Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
10011010

Audit Log

Recommended Posts

 


Hello,

 

 

The purpose of my topic is to advocate for minor changes to the audit log feature. To my view, the audit log can be a useful tool, but it is not without it's problems.

 

 

One of the features that comes with a premium membership is the ability of a CO to view "the audit log (see who viewed your cache)". But to view an audit log, a cache must be configured for premium access only. This has a few consequences

 

 

* premium members forfeit their right to privacy by virtue of being a premium member; there is no anonymous browsing; that's probably as it should be, but...

 

 

* regular members are not subjected to tracking in an audit log because technically speaking they cannot view a page with premium access.

 

 

* if a CO feels a need to watch the audit log they are forced to deny regular members access to a cache that might otherwise be suitable for general access; that is, to gain an audit log the CO must forbid/deny the geocaching experience to those who might enjoy it if they had access to it.

 

 

This may not seem like a big point but the ramifications are subtle and reach farther than one would think. For example...

 

 

In days past, a regular member had the option to set their cache to premium access only. Not any more, tho. However, if a regular member adopts a premium cache, then they too can view an audit log.... even tho they are not a premium cacher.

 

 

The changes I would like to see are these:

 

 

1. A premium member CO should be able to see an audit log for 'all' their caches regardless of access level of finders.

 

 

2. A regular member CO should be denied an audit log even if the cache is set for premium member access only. If this was the case, then...

 

 

3. There would be no reason to forbid regular members from creating premium only caches. Why would they want to do that? Maybe they live in an area where caches are being vandalized, or maybe they invest more than average amounts of time or money into their container or the hide. So, we should afford the same protection to all cache owners because they are, after all, striving to improve the game for everybody.

 

 

These changes would require no updates or alteration to the geocaching database. They would only require minor changes to the page display scripting. There would be no significant outlay of resources to implement these changes. The technology is already there; it just needs to be configured more productively.

 

 

By way of incentive, consider...

 

 

* increased functionality for premium member COs

 

 

* added inducement to up-grade from regular to premium membership

 

 

* if a CO is only concerned about monitoring the audit log rather than access level, these changes make more caches available to all, and at the same time...

 

 

* if a regular member CO feels they need the protection of premium access, then it's easy to give without the benefits of the audit log.

 

 

In short, minor changes regarding who gets the audit log and when adds consistency to the site, provides inducement for premium membership, possibly makes more caches available to the general membership, and requires no coding dexterity or onerous burden to re-code anything (it's not like re-inventing the wheel - the technology is already in place). The whole thing can probably be done in a couple hours. And once these tweaks are in place, it costs nothing to maintain them. To me, it's a win-win situation that will enhance the geocaching experience for everybody.

 

 

That's my two cents. I hope they were well spent.

 

 

Thanks for your time.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

3 hours ago, 10011010 said:

In days past, a regular member had the option to set their cache to premium access only. Not any more, tho. However, if a regular member adopts a premium cache, then they too can view an audit log.... even tho they are not a premium cacher.

 

Setting PMO status on a cache has always been a feature of Premium Membership.   There has never been a time when a "regular member had the option to set their cache to premium access only."   Early in the days of phone apps, there was some confusing language  regarding what caches Basic Members could see on this site's free app, this may be source of your confusion.

 

A basic member can own a PMO cache, either by adoption or by letting Premium Membership lapse.  As cache owner, it behaves like any other cache, they can see it, edit it, delete spoiler photos, logs, and see the audit log. To remove the audit log, they have to email a site admin, as the check box to make the cache PMO does not appear on the edit form for them.

 

Your request seems to be that

1) Premium Member see an audit log on all caches they own and be able to create PMO caches

2)  Premium Members Only option exists for  Basic members to set on their owned caches, but the Basic member sees no audit log.

