[FEATURE] Implement application of existing attributes to Found It logs

[+frinklabs]

Each Found It log entry page should have a number of (say, three) pick lists below it from which a logger can select attributes to include in/with their log entry.

 

If the finder encounters conditions that have developed since the CO placed the cache, they could be communicated to subsequent finders by the icons for the selected attributes being included with the log entry.

 

Maybe they'd be enumerated alongside or below the user-assigned attributes on the cache listing.

 

Or maybe there'd be a running total at the beginning of the log section of the cache page, like with the number of Found Its/NM/NA et al.

 

Kind of like Favorite points, but targeted on the cache attributes?

[team tisri]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

[+frinklabs]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

[+cerberus1]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

I agree it's frustrating when a CO isn't taking steps to fix problems/issues and in the example above I would have notified the Reviewer of the issue (and enclosed the photo).

- But I already see cache pages turned into forums simply over others remarks of the hide and D/T accuracy.

User suggested attributes seems it would only compound the problem. Ripe for abuse.

An example, just yesterday a poster in these forums said he'd ask for a NA simply because there wasn't a TB in a hide.

I wouldn't want someone like that able to "suggest" anything...

[+frinklabs]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

I agree it's frustrating when a CO isn't taking steps to fix problems/issues and in the example above I would have notified the Reviewer of the issue (and enclosed the photo).

- But I already see cache pages turned into forums simply over others remarks of the hide and D/T accuracy.

User suggested attributes seems it would only compound the problem. Ripe for abuse.

An example, just yesterday a poster in these forums said he'd ask for a NA simply because there wasn't a TB in a hide.

I wouldn't want someone like that able to "suggest" anything...

 

I couldn't find the thread -- was the no-TB-needs-NA logger PMO or not? If not, this feature would not be available to them.

 

In addition, there is an excellent already-submitted-but-subsequently-ignored feature request whose implementation would have negated the need for such a drastic maneuver: SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

 

If usage of the cache listing as a forum is an extant problem, then it should not be used as a reason to inhibit new features.

 

What's the opposite of ripe for abuse -- stale from abuse? In any case, to render the feature 'safe' perhaps there could be a metric to throttle finder-suggested attributes, like the Favorite points have now.

 

Can anyone post another example of where this feature would have helped/been fun?

[+cerberus1]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

I agree it's frustrating when a CO isn't taking steps to fix problems/issues and in the example above I would have notified the Reviewer of the issue (and enclosed the photo).

- But I already see cache pages turned into forums simply over others remarks of the hide and D/T accuracy.

User suggested attributes seems it would only compound the problem. Ripe for abuse.

An example, just yesterday a poster in these forums said he'd ask for a NA simply because there wasn't a TB in a hide.

I wouldn't want someone like that able to "suggest" anything...

 

A - I couldn't find the thread -- was the no-TB-needs-NA logger PMO or not? If not, this feature would not be available to them.

B - In addition, there is an excellent already-submitted-but-subsequently-ignored feature

-snip -

A - Yes.

B - Isn't an already ignored feature often the attributes?

Allowing a user to now add them on the cache page, by what they believe should be there might prove interesting.

Often, just the Seasons alone, attibutes placed wouldn't make sense by the next log...

[team tisri]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

 

Perhaps, but how would it be any different to writing in your log that the park is closed during certain hours? If you start collating what people say in their suggested attributes you'll get a whole mishmash of opinions, some of which will be seasonal and therefore only relevant during certain times. Then you'll get the people who ignore the "tree climbing" attribute because they took a ladder or were tall enough to reach it, or the people who are short and complain that the cache 7 feet up a tree requires a climb and the "tree climbing" attribute wasn't set.

 

It would be a better solution to require cache owners to set useful attributes in the first place, and maybe have a "report issues with this geocache" as a log type, that would alert the reviewer so the owner couldn't just ignore it but wouldn't initiate an archival process in a way that suggests the cache isn't there or shouldn't be sought at all.

[team tisri]

Interesting idea but it sounds like finders are being expected to do the owner's job for them. If the cache setting has changed since it was hidden shouldn't the owner update the attributes? And if the owner isn't active any more the cache should be archived.

 

In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we are in dystopia, not utopia.

 

If everything worked exactly as it should, there would never be any NM logs.

 

As an example, I was going for this cache http://coord.info/GC5819H and got close to GZ at night only to find that the parks system in that municipality has set hours. Despite this, the CO has the available 24/7 attribute set. Subsequent to my log (including a photo of the sign) the CO did maintenance but still didn't alter the attribute.

 

Wouldn't it help if I could have put a

 

 

on my note? Another facet of this feature could be the option in PQs to include (or not) the user-suggested attributes.

I agree it's frustrating when a CO isn't taking steps to fix problems/issues and in the example above I would have notified the Reviewer of the issue (and enclosed the photo).

- But I already see cache pages turned into forums simply over others remarks of the hide and D/T accuracy.

User suggested attributes seems it would only compound the problem. Ripe for abuse.

An example, just yesterday a poster in these forums said he'd ask for a NA simply because there wasn't a TB in a hide.

I wouldn't want someone like that able to "suggest" anything...

 

I couldn't find the thread -- was the no-TB-needs-NA logger PMO or not? If not, this feature would not be available to them.

 

In addition, there is an excellent already-submitted-but-subsequently-ignored feature request whose implementation would have negated the need for such a drastic maneuver: SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

 

If usage of the cache listing as a forum is an extant problem, then it should not be used as a reason to inhibit new features.

 

What's the opposite of ripe for abuse -- stale from abuse? In any case, to render the feature 'safe' perhaps there could be a metric to throttle finder-suggested attributes, like the Favorite points have now.

 

Can anyone post another example of where this feature would have helped/been fun?

 

The removal of ghost trackables is little more than ongoing proof that good ideas presented here are unlikely to see the light of day in the same decade they were suggested.

 

Rending this feature "safe" by throttling it would also render it less useful. Let's say a cacher puts a series of 20 caches along a trail, marks every one of them "snowmobiles allowed", so you show up on your snowmobile to find a sign at the trailhead that says "snowmobiles prohibited". Does it make sense to only be allowed to mark some of those caches with correct attributes?