Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs

[+Team Microdot]

To wit: I trusted the comments in this thread mentioning the issues this change was meant to address. I wasn't personally looking for written, explicit examples of those issues. So I pointed to earlier in the thread to which your response was implying there were no examples, which seemed to me ridiculous, since they were mentioned in this thread.

You are talking about examples of duplicates happening, but no one denies they happen. I'm asking for examples of duplicates causing a problem. I don't consider needing to clean up a rare mistake or seeing duplicates in a log once in a while to be problems. We'll always have to deal with mistakes and excess logs even after we've eliminated this one source, so I don't see that as justification for taking away these caches.

 

Taking away which caches?

Short memory loss? The brass caps in Canada, and the YOSM in UK.

 

Have Groundspeak's changes taken those caches away?

[+noncentric]

I'm glad that this error will be prevented in the future. Just like with Needs Archived and Temporarily Disable logs, which you can't post when the listing is already archived or disabled.

There would have been easier and less invasive ways to achieve that - like being asked "Do you really want to submit a second found it log?".

I know the suggestion of an "are you sure" confirmation has been mentioned several times, by various forum posters. Sure, that could help prevent mistaken duplicates. However, I've wondered how feasible that "are you sure" option would be for logs submitted outside of the website or Groundspeak's app. For example, I believe there are some programs/apps that allow for bulk logging. I'd guess that bulk logging wouldn't work correctly if geocaching.com sends back some type of error, assuming that the bulk logging process even receives the error. Maybe there aren't any complications with an "are you sure" option, but I think we should consider that maybe things that seem 'simple' might actually be more complicated when considering the various ways that websites/apps/programs interact with GS's servers.

[+on4bam]

However, I've wondered how feasible that "are you sure" option would be for logs submitted outside of the website or Groundspeak's app. For example, I believe there are some programs/apps that allow for bulk logging. I'd guess that bulk logging wouldn't work correctly if geocaching.com sends back some type of error, assuming that the bulk logging process even receives the error.

 

Take a look at the GSAK forum and you will see how "non-gc" software is going to handle it. The API is going to throw an error which GSAK will handle correctly. No worries.

[+noncentric]

However, I've wondered how feasible that "are you sure" option would be for logs submitted outside of the website or Groundspeak's app. For example, I believe there are some programs/apps that allow for bulk logging. I'd guess that bulk logging wouldn't work correctly if geocaching.com sends back some type of error, assuming that the bulk logging process even receives the error.

Take a look at the GSAK forum and you will see how "non-gc" software is going to handle it. The API is going to throw an error which GSAK will handle correctly. No worries.

Thanks for the info.

 

In my post, I was actually referring to how "non-gc software" would handle things if TPTB had chosen a "are you sure you want to log a cache you already found" confirmation process - the process that cezanne had mentioned in her post that I quoted in my post. In an "are you sure" scenario, GC would presumably wait to receive a "yes" or "no" reply before skipping a Find log entry. Maybe in such a scenario, an 'error' message wouldn't be sent because GC wouldn't error out of the log, since they'd accept a duplicate find if the cacher says "yes" to the "are you sure" message.

 

The point of my post was that maybe the idea of having a pop-up message to confirm that a cacher really wants to log a duplicate find on a cache might be more complicated than TPTB's chosen route of just denying all duplicate 'Found It' logs.

[cezanne]

 

The point of my post was that maybe the idea of having a pop-up message to confirm that a cacher really wants to log a duplicate find on a cache might be more complicated than TPTB's chosen route of just denying all duplicate 'Found It' logs.

 

As almost all accidental duplicate found it logs are sent within a short period of time, one could also block duplicate found it logs that are received within say 30 minutes or an hour.

[+lodgebarn]

So my original point stands uncontested: no one's given any examples to prove -- or even suggest, really -- that there's an actual problem that this change solves. If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least pretend to be able to back it up with something.

For example, you could point to feature requests that mention duplicate logs in some way, such as:

• Unintentional double logs
  
• Find count number increases with duplicate log entries
  
• Enhancement request: Delete duplicate log if <1 minute
  
• Restore the number of distinct caches to stats
  
• SUGGESTION: Prevent duplicate finds of same cache for 24 hours.
  

 

I don't think any of those request the complete banning of double logging, they are primarily seeking to address the problem that the various apps sometimes double log unintentionally (within < 1 minue or 24 hours). So it seems to me that the problem that needs fixing is within the apps, now I realise GS has no control over the coding of 3rd party apps so it's not within their capability to fix the apps, but I would have hoped that the fix would have been coded into the API to prevent apps multi logging, but leave the website alone so that if someone knowingly and intentionally wants to double log then they could do so.

 

Of course this discussion is now pointless, it's something that could have happened at the design/planning stage of this fix, but it's far too late now. It seems to me the fix they've gone for is over the top, though that might have been done to minimise the coding effort required, or to allow them to get the fix out quicker, whichever it is I think it's unfortunate that some grand old caches have been caught in the crossfire .

 

Hopefully the folks who have made the decision to proceed with the change will feel a little contrite one day. Old caches are destroyed and unhappiness created all in the name of stopping duplicate logs. Well guys how about those who log a cache when they haven't found it or throw down another cache with no owner permission, this is just fine is it? No I am sure it isn't but not so easy to stop.

 

I see the two types of issue a bit like speed cameras vs dangerous driving. It is easy to fine someone doing 34 in a 30 zone late at night with nobody around. But how about someone driving fast around a blind bend or going across three lanes of traffic because they have missed their junction. Much more dangerous but they rarely get caught.