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

Moreover, the worldwide trend for increased consumer privacy protection likely means that the days of this feature are numbered.  It began with laws in Australia and New Zealand, then GDPR in the EU, then it was PIPEDA in Canada, now it's the CCPA in California and similar legislation in various stages of being enacted in other US States.  The definitions of protected personal data seem to get stricter and stricter, as each jurisdiction wants to be seen as doing more than the others.

 

It is more than important to add feature to make private logs - logs only seen by the finder and the CO. Both of them should be able to make any log private.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

If I could plus 1000 Lep's post I would. 

 

The audit log is not a security feature, it's a curiosity. I own some PMO caches, they're found by people who do not show on the audit log. Caching from a phone, they've never ," viewed your premium member-only cache on the web site". Even before smartphone caching became the norm, caches could be downloaded and logged without cacher ever appearing on the audit log. Now I' speculate that it may be commoner that caches are never viewed on the site than that they are viewed on the site.

 

PMO status is a modest security feature in my experience. Very modest. (I'm surprised at the very low finds cachers who have paid USD $10 for Premium status and go caching one weekend. I set a couple of multi caches to PMO, to stop the novice Found it! logs from finders of the first stage - it hasn't  helped).

 

My feeling is that if a person wants the modest security PMO status affords, they can pay for it.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

If I could plus 1000 Lep's post I would. 

So would I.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HHL said:

So would I.

Add me to the list as well. I also agree that the feature will likely disappear at the first whif of a lawsuit or the threat of one. There’s no sense in fixing something that is likely to be removed. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

And another here. 

 - Try being a new PM in the area and having caches stolen before and after you find them, and you'd get the idea.

Fortunately, we were the ones to nab the guy.    Most never apologized...

Throw in the anal retentive, micro-managers (anyone can play...), and the audit's a real pain-in-the-can.

I haven't done a pmo hide now in years.

 

After the site was supposed to abide by that GDPR thing, I thought for sure that invasive option would be removed.

Now that folks can bypass it with something as simple as a smart phone (how many members use phones these days...), it really makes no sense today.

 

Forgot to add, you probably could have just reopened your similar thread from March...

 

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
addification
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Would the privacy laws even apply, given that we can - and most of us do - use pseudonyms?

 

(Don't even get me started about privacy laws, when governments are spying on us like crazy.)

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Would the privacy laws even apply, given that we can - and most of us do - use pseudonyms?

 

(Don't even get me started about privacy laws, when governments are spying on us like crazy.)

The direction things are headed, I would bet that even pseudonyms or usernames will eventually be considered personal information if there’s even the remotest possibility to link the information to an actual person. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Back when the web site was the only way to look at a cache description, the audit feature would have been fairly easy and straight forward to implement. Logging at this level was done as a matter of course, and letting the CO look at the log was trivial.

 

Now, as has been pointed out by others, there are a number of ways to view a cache description. If the audit log is to keep the same relevance, we would need to expand it to include the following (and I'm sure my list is incomplete).

  • Viewed by API
  • Included in a PQ
  • Downloaded in a PQ
  • Linked to a bookmark list
  • Downloaded via a bookmark list

Doing all of that logging would take a bit of programming. My question would be; is it worth it? Will the CO see significant value in this audit log? I cannot imagine that it would, but I haven't placed any caches either.

 

And even with all of this logging, the Wayback Machine and Google caching pages, it is not complete.

 

Throw in the privacy issues, I agree with The Leprechauns that this feature should be dropped.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

And given that I, and I suspect many others, have regular PQs which download everything in a region, but most of those caches will never be looked at; and when going to a new area I will usually download everything in the area via the API to have it offline in the app just in case, and again will never look at most of them; then that would generate lots of false hits in the logs.

 

So count me in the "it's time to drop this feature" camp.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I would vote to eliminate the Audit Log. If it was eliminated, it would take some time for me to break the habit of looking for it!

 

Geocaching HQ: it might be time for another survey! For PM.  

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

 

- this may be source of your confusion.

