasons. I thought TB owners wanted their trackables to accumulate mileage. I am usually in cities, and I usually come across caches that are too small for travel bugs. I also like to put some thought into where I drop them off, so that they are likely to be picked up and moved on fairly quickly. Or perhaps a TB has a specific mission (wanting to visit stadiums or such) and I think I will be able to take it somewhere like that. I thought the owners wanted all the movement tracked. If there is something in the TB FAQ that I missed, I do apologize.

 

The main reason though, is that I didn't realize the TB logs were not the same as the cache logs. I always post a message and often attach photos for the cache logs, but I thought they were automatically posted to the TB log as well. I guess I'm a technological idiot.

[+kunarion]

I always post a message and often attach photos for the cache logs, but I thought they were automatically posted to the TB log as well.

It would be good if the logs could be viewed in both places somehow (if a cache log has something to say about a TB). Usually, I post a "TB at the cache" photo (that would be for the cache page), and a "TB enjoying the area" or several bugs together (TB-centric photo for the TB log). Otherwise (as you've noticed), the TB logs are basically empty unless extra work is done on the logs. Making customized logs for a cache and a TB at a cache is more than twice the work.

 

What you're doing is actually pretty cool -- making cache logs that include the TB info & photos. The problem many people have is seeing all the empty "took it to" logs, and wondering what exactly is going on with the TB (why no text, no photos, are you ever going to place it, things like that ). But in your case, they are available, but in the cache logs. So that's only an extra step or two to see that the TB is traveling just fine (as opposed to being auto-logged by a computer glitch).

 

I hope you don't think the TB owners are very rude for not acknowledging all the Visits, because Visits are not sent as notifications. The TB Owner hasn't heard from their TB since you picked it up, until you drop it off again, unless they go read the TB's logs for some reason. In the meantime, you've been Visiting lots of caches without the TO appearing to notice. And they probably haven't.

Edited February 21, 2013 by kunarion