 

In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

[+Mudfrog]

To wit: I trusted the comments in this thread mentioning the issues this change was meant to address. I wasn't personally looking for written, explicit examples of those issues. So I pointed to earlier in the thread to which your response was implying there were no examples, which seemed to me ridiculous, since they were mentioned in this thread.

You are talking about examples of duplicates happening, but no one denies they happen. I'm asking for examples of duplicates causing a problem. I don't consider needing to clean up a rare mistake or seeing duplicates in a log once in a while to be problems. We'll always have to deal with mistakes and excess logs even after we've eliminated this one source, so I don't see that as justification for taking away these caches.

 

Taking away which caches?

Short memory loss? The brass caps in Canada, and the YOSM in UK.

 

Have Groundspeak's changes taken those caches away?

 

Nope, but they are taking away one of the ingredients that made these caches interesting for people. Groundspeak published these knowing that multiple logging was a part of them. Now all of a sudden, this aspect of them is being taken away. Just because you're fine writing a note doesn't mean everyone else is. I'd bet that the majority of finders would rather be able to log these caches in the manner they were originally set up. The caches may still be here but now they won't be the same. There's no doubt interest in them will wane.

[+Team Microdot]

To wit: I trusted the comments in this thread mentioning the issues this change was meant to address. I wasn't personally looking for written, explicit examples of those issues. So I pointed to earlier in the thread to which your response was implying there were no examples, which seemed to me ridiculous, since they were mentioned in this thread.

You are talking about examples of duplicates happening, but no one denies they happen. I'm asking for examples of duplicates causing a problem. I don't consider needing to clean up a rare mistake or seeing duplicates in a log once in a while to be problems. We'll always have to deal with mistakes and excess logs even after we've eliminated this one source, so I don't see that as justification for taking away these caches.

 

Taking away which caches?

Short memory loss? The brass caps in Canada, and the YOSM in UK.

 

Have Groundspeak's changes taken those caches away?

 

Nope, but they are taking away one of the ingredients that made these caches interesting for people. Groundspeak published these knowing that multiple logging was a part of them. Now all of a sudden, this aspect of them is being taken away. Just because you're fine writing a note doesn't mean everyone else is. I'd bet that the majority of finders would rather be able to log these caches in the manner they were originally set up. The caches may still be here but now they won't be the same. There's no doubt interest in them will wane.

 

Yes - I am well aware of all of that - we've heard it numerous times already and I don't dispute any of it - apart from perhaps the potential for interest in them to wane - that remains to be seen. It shouldn't wane though - if all the reasons we've seen cited here as motivation for doing them are true.

 

I just wanted to assist those who seem to think that I'm the one suffering memory loss that the brass caps in Canada and the YOSM in the UK have not in fact been taken away - at least not by Groundspeak. It remains to be seen if they will be taken away by the cache owner.

[+Team Microdot]

Hopefully the folks who have made the decision to proceed with the change will feel a little contrite one day. Old caches are destroyed and unhappiness created all in the name of stopping duplicate logs. Well guys how about those who log a cache when they haven't found it or throw down another cache with no owner permission, this is just fine is it? No I am sure it isn't but not so easy to stop.

 

I see the two types of issue a bit like speed cameras vs dangerous driving. It is easy to fine someone doing 34 in a 30 zone late at night with nobody around. But how about someone driving fast around a blind bend or going across three lanes of traffic because they have missed their junction. Much more dangerous but they rarely get caught.

 

In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

 

Because guidelines Y and Z are broken no attempt should be made to enforce guideline X? Is that the logic we're going with here?

[+lodgebarn]

Hopefully the folks who have made the decision to proceed with the change will feel a little contrite one day. Old caches are destroyed and unhappiness created all in the name of stopping duplicate logs. Well guys how about those who log a cache when they haven't found it or throw down another cache with no owner permission, this is just fine is it? No I am sure it isn't but not so easy to stop.

 

I see the two types of issue a bit like speed cameras vs dangerous driving. It is easy to fine someone doing 34 in a 30 zone late at night with nobody around. But how about someone driving fast around a blind bend or going across three lanes of traffic because they have missed their junction. Much more dangerous but they rarely get caught.

 

In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

 

Because guidelines Y and Z are broken no attempt should be made to enforce guideline X? Is that the logic we're going with here?

A fair point and of course the subjective items are not enforceable at all. I just think that you don't just call a halt to something that has been working quite happily for 15 years just because modern technology has created a perceived problem. Guidelines are allowed to have exceptions.

Edited April 9, 2017 by lodgebarn

[+Team Microdot]

Hopefully the folks who have made the decision to proceed with the change will feel a little contrite one day. Old caches are destroyed and unhappiness created all in the name of stopping duplicate logs. Well guys how about those who log a cache when they haven't found it or throw down another cache with no owner permission, this is just fine is it? No I am sure it isn't but not so easy to stop.

 

I see the two types of issue a bit like speed cameras vs dangerous driving. It is easy to fine someone doing 34 in a 30 zone late at night with nobody around. But how about someone driving fast around a blind bend or going across three lanes of traffic because they have missed their junction. Much more dangerous but they rarely get caught.

 

In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

 

Because guidelines Y and Z are broken no attempt should be made to enforce guideline X? Is that the logic we're going with here?

A fair point and of course the subjective items are not enforceable at all. I just think that you don't just call a halt to something that has been working quite happily for 15 years just because modern technology has created a perceived problem.

 

I agree - it seems sad. Initially I was completely ambivalent to the issues surrounding YOSM and the brass caps - for no other reason than I have nothing invested in them.