 

There's no confusion here. I've said what I wanted to say. There is no benefit in summarizing and repeating it over again.

 

 

- A better way..., in my opinion, is to eliminate the audit log.

 

I agree about the drama. But blaming for loss is only one (mis)-use of an audit log. And you may or may not find this hard to believe, but blame will come with or without audit logs.

 

 

- It began with laws in....

 

The audit log violates no privacy. It does not reveal information about ISP or IP addresses or MAC info or credit card info or anything of the kind. Many users happily include location info in their profile information and are free to abstain from including it. An audit log is merely who visits a page. Nothing more. No privacy law will ever prevent that.

 

 

-  It is more than important to add feature to make private logs - logs only seen by the finder and the CO. Both of them should be able to make any log private.

 

Private logs defeat the purpose of geocaching. Sharing experiences is part of the game. If a person does not want something known publicly, they are free not to put it in a log. And if they feel compelled to include something of a private nature, there is always messages. There is no benefit to private logs. The rest already exists.

 

 

- The audit log is not a security feature,

 

Speaking of confusion, you are mixing up online and offline security and protection. And you are mixing up the audit log with PMO access.

 

 

-  My feeling is that if a person wants the modest security PMO status affords, they can pay for it.

 

You are way off the track. That's not what this discussion is about. Anybody can have PMO caches right now. Nothing needs to change for that.

 

This topic is about making the user experience more consistent while prioritizing the available features that, in turn, may provide incentive for premium memberships and make caches available to a wider, not narrower, audience. Nothing brought up since my first post has addressed these issues.

 

 

I do not see a law-suit over audit logs as a realistic possibility. I suspect it would be laughed out of court. An account of visiting a page that reveals no more information about the visitor than the fact they've been there is tantamount to watching somebody walk down the side-walk. An in-store security camera reveals more about the visitor than the audit log on this site, and there's no law that will have cameras removed. The idea is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

 

- If the audit log is to keep the same relevance, we would need to expand it to include the following...

 

Maybe, but not necessarily. That information is already available to Groundspeak. The simplicity of the audit log needn't change.

 

 

 

I find the strong opinion on the topic interesting. I mean, if you have no use for an audit log it's simple enough to ignore. And yes, opinion is the correct term. The strength of misguided and uninformed opposition runs almost to paranoia. Very curious, indeed. Anyway...

 

This area of the forum is for feedback and suggestions. I hope nobody has too much problem with me using it for that purpose, or for creating a topic that addresses something directly. If the audit log is removed, so be it. But nothing presented in this topic justifies it's removal. And as long as it's there, then why not make it work properly, consistently and productively.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, 10011010 said:

I find the strong opinion on the topic interesting. I mean, if you have no use for an audit log it's simple enough to ignore. And yes, opinion is the correct term. The strength of misguided and uninformed opposition runs almost to paranoia. Very curious, indeed. Anyway...

 

I have line of business oversight over privacy law compliance worldwide for all commercial activities of one of the ten largest banks in the USA.  It scares me to hear a greater expert tell me that I'm misguided and misinformed.  Can you tell me how exposing a user's browsing activities is permissible under CCPA?  Do you agree that CCPA is more expansive than GDPR and PIPEDA?

 

Quote

This area of the forum is for feedback and suggestions. I hope nobody has too much problem with me using it for that purpose, or for creating a topic that addresses something directly. If the audit log is removed, so be it. But nothing presented in this topic justifies it's removal. And as long as it's there, then why not make it work properly, consistently and productively.

 

You are perfectly welcome to offer a feature suggestion.  By doing so in the public forums, you by definition invite others to offer their views, either in support of or in opposition to your opinion.  I have my opinion, you have yours.

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, 10011010 said:

You are way off the track. That's not what this discussion is about. Anybody can have PMO caches right now. Nothing needs to change for that.

