Just because the "VISIT" option is available...

[+Sagefox]

...it doesn't mean it should be used to log every trackable in your inventory into every cache you visit for an entire year.

 

Does anybody think that two cachers should hang on to one trackable with a specific goal for about a year each, filling up 28 of its 33 pages with USELESS, "visits", take it from the east coast, THROUGH its destination state and then haul it across country and hang on to it for two years?

 

Going to Clarksville, TN

 

Yes, its been said before, but this seems to be about a perfect example of Visits run amok.

 

PLEASE DON'T chain visits together for other people's trackables. It serves no purpose.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes. I've been complaining about that for a while. I have an interesting TB on my Watchlist. (Partly because it was from South Africa and mysteriously appeared in a cache in NJ.) Africa-America Adventures I got very few notes of it placed in caches. Checked it out today, and found it has 33 of 36 pages of log by one cacher in the last three months. And that cacher neither retrieved it nor dropped it off in a cache.

Unfortunately, bulk delete would only be available to the TB owner.

'Visit' was a terrible mistake by GS.

[+Dame Deco]

I don't think it's usually on purpose, though--I think some cell phone apps have that as a default for all trackables in a person's inventory.

[+whh0]

I don't think it is the visit log per se which is the problem. We found a tb which wanted to visit anything to do with trains but most of the sidetracked caches are too small for a tb so we did use the visit option. The problem is the phone app which automatically visits the tb to every cache! I too, have pages and pages of "visited" logs 0.2 km apart with no connection to my tb's goal.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I don't think it is the visit log per se which is the problem. We found a tb which wanted to visit anything to do with trains but most of the sidetracked caches are too small for a tb so we did use the visit option. The problem is the phone app which automatically visits the tb to every cache! I too, have pages and pages of "visited" logs 0.2 km apart with no connection to my tb's goal.

OK... but is there a way to undo/disable that "auto-log" function?

I think that is the point of folks who don't like a (meaningless) visit every 161 meters or 528 feet or so.

 

Visits are good to show that the trackable is still alive and well -- no argument with that -- but each and every cache?

 

And yes, I do understand that many folks use a personal trackable to keep track of their 'caching mileage, the use of an "auto-log" option for that particular trackable is indeed a good option... but for that function to log ALL trackables in their inventory is, well... just lame.

 

There have been some trackable pages I have seen that display something akin to years worth of Visit logs. Sometimes I truly wonder if that cacher hasn't forgotten to log a "Drop" (when they really have), and it is still (virtually) in their inventory... or even lost it not realizing the logs are still being compiled.

Such can be the drawback to "auto-logging".

Edited September 5, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+kunarion]

but is there a way to undo/disable that "auto-log" function?

There's a rogue "free" site attack App that is not approved by Groundspeak. I've seen one instance of someone admitting the setting got activated "accidentally". So I'm guessing that not only is "auto-log" not "on" by default, it can be shut off. But the App is designed to fill the servers with logs. At auto-log #10, the Owner "knows the TB is still alive and well", and at #500, doubts the TB is still in the game.

 

But this issue is part of bigger problem, as suggested by the thread's title: People have a compulsion to click every button.

 

Sometimes I truly wonder if that cacher hasn't forgotten to log a "Drop" (when they really have), and it is still (virtually) in their inventory... or even lost it not realizing the logs are still being compiled.

This might be no big deal if the next taker would log the "Retrieve", which seems to rarely happen in these cases.

Edited September 5, 2013 by kunarion

[+bpwilldo]

So, if I am reading this correctly, the smartphone apps automatically log any trackable in your inventory as visiting. I assume the user found the cache and didn't log a note nor dnf. In addition, in some apps the log is automatic by default and cannot be defeated. If it can be defeated, it is not down to the trackable level. One would think that GS would have it as part of their license agreement that this type of behavior would not be allowed. Of course, it does depend on the holder actually looking at the TO's wants.

 

Do I have this right?

Edited September 6, 2013 by bpwilldo

[+whh0]

So, if I am reading this correctly, the smartphone apps automatically log any trackable in your inventory as visiting. I assume the user found the cache and didn't log a note nor dnf. In addition, in some apps the log is automatic by default and cannot be defeated. If it can be defeated, it is not down to the trackable level. One would think that GS would have it as part of their license agreement that this type of behavior would not be allowed. Of course, it does depend on the holder actually looking at the TO's wants.

