audit log

[+The_Incredibles_]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Someone just logged a find on one of my caches, but did not show up on the audit log. Very strange. They also stated they did not have a phone, so that's not it.

[+Ambrosia]

Someone else will give you a precise answer. But I guess it has something to do with another program like gsak.

[cezanne]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Yes, several. The audit log is not complete and therefore the audit log is no argument pro PM-only caches.

 

As far as I know, cachers appear on the audit log only if they view the cache page from the website.

If they get the cache data from PQs or from somewhere else and do their logs not from the cache page, then they should not

show up in the audit log.

 

Cezanne

[+Isonzo Karst]

Per Cezanne, get caches from PQ, log from GSAK, field notes, geocaching.com admin, etc. It's quite possible to never log onto the cache page on Geocaching.com - which is the only thing that audit log shows, page views on Geocaching.com.

 

A PMO cache the owner rather rudely emailed me telling me I hadn't really found his cache, as I not on audit log.

So I posted a new Note, with a ton of pics taken on the hike and on site. Still not appearing on audit log ;-)

Had he asked, instead of accused, I'd have given him some info...

[Mr.Yuck]

Per Cezanne, get caches from PQ, log from GSAK, field notes, geocaching.com admin, etc. It's quite possible to never log onto the cache page on Geocaching.com - which is the only thing that audit log shows, page views on Geocaching.com.

 

A PMO cache the owner rather rudely emailed me telling me I hadn't really found his cache, as I not on audit log.

So I posted a new Note, with a ton of pics taken on the hike and on site. Still not appearing on audit log ;-)

Had he asked, instead of accused, I'd have given him some info...

 

You used to be able to get the info from a text message inquiry too (even if you weren't a premium member), but I think they got rid of that one. Yes, I often, but not always, use these methods to avoid being seen in the audit log. I'm one of those privacy advocates who think it's MY business whether or not I looked at your cache page in the traditional method. But as I say, not always, there's a relatively new "challenge trail" in my area of about 30 caches that are all PMO, I know the couple who owns them quite well, and I couldn't care less if they can see I looked at one of them 10 times.

[+lamoracke]

Per Cezanne, get caches from PQ, log from GSAK, field notes, geocaching.com admin, etc. It's quite possible to never log onto the cache page on Geocaching.com - which is the only thing that audit log shows, page views on Geocaching.com.

 

A PMO cache the owner rather rudely emailed me telling me I hadn't really found his cache, as I not on audit log.

So I posted a new Note, with a ton of pics taken on the hike and on site. Still not appearing on audit log ;-)

Had he asked, instead of accused, I'd have given him some info...

 

You used to be able to get the info from a text message inquiry too (even if you weren't a premium member), but I think they got rid of that one. Yes, I often, but not always, use these methods to avoid being seen in the audit log. I'm one of those privacy advocates who think it's MY business whether or not I looked at your cache page in the traditional method. But as I say, not always, there's a relatively new "challenge trail" in my area of about 30 caches that are all PMO, I know the couple who owns them quite well, and I couldn't care less if they can see I looked at one of them 10 times.

 

Interesting. Yeah, I personally do not care for audit logs at all, but if I really wanted to go out of my way to look at it without being in the audit log, I'd just use GSAK. Then I'd do the back door trick to log the cache using another cache log and then swapping it out at the end. However, that is too much work for me, I am more like to refresh the guy's page 500 times in a row than make the effort to never view it. Its not like an audit log shows your IP address or your location or told you if you read the page or enjoyed it or not.

[+T.D.M.22]

Well you can log a PMO cache with a basic membership. So had this person been caching with a friend they could have just logged it rather than looking at the cache page...

[jholly]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Someone just logged a find on one of my caches, but did not show up on the audit log. Very strange. They also stated they did not have a phone, so that's not it.

The smartphone apps also don't trip the audit logs.

Edited May 21, 2014 by jholly

[cezanne]

Well you can log a PMO cache with a basic membership. So had this person been caching with a friend they could have just logged it rather than looking at the cache page...

 

That's not a question of being PM or not. Many PMs do not look at the cache pages, some because they only use PQs and log via other tools and some do it just for PM-only caches as they do not want

to show up on audit logs (the latter group only consists of PMs). It's not too uncommon that people do not want to show up on audit logs. As there as many ways around the audit log,

I'd rather say that if someone has bad intentions he will avoid the audit log anyway and so no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the audit log (also not with respect to how many people are interested into a certain puzzle cache).

 

Personally, I see it as one of the biggest advantages of being a BM not to have the risk to appear on an audit log (e.g. if a link is posted in forum) without realizing that the cache is a PM-only cache.

