[FEATURE] Geocacher Activity Status

[+Fugads]

In the new forum dedicated to the upcoming profile page update, several folks have mentioned that viewing someone's profile to determine how active they are is an important feature, and I tend to agree. Currently, you can check when someone was last using the website, but with the proliferation of smartphones and apps for tablets, people can be quite active geocachers without having this updated. It seems like this profile page update would be a good time to consider a new feature that indicates simply and clearly the activity level of a geocacher.

 

This could be implemented a lot of different ways, but I was thinking something simple like a colored button next to the cachers name.

 

Green=Active: Has logged into the website or left a log on a geocache within the last month (includes DNFs, Notes, Owner Maintenance etc..)

Yellow= Casual: Has logged into the website or left a log etc... over a month ago but not over 6 months.

Red=Inactive: Has not logged into the website or left a logetc... for over 6 months.

 

There are ways the algorithm could be tweaked, but it would be a hands-off feature on the profile page that would very easily indicate if someone is currently active, casual or inactive. I'm sure some of the brighter minds out there could come up with something better, but the time seems ripe to figure something like this out.

[+cerberus1]

I don't believe Groundspeak will create a function that possibly could judge, or rate others in a bad stoplight.

- Like the "ignore a CO" function many (I do too) want.

 

Six months, heck I didn't cache last year for seven, and our hides normally don't require even a six month maintenance plan.

These forums would tell for me, but many injured, servicemen, etc; may still be "active", just not available right now.

[+ecanderson]

This really would be helpful. In establishing the status of a cache / owner that appears to have issues, we often look at the last time an owner has logged into the site to determine whether we think a cache should be archived when there is no response to email. If we find a 1.5 that no one has been able to find for a year, if we see that the owner does not respond to email AND has not logged in for a year, that makes the decision to ask for an archive very easy.

[+J Grouchy]

I'm sure there are a number of COs that may not be "active" or even logging into the site but are still doing maintenance and rely on emails for monitoring activity on their caches. This feature could potentially 'redlight' a great many cachers unnecessarily. I'd almost rather see some sort of email reminder, asking folks who have not visited the site in a set period of time (maybe 12 months?) to confirm they are still active and using a valid email account. This would kill two birds with one stone, actually: email validation and active status confirmation. If no response, then perhaps their profile could be grayed out or something to indicate to users that the account is currently inactive. Their caches could be on some sort of probation watch for a period...maybe six months...and if no action is taken, they'd be archived.

[+Manville Possum]

More bragging rights is not a needed function.

[+Fugads]

I don't believe Groundspeak will create a function that possibly could judge, or rate others in a bad stoplight.

Yeah, I hear what you are saying here. Perhaps a different color scheme that doesn't have a "bad" connotation. The thing is, there is nothing bad about being inactive, it is simply a matter of fact. And also, if anyone cared enough to see what their own status was, they would have to access the site and thus would turn "green". The only people that would be yellow or red are folks that aren't using the site.

I'm sure there are a number of COs that may not be "active" or even logging into the site but are still doing maintenance and rely on emails for monitoring activity on their caches. This feature could potentially 'redlight' a great many cachers unnecessarily.

I find this a little bit surprising. There are COs that still read their notification emails, and even perform maintenance on caches, but never check/use the website (or API extensions ...)? I can't say I've ever met one of these people, which is why I might think they are not very common. I suppose if a CO is doing all their maintenance without ever, I don't imagine they would care much what their status was. And if they are indeed receiving and responding to email notifications, than if anyone was to post NA/NM on their caches, they could respond to them. But would they then post on the website that they took care of it, or do they just do the maintenance and not put anything on the site. If the former, than their status would change because they used the site. If not, then it would seem that they are setting themselves up for confusion. Either way I'm not sure I understand this kind of cacher, and am a little bit skeptical that they exist.

More bragging rights is not a needed function.

I don't see at all how this could be a bragging feature. Would you care to elaborate? Anyone who is using the website is shown as active. You could brag that youa re active, but only other people ont he website would know. And anyone not active that decided to check their status on the site would then be shown as active (well, unless they don't bother logging in). Or are you suggesting that folks would somehow brag about being inactive? I'm confused.

[+ecanderson]

I'm sure there are a number of COs that may not be "active" or even logging into the site but are still doing maintenance and rely on emails for monitoring activity on their caches.

Perhaps, but if there's a 'Needs Maintenance' flag placed on a cache, they can't change that via email, so eventually, they would have to log in with the owner account in order to modify the status. We frequently see NM logs entered, and no login activity for months afterward, not even to clear the attribute.

 

I'd almost rather see some sort of email reminder, asking folks who have not visited the site in a set period of time (maybe 12 months?) to confirm they are still active and using a valid email account.

Since email accounts aren't validated to begin with, and probably never will be (sigh)... I think we're beating a different dead horse from another thread there.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

To me, it's not the date that a user last accessed the website that is important. What is geocaching.com? It is a listing service. At the heart there is a database. For me, the key is the date a person last updated the database. And, maybe it is multiple dates. Date of last log, last geocache creation, last maintenance flag reset, last forum post, etc. How they did this (website, app, API, mind meld, ESP, etc.) is not important.

 

And, how long is subjective. For me, my geocaching for the next couple of months may be light. I'm working on my 365 calendar, and have Jan-July covered. (And, I'm getting pickier about which caches I even attempt.) If I look at a person's stats, this may become more apparent. All of your finds are June through September, maybe you are a teacher and really can't get out during the school year, or you live at a really high elevation in Colorado. So, I'm not really in favor of categorizing people based on a date range. Just show me the date, and let me possibly evaluate other criteria.

 

Thanks, Skye.