What do you mean by "Anybody can have PMO caches right now."?   Basic members cannot have a PMO cache unless (1) it was PMO when they adopted it, or (2) the cacher was a Premium Member and designated their cache as PMO, but then let their Premium Membership expire.

 

3 hours ago, 10011010 said:

Private logs defeat the purpose of geocaching. Sharing experiences is part of the game. If a person does not want something known publicly, they are free not to put it in a log. And if they feel compelled to include something of a private nature, there is always messages. There is no benefit to private logs. The rest already exists.

I agree with you on this, but we'll see if the privacy laws and courts agree.

 

18 hours ago, 10011010 said:

and requires no coding dexterity or onerous burden to re-code anything (it's not like re-inventing the wheel - the technology is already in place). The whole thing can probably be done in a couple hours.

It's always entertaining when non-Lackeys assume how easy it will be for features to be implemented/changed.

 

18 hours ago, 10011010 said:

A premium member CO should be able to see an audit log for 'all' their caches regardless of access level of finders.

Currently, cachers that do not want to appear on an audit log can look to see if the cache is PMO - and if the cache is PMO, then they can decide to view its details using the app or a PQ so that their viewing doesn't appear on the audit log.  Your feature would make avoidance a bit more onerous, as they'd instead have to check if the CO is a Premium Member or not, which is not flagged in the Search results.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Now, as has been pointed out by others, there are a number of ways to view a cache description. If the audit log is to keep the same relevance, we would need to expand it to include the following (and I'm sure my list is incomplete).

  • Viewed by API
  • Included in a PQ
  • Downloaded in a PQ
  • Linked to a bookmark list
  • Downloaded via a bookmark list

Doing all of that logging would take a bit of programming. My question would be; is it worth it? Will the CO see significant value in this audit log? I cannot imagine that it would, but I haven't placed any caches either.

 

And if we add this "viewing mechanisms" to the sources of audit logging, what would bring this? If I create a PQ for my home zone (like hundreds of other cachers in my area), it runs and creates an audit log entry then - what use does that have for the cache owner whose PM only cache was stolen/vandalized? Now there are hundreds of audit log entries between the last successful find and the probable loss/damage time of the cache. Who is the evil cache destroyer then? The last one whose PQ ran? Or the first one? The three guys who downloaded the data via API on the last day? Or anybody else who took the data from last month?

There are lots of cache page views "just for fun" or data retrievals (like by PQs) "just for the shelve, in case I once get there". There is no meaningful connection between the cache view and the actual visit at the cache.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought you made a good point that the audit log exposes Premium Members to a forfeit of their privacy when browsing Geocaching.com. Basic members cannot browse those pages, they're not exposed. I ought to have mentioned that as a good point yesterday, because it is.   (These forums see threads from PMs surprised to learn that their browsing has been exposed on an audit log.)

 

14 hours ago, 10011010 said:

And you are mixing up the audit log with PMO access. 

 

I'm not mixing up anything - for a cache to have an audit log available to a cache owner, it must be PMO.  I'm sure all cache pages have audit logs available to  geocachingHQ, but that's not relevant to your proposals. 

 

I do understand you want to uncouple PMO and a cache having an audit log.

PMO status with audit was first feature the site offered for paying to play.  I think it unlikely that it will change,  unless privacy laws make the audit log go away.

 

QUOTE, "anybody can have PMO caches now".  Can have, but cannot create, have never been able to create.  

 

I still think that if a Basic Member wants, " the same protection" (the protection of not allowing other Basic Members to see their cache pages   :huh: ) they can pay for Premium Membership and then make their owned caches PMO. 

 

(Minor aside, and news to me, a basic member can now remove PMO status from their cache - they used to have to email a reviewer or HQ for that. I verified this by adopting a PMO cache from this account to the Basic account in my household, sure enough, option to remove PMO status was there. Once removed,  no option to add it back. ) 

 

Images below, edit page of cache belonging to PM  showing PMO box to check. Edit page of cache belonging to Basic Member account in this household, no box to check. The CSP is the same; Premium Member sees box to check, Basic Member does not. It has ever been thus.