Edited May 21, 2014 by cezanne

[+cerberus1]

Well you can log a PMO cache with a basic membership. So had this person been caching with a friend they could have just logged it rather than looking at the cache page...

 

That's not a question of being PM or not. Many PMs do not look at the cache pages, some because they only use PQs and log via other tools and some do it just for PM-only caches as they do not want

to show up on audit logs (the latter group only consists of PMs). It's not too uncommon that people do not want to show up on audit logs. As there as many ways around the audit log,

I'd rather say that if someone has bad intentions he will avoid the audit log anyway and so no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from the audit log (also not with respect to how many people are interested into a certain puzzle cache).

 

Personally, I see it as one of the biggest advantages of being a BM not to have the risk to appear on an audit log (e.g. if a link is posted in forum) without realizing that the cache is a PM-only cache.

+1

[+T.D.M.22]

Well you can log a PMO cache with a basic membership. So had this person been caching with a friend they could have just logged it rather than looking at the cache page...

 

That's not a question of being PM or not. Many PMs do not look at the cache pages,

 

That's not what I'm saying(bold) and that is what I'm saying(italics)

 

What I mean is, that it's possible to log a cache without viewing the page(as evidenced by non PM's logging PMO caches) So if our OP-PM or nor- goes caching, maybe an unplanned trip with a friend, said friend will have the info on GPS or phone. But the OP finds the cache, and only logs it, they would never have viewed the cache page, and then wouldn't appear on the audit log.

[cezanne]

What I mean is, that it's possible to log a cache without viewing the page(as evidenced by non PM's logging PMO caches) So if our OP-PM or nor- goes caching, maybe an unplanned trip with a friend, said friend will have the info on GPS or phone. But the OP finds the cache, and only logs it, they would never have viewed the cache page, and then wouldn't appear on the audit log.

 

Of course it also could be that the person in question went along with a friend, but I did not quite get why this aspect plays any role at all as there are so many ways to get the cache data without showing up on the audit file.

I guess that the approach of viewing cache pages on the website is rather the old-fashioned way which less and less people are using.

[7rxc]

 

Personally, I see it as one of the biggest advantages of being a BM not to have the risk to appear on an audit log (e.g. if a link is posted in forum) without realizing that the cache is a PM-only cache.

 

I think it would be 'nice' if people linking to PMOCs would put a marker that it is such in the link... something like GCxxxxxx (P) or (PM) or (PMO) etc. Anyway it does get annoying to follow the link and THEN discover you are at the blocking notice page.

 

Don't take that as being against PMOC caches, I'm not... I go look for them all the time when they are available.

And find them. Love the extra 'puzzle' level of difficulty. Just that I find the 'blocked' page as another 'been there, done that' pain.

 

Doug 7rxc

[4wheelin_fool]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Someone just logged a find on one of my caches, but did not show up on the audit log. Very strange. They also stated they did not have a phone, so that's not it.

 

Logging via the back door method has been discussed in more than a few threads, and would cause the person not to show up on the audit log. They likely received the data from a PQ. What's actually stranger is someone auditing the audit log against finds. This is one reason why people log like that.

[+The_Incredibles_]

The cacher in question is a premium member and is unlikely to be using the backdoor method. I guess I'll have to go with GSAK then.

[+The_Incredibles_]

What's actually stranger is someone auditing the audit log against finds. This is one reason why people log like that.

 

It's just something I happened to notice. Sheesh.

[4wheelin_fool]

What's actually stranger is someone auditing the audit log against finds. This is one reason why people log like that.

 

It's just something I happened to notice. Sheesh.

 

While I don't mind being on someone's audit log, there are plenty of people who do, and a few of the reasons are rather silly. But now since there are confirmed reports of auditing of the audit logs, paranoia and mayhem may erupt.

[Mr.Yuck]

What's actually stranger is someone auditing the audit log against finds. This is one reason why people log like that.

 

It's just something I happened to notice. Sheesh.

 

While I don't mind being on someone's audit log, there are plenty of people who do, and a few of the reasons are rather silly. But now since there are confirmed reports of auditing of the audit logs, paranoia and mayhem may erupt.

 

I have a confirmed report of being emailed by a cache owner from California, and asked why someone from New York looked at their cache page. Of course you have to do a little digging into my profile to see I'm from New York. By the way, I simply clicked on an Ocean front cache in the days before PMO's were clearly indicated as such on the Geocaching.com maps.