 

I did, later in the thread, advocate for them receiving a special dispensation from TPTB after I'd taken a little time to research how they work and seeing how they fitted into the 'out of the oridinary' category that, in my experience, is frequently the source of people's favourite caching experiences.

 

Being entirely pragamatic / dispassionate though, I've not seen convincing arguments here for why Groundspeak should reverse their decision and so I doubt that they will.

[+dprovan]

Because guidelines Y and Z are broken no attempt should be made to enforce guideline X? Is that the logic we're going with here?

The logic is that X is harmless and, in fact, wouldn't even be illegal if it weren't for the fact that it happens to be similar to Y and Z, which are harmful. So the solution prevents X even though no one cares about X and some people actually think X is good, yet it does nothing to stop the real problems people complain about, which are Y and Z.

 

What makes it truly annoying is when people declare a great victory against "reckless driving" based on the number of tickets given to people doing 34 in a 30MPH zone at 3am.

[+Team Microdot]

What makes it truly annoying is when people declare a great victory against "reckless driving" based on the number of tickets given to people doing 34 in a 30MPH zone at 3am.

 

I myself don't feel the need to get annoyed about that as I've not seen it happen.

[+lodgebarn]

What makes it truly annoying is when people declare a great victory against "reckless driving" based on the number of tickets given to people doing 34 in a 30MPH zone at 3am.

 

I myself don't feel the need to get annoyed about that as I've not seen it happen.

Well recently I almost got nabbed by a mobile camera doing about 58 (limit 50) on an empty A515, Sunday Morning a few weeks back at 0700. Saved by an oncoming flash when I proved I was just about awake.

[+Team Microdot]

What makes it truly annoying is when people declare a great victory against "reckless driving" based on the number of tickets given to people doing 34 in a 30MPH zone at 3am.

 

I myself don't feel the need to get annoyed about that as I've not seen it happen.

Well recently I almost got nabbed by a mobile camera doing about 58 (limit 50) on an empty A515, Sunday Morning a few weeks back at 0700. Saved by an oncoming flash when I proved I was just about awake.

 

I was referring to the declaration of a great victory against "reckless driving" rather than the fact people get caught speeding.

[+Team Hugs]

In this particular case I feel strongly some element of history should be valued and not dismissed out of hand as it clearly has been.

 

I see no evidence that the history of these particular exception caches has been "dismissed out of hand". We know nothing about the deliberations that occurred before this change was announced. All we know is the result.

 

If HQ had considered these caches in its deliberations, publicly agonized over their role, and then still make the decision they did, would anyone feel any better about the decision? I'm not sure they would. In which case, knowing whether or not they debated this issue really doesn't matter ... at least from where I'm sitting.

 

[Disclaimer: I don't have any strong feelings about these particular caches, one way or another.]

 

 

[+dprovan]

I see no evidence that the history of these particular exception caches has been "dismissed out of hand". We know nothing about the deliberations that occurred before this change was announced. All we know is the result.

That would be my definition of "dismissed out of hand": they are being treated as if they have no value yet we know nothing about the deliberations behind that decision. The possibility that there's a darned good reason that we just weren't told about doesn't make it more palatable.

 

If HQ had considered these caches in its deliberations, publicly agonized over their role, and then still make the decision they did, would anyone feel any better about the decision? I'm not sure they would. In which case, knowing whether or not they debated this issue really doesn't matter ... at least from where I'm sitting.

Naturally it would depend. If their deliberations seemed reasonable, I could let it go. But I suspect their "public agonizing" would amount to what we already see: mumbling about confusion and streamlining, pointing out that people have said they don't like duplicate logs, and concluding they have to be stopped so tough luck for any caches that depend on them.

[+lodgebarn]

I see no evidence that the history of these particular exception caches has been "dismissed out of hand". We know nothing about the deliberations that occurred before this change was announced. All we know is the result.

That would be my definition of "dismissed out of hand": they are being treated as if they have no value yet we know nothing about the deliberations behind that decision. The possibility that there's a darned good reason that we just weren't told about doesn't make it more palatable.

I would think it most likely that, at least initially, they were not considered at all.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I see no evidence that the history of these particular exception caches has been "dismissed out of hand". We know nothing about the deliberations that occurred before this change was announced. All we know is the result.

That would be my definition of "dismissed out of hand": they are being treated as if they have no value yet we know nothing about the deliberations behind that decision. The possibility that there's a darned good reason that we just weren't told about doesn't make it more palatable.

I would think it most likely that, at least initially, they were not considered at all.

True. I've found some strange virtuals that have been grandfathered (as should the ones under discussion.) I did a challenge cache today that required finding caches in 26 or more states. One cache is listed in a state that I've never cached in. The cache requires finding something that only exists once in each state. (Double logging not permitted.) But I found it in New York. Groundspeak does not list that I have found a cache in the state where the cache is listed. Grandfathered, and set so it does not give me that state as a state with a cache found in. The Project GC programming lists that as a state I've found a cache in. I think that the two caches under consideration should also be grandfathered.

[+thebruce0]

True. I've found some strange virtuals that have been grandfathered (as should the ones under discussion.)

Again, it all depends on how feasible the grandfathering is and what exactly is being grandfathered. In this case, a major technical change is occurring API-wide. Grandfathering this old functionality is more work than merely allowing a rule that's examined during a human judgement call, and GS have apparently deemed that it's not feasible to build in the exception.

 

I have a more serious question to ask,,

 

Where's my blankie?