 

 

PMO check boxes.jpg

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, 10011010 said:

This area of the forum is for feedback and suggestions. I hope nobody has too much problem with me using it for that purpose, or for creating a topic that addresses something directly. If the audit log is removed, so be it. But nothing presented in this topic justifies it's removal. And as long as it's there, then why not make it work properly, consistently and productively.

 

I don’t think anybody has a problem, but many have an opinion.

 

I agree that in its current state, the audit log is not really fit for purpose, but like others, I’d actually prefer to see it removed.  I think there’s something a bit ‘stalky’ about it.

 

There are long-time PMs (who’ve never created a PMO cache) who have no idea this feature even exists.  And others, like me, who try to avoid looking at PMO caches on the website because of the audit log ... maybe for “paranoid” reasons! ;-)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

I’d actually prefer to see it removed.

 

And that could probably be done in a couple of hours. ;-)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, jennergruhle said:

 

And if we add this "viewing mechanisms" to the sources of audit logging, what would bring this? If I create a PQ for my home zone (like hundreds of other cachers in my area), it runs and creates an audit log entry then - what use does that have for the cache owner whose PM only cache was stolen/vandalized? Now there are hundreds of audit log entries between the last successful find and the probable loss/damage time of the cache. Who is the evil cache destroyer then? The last one whose PQ ran? Or the first one? The three guys who downloaded the data via API on the last day? Or anybody else who took the data from last month?

There are lots of cache page views "just for fun" or data retrievals (like by PQs) "just for the shelve, in case I once get there". There is no meaningful connection between the cache view and the actual visit at the cache.

 

My very question. Is the audit log a feature that adds value? What benefits does it have? The OP suggested some tweaks to the audit log. They stated that it could be a useful tool. But they didn't explain why it might be a useful tool. The only use case listed is in finding out who might have stolen a cache. When geocaching was web based only, the audit log might have had the benefit of helping to track down who stole a cache. As you point out, that capability is greatly diluted today, to the point that using the audit log for this purpose has almost no value.

 

I tried to point out what it would take to make a more complete audit log. But I also want to back up and question why have an audit log at all? How else is the audit log used? Again, I'm not a CO, so I haven't any experience in the area. If the only value that the audit log has is to help identify who might have stolen a cache, and we agree that it is pretty useless for that, why keep the feature?

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

They stated that it could be a useful tool. But they didn't explain why it might be a useful tool.

 

It is an useful tool. Every user may have their own reasons to use the tool. If they have no reason they will not use it.

Can you pick any inappropriate way to use the audit log? I do not mean ways that do not work, as you pointed out in your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

How else is the audit log used?

Well, first of all, I doubt it's really being used to track down geocache thieves. If it's that common for a habitual geocache thief to be a PM, that's a way bigger problem that the audit log isn't going to solve. Besides, at least 9 times out of 10, finding a "smoking gun" in an audit log will turn out to have nothing to do with the missing cache, so no one in their right mind would act on it.

 

But, anyway, to answer the question, the audit log is used by COs to see who's looking at their cache listing. Pretty simple. It's not aggressive stalking, it's just idle curiosity. Sheesh, have we really so completely given up on the notion geocachers are generally friends with each other? The CO looking at the audit log is normally going to be interested in someone he might want to talk to about finding the cache, not in spotting evil strangers threatening it. For my PMO  cache, once in a while I look just to see if anyone's shown any interest lately.

 

No, it's not a critical feature we can't do without, and, in fact, so few people even know about it, it could probably be removed with no one noticing for weeks. That being said, I don't see any reason to get rid of it, either. (Although I'm kinda surprised GS hasn't gotten rid of it already even if there's no obvious impact just because of the uncertainty about what the privacy laws actually require.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

 If the only value that the audit log has is to help identify who might have stolen a cache, and we agree that it is pretty useless for that, why keep the feature?