 

But never mind that, the paranoia and mayhem won't erupt until the next person is unjustly accused of Cache theft or vandalism because of the audit log.

[4wheelin_fool]

What's actually stranger is someone auditing the audit log against finds. This is one reason why people log like that.

 

It's just something I happened to notice. Sheesh.

 

While I don't mind being on someone's audit log, there are plenty of people who do, and a few of the reasons are rather silly. But now since there are confirmed reports of auditing of the audit logs, paranoia and mayhem may erupt.

 

I have a confirmed report of being emailed by a cache owner from California, and asked why someone from New York looked at their cache page. Of course you have to do a little digging into my profile to see I'm from New York. By the way, I simply clicked on an Ocean front cache in the days before PMO's were clearly indicated as such on the Geocaching.com maps.

 

You couldve said that you actually didn't look at the page, but pay Groundspeak a small fee to appear on random audit logs as part of a self promotional project.

 

But never mind that, the paranoia and mayhem won't erupt until the next person is unjustly accused of Cache theft or vandalism because of the audit log.

 

Yes, that silliness has happened around here. I have no idea why someone would believe that appearing on the audit log indicates any type of guilt, as a vandal would likely avoid the log completely.

[cezanne]

Yes, that silliness has happened around here. I have no idea why someone would believe that appearing on the audit log indicates any type of guilt, as a vandal would likely avoid the log completely.

 

Probably because it is much too less known that there many ways for not showing up on audit logs.

In my area, PMs that use the audit log typically believe that everyone shows up there and are extremely surprised if they are told that this is not the case.

The same holds true for the the fact that the last login date shown on the website is not necessarily the date when the respective cacher has been active for the last time.

[jholly]

 

The same holds true for the the fact that the last login date shown on the website is not necessarily the date when the respective cacher has been active for the last time.

Yeah, some times the last cache logged is a better indicator.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Someone just logged a find on one of my caches, but did not show up on the audit log. Very strange. They also stated they did not have a phone, so that's not it.

The smartphone apps also don't trip the audit logs.

 

Quite true. This happened tonight when my latest cache was published. The FTF got the notification on his phone and logged his find, all without showing up on the audit log. The 2TF did not show up on the audit log either when he logged his find from his phone.

 

I sure hope nobody else in town audits their audit logs cause the number of times I've viewed some caches, they're sure to find out what a nutjob I am.

[+giddeanx]

Is there a way to avoid showing up on the audit log?

 

Someone just logged a find on one of my caches, but did not show up on the audit log. Very strange. They also stated they did not have a phone, so that's not it.

The smartphone apps also don't trip the audit logs.

 

Quite true. This happened tonight when my latest cache was published. The FTF got the notification on his phone and logged his find, all without showing up on the audit log. The 2TF did not show up on the audit log either when he logged his find from his phone.

 

I sure hope nobody else in town audits their audit logs cause the number of times I've viewed some caches, they're sure to find out what a nutjob I am.

 

If the smartphone doesn't trip the alarms by going through the API. I would imagine that GSAK wouldn't trip the alarm either. Can someone verify that?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The map view allows a person to download coordinates and log a find without ever viewing the cache page, also.

[etarace]

Like I mentioned in the multi topic, there are a lot LOT of phone-only players. They probably aren't even trying to avoid the audit.

[+6NoisyHikers]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

[+giddeanx]

Like I mentioned in the multi topic, there are a lot LOT of phone-only players. They probably aren't even trying to avoid the audit.

No they are not, its just a side effect.

[+cerberus1]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

Agreed.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

Agreed.

 

+2. And take the Letterbox Hybrid cache type with it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

 

I don't think it was ever intended to "catch" everyone who viewed the page. It only intended to show who was interested in it. If someone wants to circumvent it for privacy/paranoia reasons they are welcome to do so. Many people use it as an indicator of interest, to see if they should archive it or not. Or if someone needs help with a puzzle.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

 

I don't think it was ever intended to "catch" everyone who viewed the page. It only intended to show who was interested in it. If someone wants to circumvent it for privacy/paranoia reasons they are welcome to do so. Many people use it as an indicator of interest, to see if they should archive it or not. Or if someone needs help with a puzzle.

 

Indicator of interest?!?!?!!? All while it's been widely speculated that Premium accounts on this freemium model website have never approached 10%? We're talking 2002 the PMO's, and the audit log with them were implemented. I think it WAS put in there to "catch people". The only people who could answer for sure are the founders of Groundspeak, as there were what in 2002, about 5 employees? And maybe not even full time yet.