It turns out there is a moratorium on blankies, due to the difficulties experienced by the moderators in assessing the eligibility of potential blankie recipients. Geocaching HQ and the Forum Moderators are currently revisiting the standards for the issuance of blankies to worthy forum posters. Watch for a User Insights Forum survey. That will be followed by secret internal debate: should the sizes of the blankies be adjusted? Will there be color choices? Should we offer the "Classic Blankie" for $9.99, or instead have a model for delivering free blankies that only have around 10% of the warming factor of the Classic Blankie?

 

The results should be available in June.

 

(I did not say which year, just "June.")

Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime!

[+eigengott]

What I see in your example is a rare mistake that causes no trouble and is easily corrected, not a terrible scourge that must be prevented in all cases no matter who it hurts.

 

To me it doesn't look that rare:

 

http://project-gc.com/Profile/FindBadLogs?profile_name=eigengott&submit=Filter

http://project-gc.com/Profile/FindBadLogs?profile_name=dprovan&submit=Filter

http://project-gc.com/Profile/FindBadLogs?profile_name=briansnat&submit=Filter

 

Accidental multiple logs are abundant.

 

Contrary to the few grandfathered cache listings, where multiple logging might make sense - in this thread less than a handful was named.

[+lodgebarn]

True. I've found some strange virtuals that have been grandfathered (as should the ones under discussion.)

Again, it all depends on how feasible the grandfathering is and what exactly is being grandfathered. In this case, a major technical change is occurring API-wide. Grandfathering this old functionality is more work than merely allowing a rule that's examined during a human judgement call, and GS have apparently deemed that it's not feasible to build in the exception.

 

I have a more serious question to ask,,

 

Where's my blankie?

It turns out there is a moratorium on blankies, due to the difficulties experienced by the moderators in assessing the eligibility of potential blankie recipients. Geocaching HQ and the Forum Moderators are currently revisiting the standards for the issuance of blankies to worthy forum posters. Watch for a User Insights Forum survey. That will be followed by secret internal debate: should the sizes of the blankies be adjusted? Will there be color choices? Should we offer the "Classic Blankie" for $9.99, or instead have a model for delivering free blankies that only have around 10% of the warming factor of the Classic Blankie?

 

The results should be available in June.

 

(I did not say which year, just "June.")

Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime!

Sad, this was a major change affecting fine old caches. Moreover it was communicated first to API partners not to ordinary folk. I find that quite reprehensible.

[+cerberus1]

True. I've found some strange virtuals that have been grandfathered (as should the ones under discussion.)

Again, it all depends on how feasible the grandfathering is and what exactly is being grandfathered. In this case, a major technical change is occurring API-wide. Grandfathering this old functionality is more work than merely allowing a rule that's examined during a human judgement call, and GS have apparently deemed that it's not feasible to build in the exception.

 

I have a more serious question to ask,,

 

Where's my blankie?

It turns out there is a moratorium on blankies, due to the difficulties experienced by the moderators in assessing the eligibility of potential blankie recipients. Geocaching HQ and the Forum Moderators are currently revisiting the standards for the issuance of blankies to worthy forum posters. Watch for a User Insights Forum survey. That will be followed by secret internal debate: should the sizes of the blankies be adjusted? Will there be color choices? Should we offer the "Classic Blankie" for $9.99, or instead have a model for delivering free blankies that only have around 10% of the warming factor of the Classic Blankie?

 

The results should be available in June.

 

(I did not say which year, just "June.")

Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime!

Sad, this was a major change affecting fine old caches. Moreover it was communicated first to API partners not to ordinary folk. I find that quite reprehensible.

Blankies ?

 

If somehow a blankie has to do with the api notice on logging, I'd think it a good idea to notify them ahead of time.

"Ordinary folk" seem to become anxious whenever there's any change, and it's smart business to notify api partners with a "heads up".

Maybe not such a good idea having the api partners sharing that info before it became common knowledge...

[+hal-an-tow]

True. I've found some strange virtuals that have been grandfathered (as should the ones under discussion.)

Again, it all depends on how feasible the grandfathering is and what exactly is being grandfathered. In this case, a major technical change is occurring API-wide. Grandfathering this old functionality is more work than merely allowing a rule that's examined during a human judgement call, and GS have apparently deemed that it's not feasible to build in the exception.

 

I have a more serious question to ask,,

 

Where's my blankie?

It turns out there is a moratorium on blankies, due to the difficulties experienced by the moderators in assessing the eligibility of potential blankie recipients. Geocaching HQ and the Forum Moderators are currently revisiting the standards for the issuance of blankies to worthy forum posters. Watch for a User Insights Forum survey. That will be followed by secret internal debate: should the sizes of the blankies be adjusted? Will there be color choices? Should we offer the "Classic Blankie" for $9.99, or instead have a model for delivering free blankies that only have around 10% of the warming factor of the Classic Blankie?

 

The results should be available in June.

 

(I did not say which year, just "June.")

Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime!

Sad, this was a major change affecting fine old caches. Moreover it was communicated first to API partners not to ordinary folk. I find that quite reprehensible.

Sad it certainly is.

 

I see the relationship between Groundspeak and cachers somewhat differently from thebruce0 , my perspective is that Groundspeak is now simply a database business, whilst we cachers ARE geocaching.*

 

We voluntarily place and maintain (I know, sometimes maintain ) the caches on which the database depends, our property, our responsibility our expenditure. We choose to allow Groundspeak to make money from including our caches on their database. Volunteer reviewers all over the world work away to apply the rules and maintain the integrity of that database, hundreds of hours of effort for zero pay. I'd suggest this is all for the community, the fellow cachers.