 

Do I have this right?

 

You sure do! And if memory serves me default is "on" Though, certainly with the iPhone it is easy to switch off. I think the problem is people just head off without ever checking the settings on their phones...

[+bpwilldo]

So, if I am reading this correctly, the smartphone apps automatically log any trackable in your inventory as visiting. I assume the user found the cache and didn't log a note nor dnf. In addition, in some apps the log is automatic by default and cannot be defeated. If it can be defeated, it is not down to the trackable level. One would think that GS would have it as part of their license agreement that this type of behavior would not be allowed. Of course, it does depend on the holder actually looking at the TO's wants.

 

Do I have this right?

 

You sure do! And if memory serves me default is "on" Though, certainly with the iPhone it is easy to switch off. I think the problem is people just head off without ever checking the settings on their phones...

I know one cacher who uses an iPhone. I have sent that cacher a question about this. I haven't received a reply. Will be interesting to learn if it is part of the initial setup. If not, shame on you GS.

[+kunarion]

Will be interesting to learn if it is part of the initial setup. If not, shame on you GS.

It's a feature of a "free" non-approved rogue App, not Groundspeak's App. Such visits can also be done via PC scripts, but that would probably be with the logger's knowledge.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I know one cacher who uses an iPhone. I have sent that cacher a question about this. I haven't received a reply. Will be interesting to learn if it is part of the initial setup. If not, shame on you GS.

As stated, it is an app (or two) -- not the iPhone or its equivalent.

[+fbingha]

Give us a filter so we can see only the trackables that were actually in a cache.

[+fuzziebear3]

I think sometimes it is coming from the app, but other times is is done intentionally. Even when logging on the PC, you have the 'All Visited' single click option, and I think a lot of cache loggers are also using this.

 

Really, I think they just don't know better, or believe that it is nice to log all the trackables in their bag through every cache they visit. It sort of makes sense. It is not until you are a trackable owner and observe this behavior on one of your owned trackables that you might question its validity; and even then some owners do like the visit logs.

 

I personally have tried to find a balance. If I have your trackable, and it goes with me to an interesting cache (that I don't leave it in), I might give it a visit. If it goes a-traveling and hits up several states, I'll visit in each state before I drop it off some where. But I avoid logging it several times in a day that are only a mile or so apart, and I try to drop it off at a cache or event after just a few outings / days.

[+spockske]

My view is that the "visit" option should only be open to TBs and coins one owns and not other peoples TBs or Coins. The nice thing about doing that for a coin you own is that it gives you a track of your (worldwide)travel route.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

My view is that the "visit" option should only be open to TBs and coins one owns and not other peoples TBs or Coins. The nice thing about doing that for a coin you own is that it gives you a track of your (worldwide)travel route.

Well... what about the cache in a desirable spot (photos) or actual "mission" but the trackable cannot fit into the cache?

No, I like the Visit log, but use it only when I have something meaningful to add, or to show a decent jump in mileage -- not a blank "visited" log.

 

It takes a lot of .1 mile visits to make any mileage.

 

The following map shows a cacher moving one of ours from NE, through CO, WY, MT, WY, SD then to NE, again. A fine example of good "visits". A few, but not too many short hops.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+RJ McKenzie]

I like the visit option. Where I live there aren't many small or regular sized caches to place bugs or coins in. Most caches here are micros. So visiting bugs in the micros I come across insures the owner that I'm still active and still have their bugs or coins.

 

But an option to hide all visit options on your bugs page or any bugs page you look at would be a good thing. Not deleting every log that is a visit.

[+dprovan]

I like the visit option. Where I live there aren't many small or regular sized caches to place bugs or coins in. Most caches here are micros. So visiting bugs in the micros I come across insures the owner that I'm still active and still have their bugs or coins.

I assume you always edit the visit logs, since otherwise the visits assure no one of anything.

 

But an option to hide all visit options on your bugs page or any bugs page you look at would be a good thing. Not deleting every log that is a visit.

I'd like an option that suppresses empty visit logs. Visit logs that say something are just fine with me.

 

If we had either such option, would you want the eliminated visit logs to still show up on the TB's map as a hundred points clustered in a tiny space? I find them equally annoying, but I don't know how hard it would be to keep them from showing up on the map if they're still in the database.