[+Rainbow Spirit]

What is an audit log? I'm assuming it gives a cache owner the ability to see who has looked at a cache that they own. How does one go about using this feature?

 

Gee, only been caching for 6 years, hidden about 130 caches, found close to 5000 caches and this is the first I have heard of this feature!

[Mr.Yuck]

What is an audit log? I'm assuming it gives a cache owner the ability to see who has looked at a cache that they own. How does one go about using this feature?

 

Gee, only been caching for 6 years, hidden about 130 caches, found close to 5000 caches and this is the first I have heard of this feature!

 

You can see which Premium Members viewed your cache, how many times they have, and the date and time of their last visit. I believe there is a little link that only you can see on your PMO cache "see who viewed your cache". Don't know, only hid one, and it was like 9 years ago.

 

That is *IF* they use conventional means (i.e. a web browser) to do it. There's so many ways to NOT show up in it, it's not even funny.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

 

I don't think it was ever intended to "catch" everyone who viewed the page. It only intended to show who was interested in it. If someone wants to circumvent it for privacy/paranoia reasons they are welcome to do so. Many people use it as an indicator of interest, to see if they should archive it or not. Or if someone needs help with a puzzle.

 

Indicator of interest?!?!?!!? All while it's been widely speculated that Premium accounts on this freemium model website have never approached 10%? We're talking 2002 the PMO's, and the audit log with them were implemented. I think it WAS put in there to "catch people". The only people who could answer for sure are the founders of Groundspeak, as there were what in 2002, about 5 employees? And maybe not even full time yet.

 

Don't know for sure what exactly they have caught in the last 12 years, except for plenty of flak. Reminds me of a difficult PMO puzzle I hid a few years ago which went unsolved for a month or two. I checked the audit log and there was about a dozen halloween/satanic usernames which were extremely bizarre, and without any finds or hides at all. I don't know, but that audit log can sure being out some strangeness in people.

[+The_Incredibles_]

What is an audit log? I'm assuming it gives a cache owner the ability to see who has looked at a cache that they own. How does one go about using this feature?

 

Gee, only been caching for 6 years, hidden about 130 caches, found close to 5000 caches and this is the first I have heard of this feature!

 

You can see which Premium Members viewed your cache, how many times they have, and the date and time of their last visit.

 

You see

 

1) date and time of last visit

2) date of first visit

3) caching name

4) number of times they viewed the cache page

 

To get the audit log, you need to make the cache premium member only. To do this, you edit the cache page, then check the box that says 'Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache.' Incidentally, you can change your cache to premium-member only anytime you like and you can also take that off anytime you like.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

 

I don't think it was ever intended to "catch" everyone who viewed the page. It only intended to show who was interested in it. If someone wants to circumvent it for privacy/paranoia reasons they are welcome to do so. Many people use it as an indicator of interest, to see if they should archive it or not. Or if someone needs help with a puzzle.

 

Indicator of interest?!?!?!!? All while it's been widely speculated that Premium accounts on this freemium model website have never approached 10%? We're talking 2002 the PMO's, and the audit log with them were implemented. I think it WAS put in there to "catch people". The only people who could answer for sure are the founders of Groundspeak, as there were what in 2002, about 5 employees? And maybe not even full time yet.

 

Don't know for sure what exactly they have caught in the last 12 years, except for plenty of flak. Reminds me of a difficult PMO puzzle I hid a few years ago which went unsolved for a month or two. I checked the audit log and there was about a dozen halloween/satanic usernames which were extremely bizarre, and without any finds or hides at all. I don't know, but that audit log can sure being out some strangeness in people.

 

If you're serious, and I've learned that you're often not, they only way they could have done that was to frequently change their username. Unless they dropped $120 for 12 3 month memberships at $10 a pop just to mess with you.

 

EDIT: I notice you say 0 finds or hides. So maybe they dropped $10 for a 3 month membership and frequently changed the username to mess with you. I might do that for 10 bucks.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

What is an audit log? I'm assuming it gives a cache owner the ability to see who has looked at a cache that they own. How does one go about using this feature?

 

Gee, only been caching for 6 years, hidden about 130 caches, found close to 5000 caches and this is the first I have heard of this feature!

 

You can see which Premium Members viewed your cache, how many times they have, and the date and time of their last visit.

 

You see

 

1) date and time of last visit

2) date of first visit

3) caching name

4) number of times they viewed the cache page

 

To get the audit log, you need to make the cache premium member only. To do this, you edit the cache page, then check the box that says 'Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache.' Incidentally, you can change your cache to premium-member only anytime you like and you can also take that off anytime you like.