I've never placed a cache and thought "Great, I'm making a tiny positive contribution to an American businesses database! "

 

If Groundspeak expects this cosy (and very financially advantageous to them) relationship to continue, then fostering a sense of community by listening, contributing to discussions, and soliciting opinions before imposing changes would be a wise move.

If they don't take note of the feelings of the paying community, and alienate the cache placers, what is there left to sell ? I'd suggest that trying to become more of a business (and therefore less of a community) is paradoxically going to cause chronic decline in that business.

 

*That sounds like dozens of boring visiting speakers I've sat through over the years trotting out the cliche about a school/church/club being not the building, but the people. Just 'cos it's a worn out cliche doesn't mean it's untrue though !

[+dprovan]

Accidental multiple logs are abundant.

That data shows me that they are, in fact, rare and uninteresting. It shows me a few caches with one or two redundant logs that you wouldn't have noticed without a tool. And they are causing so little problem that neither you, me, or briansnat have bothered to delete them.

 

Furthermore, your post underscores the basic problem I see: you're looking for and listing duplicate logs as if they are an inherent problem, completely ignoring the fact that your own evidence supports the claim that they are not actually causing any problem at all. They're just sitting there, forgotten.

[+thebruce0]

I see the relationship between Groundspeak and cachers somewhat differently from thebruce0 , my perspective is that Groundspeak is now simply a database business, whilst we cachers ARE geocaching.

 

We voluntarily place and maintain (I know, sometimes maintain ) the caches on which the database depends, our property, our responsibility our expenditure. We choose to allow Groundspeak to make money from including our caches on their database. Volunteer reviewers all over the world work away to apply the rules and maintain the integrity of that database, hundreds of hours of effort for zero pay. I'd suggest this is all for the community, the fellow cachers.

I've never placed a cache and thought "Great, I'm making a tiny positive contribution to an American businesses database! "

 

If Groundspeak expects this cosy (and very financially advantageous to them) relationship to continue, then fostering a sense of community by listening, contributing to discussions, and soliciting opinions before imposing changes would be a wise move.

If they don't take note of the feelings of the paying community, and alienate the cache placers, what is there left to sell ? I'd suggest that trying to become more of a business (and therefore less of a community) is paradoxically going to cause chronic decline in that business.

I'm not sure how that differs from my view of the relationship. That's often how I describe what Groundspeak does. They run a listing service. They influence geocaching only in how they can enforce guidelines for how geocaches are listed on their website. They can't enforce what we do in the real world, beyond the permission to list caches on the site. That's why there are/were other geocaching websites. They certainly influence the community given their somewhat-of-a-monopoly on the pastime at this point, but the geocaching hobby can happy however we want outside of the website. And I've always said GS's best interest is to be appealing to, listen to, and appease the general community - insofar as they find acceptable to the direction they wish to take their website. As a private entity, their continued existence relies on a happy user community. Which is why almost certainly every business decision they make heavily weighs the impact on the current community and is not taken lightly. But they can't please everyone, and every decision ruffles feathers. What cannot be true is the sentiment by some people whose feathers are ruffled that Groundspeak is destroying the pastime, ruining it. Time will tell if their decisions are effective for the direction they want to take their website, but why would they want to kill off exactly the hobby that keeps them alive?

 

How you described their relationship with the community above I agree with. Your last paragraph is true - but opinions about whether they do that [care about community] or not seem to entirely depend on which side of the fence one is one when a significant business decision is made.

[+ChileHead]

Sad, this was a major change affecting fine old caches. Moreover it was communicated first to API partners not to ordinary folk. I find that quite reprehensible.

 

It was communicated to API partners and "ordinary" folk about the same time. I'm not sure how the order matters. API partners need time to fix their software to handle the error cases that will now result from logging duplicate logs or logs on their own non-event caches. "Ordinary" folk don't need any extra time.

 

No matter what, any change will be resisted by some, welcomed by others. Everybody I know is very welcoming of this change. But we don't have any of these legacy caches in my area, other than one occurring event.

 

I don't log any caches more than once, nor have I logged any of the ones mentioned in this thread, so I'll admit I don't understand the emotion behind this as I have no investment ... I'm a chicken, not a pig, in this matter (in the business fable sense.)

[+dprovan]

Make sure you record that internal debate and release it to the general public so we can decide if it really happened, was actually worthwhile and a legitimate effort to examine the "supposed" blankie problem from all sides, otherwise you've demonstrated you are an evil company that doesn't listen to its customers! Make sure also to footnote all references to community feedback so we can verify that certain voices have been heard and it's not just a generalized note of community concern that misses any important details. We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard, and that you're not out to destroy our beloved pastime!

I can be critical without considering them evil. I don't want to see all their discussion, I just want their discussion to result in a decent case. I don't think they're destroying geocaching, I just think they're making mistakes. To me, it seems as if many decisions are made based on complaints instead of focusing on actual problems. There's no distillation process to weed out the complaints by people that just don't like something. So for example, no one likes duplicate logs, of course, but, as eigengott just showed us, we ignore duplicate logs regularly and never even notice.

[+thebruce0]

I can be critical without considering them evil. I don't want to see all their discussion, I just want their discussion to result in a decent case. I don't think they're destroying geocaching, I just think they're making mistakes. To me, it seems as if many decisions are made based on complaints instead of focusing on actual problems. There's no distillation process to weed out the complaints by people that just don't like something. So for example, no one likes duplicate logs, of course, but, as eigengott just showed us, we ignore duplicate logs regularly and never even notice.

