How do I share the ownership of a cache?

[-Matter-]

Hello everybody,

 

I own a cache in Lectoure, GC53593 (http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC53593_fontaine-diane?guid=ea306135-146f-4609-9832-409d31955796). I hid it with Artectrex, a friend of mine,and I would like his name to appear at the top of the geocache description next to mine("A cache by -Matter- Hidden : 04/21/2014" --> "A cache by -Matter- and Artectrex Hidden : 04/21/2014"). I tried to change it but when I click on his name it just shows my profile and not his(I tried with ",", ";", "and", ... between the two usernames). Please tell me if is is possible to change this (HTML code or something?)

 

Thank you very much for your replies,

-Matter-

 

N.B.: this is not urgent, just a little detail I would like having fixed.

[Keystone]

While you can add a co-hider's name in the "Placed by" field so that it appears on the cache listing, only one account can "own" a cache listing in the database. So, clicking on the Placed by field will always link the reader to your profile. A hyperlink only goes to one unique URL.

[+niraD]

Another approach I've seen used for jointly owned caches is to create a new shared account, and to list the cache(s) under that shared account. The email address for that account can even be configured to forward email to all the owners' individual email addresses.

[+Walts Hunting]

Or the others can put it on their watch list.

[-Matter-]

Thank you for your replies. I see Groundspeak didn't really think about that... The ideal would have been two links next to each other, to really be able to share the ownership with someone else, without the hassle of another account (plus, it wouldn't show up in my account, neither in his). If someone from Groundspeak's website devs reads this, please consider making this possible!!!

 

-Matter-

[+cerberus1]

Thank you for your replies. I see Groundspeak didn't really think about that... The ideal would have been two links next to each other, to really be able to share the ownership with someone else, without the hassle of another account (plus, it wouldn't show up in my account, neither in his). If someone from Groundspeak's website devs reads this, please consider making this possible!!!

 

-Matter-

I'd think Groundspeak did think about that and wisely made the decision that one account would be responsible for a cache.

[+Walts Hunting]

Thank you for your replies. I see Groundspeak didn't really think about that... The ideal would have been two links next to each other, to really be able to share the ownership with someone else, without the hassle of another account (plus, it wouldn't show up in my account, neither in his). If someone from Groundspeak's website devs reads this, please consider making this possible!!!

 

-Matter-

I'd think Groundspeak did think about that and wisely made the decision that one account would be responsible for a cache.

 

I think one cache one owner is a very wise well thought out policy.

[+MKFmly]

I'd think Groundspeak did think about that and wisely made the decision that one account would be responsible for a cache.

 

I think one cache one owner is a very wise well thought out policy.

When geocaching started it may very well been a wise well thought out policy, OR a database technology limitation that haunts GS (and the user base) to this very day...

 

Even though most cachers generally "like" the status quo, re-examining the status quo is not bad. There is the opportunity to reaffirm and reweigh the rationale of decisions and there is also the opportunity to see if those reasons and rationale still exist.

 

Certainly, the proposed change would cause some issues, and equally certainly it would address some issues.

[+Panther&Pine]

I'd think Groundspeak did think about that and wisely made the decision that one account would be responsible for a cache.

 

I think one cache one owner is a very wise well thought out policy.

When geocaching started it may very well been a wise well thought out policy, OR a database technology limitation that haunts GS (and the user base) to this very day...

 

Even though most cachers generally "like" the status quo, re-examining the status quo is not bad. There is the opportunity to reaffirm and reweigh the rationale of decisions and there is also the opportunity to see if those reasons and rationale still exist.

 

Certainly, the proposed change would cause some issues, and equally certainly it would address some issues.

What issue would it resolve?

[+MKFmly]

What issue would it resolve?

Don't get me wrong its not a panecea but off the top of my head...

 

Allowing multiple owners may possibly;

reduce the number of ill maintained caches by improving the chance of maintenance of caches and cache pages with co-owners,

reduce the number of orphaned/abandoned caches by having co-owners partisipating,

reduce the need (and/or request) for adoption by having co-owners partisipating,

reduce the need for "group" accounts to hide caches by having co-owners partisipating, and

make a few cachers happy.

 

Allowing multiple owners may also possibly;

mess up someones hidden "stats",

introduce he said / she said / philosphical isssues among co-owners

reduce the possible find count of cachers because they no longer "find" those "group" account hidden caches, and

ummm I got nothing else on the down side

[+DanOCan]

I like the current approach used by Groundspeak. I adhere to the idea that "As soon as more than one person is ultimately responsible for something it means no one is."

[+cerberus1]

I like the current approach used by Groundspeak. I adhere to the idea that "As soon as more than one person is ultimately responsible for something it means no one is."

+1

[+dprovan]

What issue would it resolve?

Don't get me wrong its not a panecea but off the top of my head...

 

Allowing multiple owners may possibly;

reduce the number of ill maintained caches by improving the chance of maintenance of caches and cache pages with co-owners,

reduce the number of orphaned/abandoned caches by having co-owners partisipating,

reduce the need (and/or request) for adoption by having co-owners partisipating,

reduce the need for "group" accounts to hide caches by having co-owners partisipating, and

make a few cachers happy.

These advantages are not provided by actually having multiple owners, but because you're expecting the multiple owners to all be notified of problems posted to the logs. An unofficial secondary owner already has a few different ways to get notifications about logs on specific caches.

 

The only thing that wouldn't be handled are private e-mails to the owner, but this is one of many reasons I discourage people from sending private e-mail about problems instead of posting NM logs.

 

Allowing multiple owners may also possibly;

mess up someones hidden "stats",

introduce he said / she said / philosphical isssues among co-owners

reduce the possible find count of cachers because they no longer "find" those "group" account hidden caches, and

ummm I got nothing else on the down side

I have to admit, I don't recognize any of these negatives as significant. The primary negatives are that someone has to spend time implementing, debugging, and documenting it, and that the user interface will need to be more complicated in order to support it, all for a feature that will be rarely used and better accomplished by mechanisms outside geocaching.com.

 

I also suspect, but can't really prove, that it will actually make the things you're listing as positives less likely, not more likely. In my experience, the most common reason for a neglected cache is the owner losing interest. When there's one owner and he loses interest, he is more likely to take responsibility for archiving the cache or adopting it out. When there are multiple owners, as each loses interest, they will typically assume one of the other owners is still interested. It doesn't help that in many cases the co-owners were brought together by geocaching, so as they lose interest in geocaching, they will tend to lose touch with each other, so they're less likely to realize they've all stopped paying attention to the cache.

 

Yes, this is a vague concern, but it's a concern that's neatly dealt with by insuring that exactly one person is recognized -- and recognizes themselves -- as ultimately responsible for the cache.