 

One minor, obscure correction. You cannot take the PMO status off if the cache is archived while still a PMO. That's why I still have one. And where you see "This is a Premium Member Only Cache" near the top of any PMO cache page? Right under that, visible to the cache owner only, it says "Read the audit log (see who viewed your cache)" With "(see who viewed your cache)" being a clickable link to the audit log.

[+SwineFlew]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

[jholly]

I would inclined to email them back and ask why shouldn't be looking at them.

[+The_Incredibles_]

One minor, obscure correction. You cannot take the PMO status off if the cache is archived while still a PMO.

 

Correct. I was going to add this, but I thought it was irrelevant.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd like to know the history behind the creation of the audit log feature. It seems to be mostly useless at this point if it is so easy to circumvent. Time to be retired?

 

I don't think it was ever intended to "catch" everyone who viewed the page. It only intended to show who was interested in it. If someone wants to circumvent it for privacy/paranoia reasons they are welcome to do so. Many people use it as an indicator of interest, to see if they should archive it or not. Or if someone needs help with a puzzle.

 

Indicator of interest?!?!?!!? All while it's been widely speculated that Premium accounts on this freemium model website have never approached 10%? We're talking 2002 the PMO's, and the audit log with them were implemented. I think it WAS put in there to "catch people". The only people who could answer for sure are the founders of Groundspeak, as there were what in 2002, about 5 employees? And maybe not even full time yet.

 

Don't know for sure what exactly they have caught in the last 12 years, except for plenty of flak. Reminds me of a difficult PMO puzzle I hid a few years ago which went unsolved for a month or two. I checked the audit log and there was about a dozen halloween/satanic usernames which were extremely bizarre, and without any finds or hides at all. I don't know, but that audit log can sure being out some strangeness in people.

 

If you're serious, and I've learned that you're often not, they only way they could have done that was to frequently change their username. Unless they dropped $120 for 12 3 month memberships at $10 a pop just to mess with you.

 

EDIT: I notice you say 0 finds or hides. So maybe they dropped $10 for a 3 month membership and frequently changed the username to mess with you. I might do that for 10 bucks.

 

Ok, it was more like a half dozen usernames. I suspect that it was a group of people that were asked to solve it who lived in another area, and they all had separate accounts for PMOs. Either way its still odd. I used to have "PQ Packrat" show up on the PMOs also, with 0 hides/finds, but now I'm pretty sure it's a reviewer in another area. It hasn't shown up since I noticed the reviewers have made their audit tracks invisible.

[4wheelin_fool]

One minor, obscure correction. You cannot take the PMO status off if the cache is archived while still a PMO.

 

Correct. I was going to add this, but I thought it was irrelevant.

The system will also save the audit log from the time it was PMO. If you make it PMO for only a month and then return to it a few years later, the audits from that previous month a few years back will reappear.

[+The_Incredibles_]

One minor, obscure correction. You cannot take the PMO status off if the cache is archived while still a PMO.

 

Correct. I was going to add this, but I thought it was irrelevant.

The system will also save the audit log from the time it was PMO. If you make it PMO for only a month and then return to it a few years later, the audits from that previous month a few years back will reappear.

 

Yes, I've noticed this too.

[+The_Incredibles_]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

I can't even imagine emailing someone to ask why they were viewing my cache. To me, that's kind of creepy....although I do have a few questions for Roman!

[4wheelin_fool]

And also the illegal android app users will show up, but not the users from the official app.

[4wheelin_fool]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

Please send me the GC#s.

[+SwineFlew]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

Please send me the GC#s.

 

No thanks... no need to stir the pot.

[4wheelin_fool]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

Please send me the GC#s.

 

No thanks... no need to stir the pot.

 

Stir what pot? I just want to take a look at it.

[+cerberus1]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

I can't even imagine emailing someone to ask why they were viewing my cache. To me, that's kind of creepy....although I do have a few questions for Roman!

It sure is !

Even though there's now a few ways to skip the audit, I still don't do pmo hides after a couple incidents with anal-retentive, micro-managing COs abusing the audit.

[4wheelin_fool]

More and more, I am using the loophole around the audit log. I found out that some CO abuse their power with them. I get odd emails asking me why I am looking at their caches 1000's of miles away. I feel that GS should remove it.

 

I can't even imagine emailing someone to ask why they were viewing my cache. To me, that's kind of creepy....although I do have a few questions for Roman!

It sure is !

Even though there's now a few ways to skip the audit, I still don't do pmo hides after a couple incidents with anal-retentive, micro-managing COs abusing the audit.

 

Please send me the GC#s.