Considering, as repeatedly expressed, we aren't privy to all the details of decisions made at HQ, it's unnecessarily critical to assume mistakes, let alone failure on some level of ignoring customers. Whether a decision is "successful" or not depends on what one recognizes as success. And if one measures it by personal satisfaction, then as a consumer one has the choice to continue consuming or not. If rather one recognizes success as fulfilling the company's own intent behind a decision to their own satisfaction, then one realizes that results will come in time, and to exercise patience.

 

We all like or dislike decisions that are made. But when they make decisions I don't like, it takes a big leap for me to criticize the company's greater motivation, as opposed to what I believe about what's good for the community. And even then I realize I don't know all the details about the desires of the world-wide community that they do, and so a decision I may deem as bad for me or my 'bubble' may ultimately be good for the grand scheme, or at worst good for what they want for their product - which may leave me in the segment negatively affected by a decision, but still what I recognize (ie, trust) as a heavily weighed and considered drawback to the decision. While hesitant or upset, I won't be crying foul to the degree many here seem to do.

 

They're a private business, their services of which I use for my enjoyment. If I no longer enjoy it, they no longer get my money, and while it may be a bigger loss for me than them, I have no further rights to press. But I would find it very surprising if they ever made a decision that knowingly, and willingly, shoots themselves in the foot by cutting off a majority of their customer base. Why would they do that? Rather, they may try things and experiement, and then decide in those cases if it's worth pursuing. See Geocaching Challenges, Lab Caches, "better mistakes", etc.

 

Does Groundspeak listen to the community? Of course they do!. But not every response (when there is one) is favourable .

 

I'm 100% confident they value critical response to choices they make. I'm 100% confident they'll keep in mind but be less inclined to value inflamatory emotionalized rhetoric against their motivation towards community and the hobby.

[+hal-an-tow]

I see the relationship between Groundspeak and cachers somewhat differently from thebruce0 , my perspective is that Groundspeak is now simply a database business, whilst we cachers ARE geocaching.

 

We voluntarily place and maintain (I know, sometimes maintain ) the caches on which the database depends, our property, our responsibility our expenditure. We choose to allow Groundspeak to make money from including our caches on their database. Volunteer reviewers all over the world work away to apply the rules and maintain the integrity of that database, hundreds of hours of effort for zero pay. I'd suggest this is all for the community, the fellow cachers.

I've never placed a cache and thought "Great, I'm making a tiny positive contribution to an American businesses database! "

 

If Groundspeak expects this cosy (and very financially advantageous to them) relationship to continue, then fostering a sense of community by listening, contributing to discussions, and soliciting opinions before imposing changes would be a wise move.

If they don't take note of the feelings of the paying community, and alienate the cache placers, what is there left to sell ? I'd suggest that trying to become more of a business (and therefore less of a community) is paradoxically going to cause chronic decline in that business.

I'm not sure how that differs from my view of the relationship. That's often how I describe what Groundspeak does. They run a listing service. They influence geocaching only in how they can enforce guidelines for how geocaches are listed on their website. They can't enforce what we do in the real world, beyond the permission to list caches on the site. That's why there are/were other geocaching websites. They certainly influence the community given their somewhat-of-a-monopoly on the pastime at this point, but the geocaching hobby can happy however we want outside of the website. And I've always said GS's best interest is to be appealing to, listen to, and appease the general community - insofar as they find acceptable to the direction they wish to take their website. As a private entity, their continued existence relies on a happy user community. Which is why almost certainly every business decision they make heavily weighs the impact on the current community and is not taken lightly. But they can't please everyone, and every decision ruffles feathers. What cannot be true is the sentiment by some people whose feathers are ruffled that Groundspeak is destroying the pastime, ruining it. Time will tell if their decisions are effective for the direction they want to take their website, but why would they want to kill off exactly the hobby that keeps them alive?

 

How you described their relationship with the community above I agree with. Your last paragraph is true - but opinions about whether they do that [care about community] or not seem to entirely depend on which side of the fence one is one when a significant business decision is made.

 

Ah, sorry, I probably took your

"We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard"

somewhat less sarcastically than you meant it I'm not a frequent flyer here, so don't really have an in-depth grasp of posters previously established viewpoints.

 

It seems we agree broadly then. Good grief, how often does that happen here ?!

 

"...why would they want to kill off exactly the hobby that keeps them alive?"

 

I don't think they do, I believe that they are shooting themselves in the foot in a manner exactly analagous to the killing off of the YOSM/ Brass Cap caches, as an unintended consequence of their decisions.

Decisions which fail to adequately consider the ramifications for the community because they are focussed primarily on an app. based business model. And appear to be made from the viewpoint of an app developer rather than a cacher.

 

The community response to ill considered changes like this multiple logging block (other examples include the map symbols changed to ones harder to read but more app like, and the new newsletter format, pretty on a 'phone screen but giving no actual news, just links)is bound to reflect many different viewpoints, and provide a wealth of caching experience and knowledge from people who have played the game for years and care about it*.

How long is it since the last 'user insight ' thread was closed ? Do we users have any say ? Or is that the sound of a bullet hitting a shoe ...

 

 

* Once you wade through the arguement for arguement's sake sportsmen's squabbling.

[+thebruce0]

It seems we agree broadly then. Good grief, how often does that happen here ?!

Mark the date!

 

"...why would they want to kill off exactly the hobby that keeps them alive?"

 

I don't think they do, I believe that they are shooting themselves in the foot in a manner exactly analagous to the killing off of the YOSM/ Brass Cap caches, as an unintended consequence of their decisions.

Actually I think it's an intended consequence - they know the change is crippling the intent of the caches, and they know that not grandfathering them means that the COs may likely archive them. But they clearly feel it's a negligible tradeoff in the grand scheme.