[+SirDonB]

Like some, I use the visit option to show the progression of the TBs trip to the owner. Sometimes I write something, sometimes not. It depends on if I have something to add or not. I do try my best to write something in every log, sometimes there really just isn't anything to write. I tend to find caches every few days or so and make the effort to pass the TB on within a week of retrieval. If I am gonna have it longer, I write a note on the TB Page and email the owner.

 

As to some of the options mentioned, I have not had to deal with this yet since the only 2 I own are in my possession and are for discovery only. Once I get my own coins and bugs out there, I think I would agree that a hide option would be nice for visits.

[+Sagefox]

Most caches here are micros. So visiting bugs in the micros I come across insures the owner that I'm still active and still have their bugs or coins.

 

What time frame are you talking about? If you only hold the trackables for two or three weeks then visiting would not be necessary. If you are holding them for longer than 30 days I suppose the visits are a form of communication in a round-about fashion.

 

In either case the visits are not "real" trackable moves and I don't see a need to post them.

[+Sagefox]

The following map shows a cacher moving one of ours from NE, through CO, WY, MT, WY, SD then to NE, again. A fine example of good "visits". A few, but not too many short hops.

 

I know this activity is here to stay but but there is something that just feels empty about it to me. It certainly is a low risk method of travel but I don't see any element of adventure in it.

[7rxc]

The following map shows a cacher moving one of ours from NE, through CO, WY, MT, WY, SD then to NE, again. A fine example of good "visits". A few, but not too many short hops.

 

I know this activity is here to stay but but there is something that just feels empty about it to me. It certainly is a low risk method of travel but I don't see any element of adventure in it.

 

One way to look at is from the cachers point of view... the adventure is theirs, that is why they log it and to share with you the owner. Perhaps the logs should be part of the cachers account record, that the owner can choose to display or not. That is just a modification of what I've said before. I did not link to the cacher in previous comments. Doing 'visits' similar to photos posted go to one's own Gallery, but available to the CO if wanted.

 

One down side to eliminating currently valid logs is that people might start not logging anything at all. Visits, Retrieves, Drops, DNFs, if they find the owner a bit too fussy for them.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+kunarion]

One down side to eliminating currently valid logs is that people might start not logging anything at all. Visits, Retrieves, Drops, DNFs, if they find the owner a bit too fussy for them.

 

Doug 7rxc

So keeping a TB too long can cause a chain of events leading to improper logs... by the same people who hijacked the TB in the first place?! Do tell.

[+candis&shane]

Well now I feel like the south end of a north bound donkey. I talked to the owner of a tb I found back when I first started geocaching(2 months ago) and he wanted everything logged. So I thought people wanted visits logged for the mileage. Certainly don't want to step on any nerves or anything. Guess I got some splainin' to do

[+kunarion]

Well now I feel like the south end of a north bound donkey. I talked to the owner of a tb I found back when I first started geocaching(2 months ago) and he wanted everything logged. So I thought people wanted visits logged for the mileage. Certainly don't want to step on any nerves or anything. Guess I got some splainin' to do

Usually I see a Retrieve log that says "Going on a nice trip!" followed by 6 months of the most prolific cache visits that cacher has ever made . So I assume that he assumed I was OK if it wasn't placed within 2 weeks. And I just breathe a sigh of relief when it's eventually set free.

 

I don't have all the answers, but would suggest, maybe, a little moderation? The extremes seem to be the concern around here. Any major deviation must be communicated.

 

A boring old "pick it up, place it within 2 weeks" should be the expectation of both Owner and Taker. If the assumption is "hey, it's just a game", all I'm saying is, play the game.

Edited September 23, 2013 by kunarion

[+JesandTodd]

I'd like an option that suppresses empty visit logs. Visit logs that say something are just fine with me.

 

I only visit bugs if I photograph them. So for the people who want to bulk delete visits, you'll probably be deleting your bugs only photographs.

 

But the empty ones.....yes, the empty ones suck!! Pages and pages and pages and pages. I get SO disappointed when I see a bug that I lovely cared for and photographed just fall into the hands of the chronic cache-bug visitor.

 

As for the auto-visit capability...my iPhone can't do it. I have to manually add each bug I want to visit. It's a bit of a pain actually!