 

Decisions which fail to adequately consider the ramifications for the community because they are focussed primarily on an app. based business model. And appear to be made from the viewpoint of an app developer rather than a cacher.

I agree, many of design decisions for the desktop website are IMO awful for desktop users, and I've voiced my concerned a-plenty.

In this case, the design and programming benefits are outweighing the negatives in their eyes. Not necessarily in some community members' eyes. But I don't think* that'll equate to 'shooting themselves in the foot' from a business perspective in this case, since the ramficiations are entirely related to these specific rare caches and their enthusiastic fans.

 

* Key point; I don't think... I can't see the future - I don't know how the log restriction change will affect the website's popularity in the near future, as I mentioned above; we'll see in time. But I'm not convinced the negatives (these few outlier caches) are nearly as far reaching as many seem to think.

[+dprovan]

Considering, as repeatedly expressed, we aren't privy to all the details of decisions made at HQ, it's unnecessarily critical to assume mistakes, let alone failure on some level of ignoring customers.

I guess I'm missing what makes my comments unnecessarily critical. And, in fact, I'm saying they pay too much attention to customers, not that they ignore them. There's a natural tendency for companies that have a lot of interaction with customers to confuse reducing complaints with solving problems.

 

Whether a decision is "successful" or not depends on what one recognizes as success.

I'm not sure who's talking about being successful. I don't think this change will accomplish anything interesting. Would that make it a success?

 

I don't recognizing myself in any of the other things you said, so I don't know how to reply. The gist I get from your comments is that I have no right to complain because GS hasn't told me enough for me for me to know what I should complain about.

[+thebruce0]

Of course everyone has a right to complain, I never said otherwise. But constructive criticism is always better than mere complaining.

 

There's no value in broad sweeping statements about the nature and motivation of the company, which many here resort to when something changes that they don't like. Those aren't practically productive, they are rhetoric-driven rants. Sure, they may demonstrate a state of mind amongst some community that the company can take into consideration, but in dealing with specific changes, problems, suggestions - they really are just pointless and inflamatory.

 

That is not saying this is what you, specifically, are doing. But much of this thread contains that sort of response to this change when it comes to the two beloved caches (actually moreso one than the other). I don't know if there's any positive, practical solution that can be presented to Groundspeak that they may feel is feasible in order to grandfather them as exceptions to the programming necessary for this API change. We don't know the ins and outs of the backend to their system. We can only trust (ooo bad word! ) that big-bad-corporate-entity actually has weighed the pros and cons, already considered all the arguments and sentiments put forth, and that this is actually the only feasible solution. If you don't trust that to be true, well, then, nothing will suffice for you unless the decision is reversed. In this case, good luck with that.

[+Team Microdot]

If you don't trust that to be true, well, then, nothing will suffice for you unless the decision is reversed. In this case, good luck with that.

 

Apart from, at the risk of stating the obvious, full and frank disclosure.

[+thebruce0]

Well, yes. And once again, good luck with that

[+Team Microdot]

Well, yes. And once again, good luck with that

 

Optimism costs nothing

[+Team Hugs]

 

It was communicated to API partners and "ordinary" folk about the same time. I'm not sure how the order matters. API partners need time to fix their software to handle the error cases that will now result from logging duplicate logs or logs on their own non-event caches. "Ordinary" folk don't need any extra time.

 

 

But look at what happened. It was precisely the fact that the communication wasn't "about" the same time that created the first wave of angst.

 

HQ communicated the change to the API partners, who then publicized the change on their own public outlets. Of course, the information that was relayed was incomplete and raised a lot of questions, which the API partners were unable to answer. This created a lot of unnecessary angst. HQ issued its official announcement a few days later --- with more clarifications, thanks to some of those discussions and folks like Keystone who relayed those discussions back to HQ --- but, by then, a fair amount of angst had already been created.

 

Given that the announcement was made a month(?) before the effective date of the changes, I'm not sure if anything was gained by giving the API partners a couple of days lead notice. And, I'd argue, some good will was lost.

 

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

[+igator210]

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

 

When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on.

[+lodgebarn]

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

 

When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on.

Nice, so Groundspeak is purely a commercial company and it is just fine and dandy to behave like Apple who are renowned for their lack of compatibility and support for older devices. I have no problem with changes, most things do. However some of us like a few things to stay where they are, giving pleasure to many, especially where there has been no good reason supplied. What is next, get rid of puzzles because they are too hard? Multis because too few new players can be bothered with them and might be confused?

[+dprovan]

There's no value in broad sweeping statements about the nature and motivation of the company, which many here resort to when something changes that they don't like.

This is one more of a series of changes over the last couple years the indicate to me a shift in GS's attitude, so that's why I added a comment about this strategic change to my specific comments about why this change is both unnecessary and unjustified. I don't particularly like or dislike this change, I just think it's knee jerk, and it concerns me that there's no sympathy for the people that are affected. I know just how they feel since it's how I felt when they killed off challenge caches.

 

By the way, just to clear up any confusion: I don't support the idea of grandfathering, and I'm disappointed the idea was brought up.

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

Do you like it when companies do that? I don't, but I do put up with it when the company's an impersonal Goliath. GS has historically played the role of just one part of geocaching, merely other geocachers that play a more important role and quite rightly profit from their efforts. They created this truly unique structure where the company's primary contact with geocachers is through a group of independent geocaching leaders, the reviewers, that don't work for the company. How dare you compare GS to Apple.

[+thebruce0]

it concerns me that there's no sympathy for the people that are affected.

What constitutes "sympathy"?

Grandfathering? You don't seem to want to support that idea, so that leaves simply not making the change... solely because a couple of beloved grandfathered caches wouldn't otherwise continue as they had been. What other option is there?

 

We know you don't like the change (at least, you don't like that/how GS implemented the change). But you haven't demonstrated why it shouldn't be implemented. Demonstrating why it should be is irrelevant - GS has already decided on the reasons, whether we like them or think they're sufficient or not. So they need to know why it shouldn't be implemented if anything is going to change (in favour of the beloved already-grandfathered caches).

 

I know just how they feel since it's how I felt when they killed off challenge caches.

Challenge caches are still alive and kicking.

And this coming from a huge proponent of challenge caches - both before and after the moratorium.

[+Team Hugs]

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

 

When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on.

 

Others have responded, but I'll chime in as well.

 

1. Apple makes hardware, which you only have to buy once. Geocaching is trying primarily to sell its subscription service ... along with all the other tangible goods, I suppose, but none of that makes any sense without the ongoing subscription. If you're selling a subscription, your view of your customer base is different that if you're selling a physical product.

 

2. As a service, Geocaching requires on the good will of its volunteers --- both its reviewers, and the thousands of folks who place caches. It needs to continue to cultivate that good will.

 

3. Yes, in the end, we'll all deal with it and move on.

 

[+thebruce0]

1. Apple makes hardware, which you only have to buy once. Geocaching is trying primarily to sell its subscription service ... along with all the other tangible goods, I suppose, but none of that makes any sense without the ongoing subscription. If you're selling a subscription, your view of your customer base is different that if you're selling a physical product.

 

2. As a service, Geocaching requires on the good will of its volunteers --- both its reviewers, and the thousands of folks who place caches. It needs to continue to cultivate that good will.

 

3. Yes, in the end, we'll all deal with it and move on.

And this is why I firmly believe GS has weighed the pros and cons, and felt that it's not feasible to cater to the cons in this particular case. It sucks, sure. But it's their decision. If they feel it's better for their company -- that does mean general community satisfaction and support (everyone knows you can't please everyone) because that's what keeps the company alive -- then they get to make that call.

Unfortunately that means at the end of the day the ones not pleased are always the ones with the difficult choice to make.

[+Team Microdot]

it concerns me that there's no sympathy for the people that are affected.

 

No symathy from whom?

[+J Grouchy]

it concerns me that there's no sympathy for the people that are affected.

 

No symathy from whom?

 

What good would feeling sympathy for them do? Shall we pat them on the head and say "there there, now..."? The very notion that not being able to log a cache multiple times would hurt someone's feelings is ludicrous.

[+bflentje]

it concerns me that there's no sympathy for the people that are affected.

 

No symathy from whom?

 

And nobody died. What does sympathy get ya?

[+hzoi]

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

 

When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on.

Nice, so Groundspeak is purely a commercial company and it is just fine and dandy to behave like Apple who are renowned for their lack of compatibility and support for older devices. I have no problem with changes, most things do. However some of us like a few things to stay where they are, giving pleasure to many, especially where there has been no good reason supplied. What is next, get rid of puzzles because they are too hard? Multis because too few new players can be bothered with them and might be confused?

 

What was it I was saying the other day about slippery slopes?

 

Ah, yes: in this very thread, even.

 

"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy often used in arguments by people who can't adequately demonstrate the harm of what's happening now.

Edited April 11, 2017 by hzoi

[+Rebore]

Note that HQ still hasn't made any official pronouncements as to the "why" behind these changes. Which leaves us all to speculate as to the reasons. And, hey, long live the Internet, where speculation is king, but ...

 

Many companies make changes without every explaining "why".

 

When Apple stopped putting a floppy drive in computers, the world went nuts. Apple never solicited public opinion as to whether it was a good idea or not. The just did it. I don't remember them ever explaining "why". A lot of other companies explained the "why". And in the end.... the world moved on.

Nice, so Groundspeak is purely a commercial company and it is just fine and dandy to behave like Apple who are renowned for their lack of compatibility and support for older devices. I have no problem with changes, most things do. However some of us like a few things to stay where they are, giving pleasure to many, especially where there has been no good reason supplied. What is next, get rid of puzzles because they are too hard? Multis because too few new players can be bothered with them and might be confused?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly what the official Groundspeak app does.

[+fuzziebear3]

This is of course speculation, as that is really all we have here.

 

To me, the issue that needs to be addressed and is actually the reason for the change is the duplicate logging issue, and that issue seems more common with the apps and more frequent lately. Whether due to pressing Submit multiple times, or timeout and automatic resubmission, the result is duplicate logs on the cache listings.

 

I think the solution is mishandled though. It is not so much a matter than a cache shouldn't have multiple found logs for a given account. While rare, there are several examples that do make some sense, such as those brought up in this thread. A better implementation would be to 'not allow multiple found logs with the exact same text'. This way, it could prevent the bug where duplicate logs are posted, but still allow multiple logs if desired, as long as they were each written individually.

 

(Oh, and you can't multiple log with just always TFTC, but I don't think that is really the issue).

Edited April 11, 2017 by fuzziebear3

[+dprovan]

What constitutes "sympathy"?

Recognizing that they're being impacted and reconsidering whether the change is really justified. Instead, all we get are people trying to talk them out of what they like.

 

We know you don't like the change (at least, you don't like that/how GS implemented the change). But you haven't demonstrated why it shouldn't be implemented.

Oh, brother. Nice illustration of not having any sympathy for the people complaining for pages and pages right here in this thread about losing some well loved caches. Perhaps I should reduce "recognizing" to simply listening to the people being impacted.