 

We know some (and heard similar here in the forums - puzzles mostly) that will email a cacher and ask  if they might need more help.   :)

 - Sounds innocent enough...

Well, that's sorta how our harassment issues started.  After the second or third time I looked at a cache page, a CO asked if we needed help.

I said no, and continued looking at the same caches time-to-time.  I was simply waiting for one close-enough by to warrant a run for it.

Eventually the email became "when are you going for this?" ... and a couple weeks later it turned up missing.

Tack on a couple similar, with that one who told anyone that'd listen about that thievin' cerberus, and things got real ugly around here.

 

There was a forums regular here who said once they wished all their hides, pmo or not, could have that audit to keep track.

Another post said they chose pmo to see more "quality" visits to their caches.

 -  Where does one get the idea of gaining a "quality" experience by simply plunking down cash ?    Snobby stalkers was a new one on me.  :D

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, arisoft said:
2 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

They stated that it could be a useful tool. But they didn't explain why it might be a useful tool.

 

It is an useful tool. ...

 

You restate that it's a useful tool, but again fail to explain why it's useful.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

You restate that it's a useful tool, but again fail to explain why it's useful.

 

You mean why I am using it? I can not answer for others. I practically do not use it systematically. Occasionally I may check is there any visitors. It gives much better feedback than an ordinary visitor couter. I know that some COs may use it to evaluate how to answer to hint requests. The CO can see how intensively the player has already tried to solve the puzzle.

 

I have one special puzzle cache where all players must register in. I was very surprised how useful data I received just after the publication. I saw who was doing what so I could help them by adding new hints according to results I saw in real time. Some players were so pissed off for this that they complained to the reviewer but HQ did not see any problems because they do the same - of course 😁

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The CO can see how intensively the player has already tried to solve the puzzle.

 

The very reason I do my best to avoid visiting the website on PMO puzzles! 🙂

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

The very reason I do my best to avoid visiting the website on PMO puzzles! 🙂

 

I know but can you explain your reaction logically?

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I know but can you explain your reaction logically?

 

This came up in another thread recently and my attitude was described as “bizarre”.  I was discussing it with two fellow cachers on Sunday.  One was amazed to discover there was an audit log; the other was like me...

 

As you’ve said yourself, the audit log on a puzzle cache is probably of most interest to the CO immediately after their new cache is published.  Bearing in mind that the subgroup of local cachers who set and solve puzzles is relatively small, we tend to know each other reasonably well.  So, when a new puzzle comes out I’d rather not let the CO know just how hard I’m trying to solve it.  Maybe that is irrational but it’s the way it is! :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

The very reason I do my best to avoid visiting the website on PMO puzzles! 🙂

 

Agreed.     If a person was in need of help or had any questions, it's pretty simple to mail the CO. 

I thought that's why there's both a "send message" and email contact on profiles.

 

We still have a few here who don't even log a Found It online. 

 - I'd bet knowing someone might be keeping track of them anyway would freak some out.   :)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

So, when a new puzzle comes out I’d rather not let the CO know just how hard I’m trying to solve it.

 

It seems that you want to pretend that the cache is not interesting. Maybe because you don't want to disclose that you have tried to solve the puzzle but failed. Othervise you will be revealed when you log the Find it 😁

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It seems that you want to pretend that the cache is not interesting. Maybe because you don't want to disclose that you have tried to solve the puzzle but failed. Othervise you will be revealed when you log the Find it 😁

 

 

Vanity! ;-)  I guess I’m less troubled knowing that my progress is being monitored if I’m actually making progress.  The trouble is you don’t generally know, from the outset, how you’re going to get on.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

As you’ve said yourself, the audit log on a puzzle cache is probably of most interest to the CO immediately after their new cache is published.

Certitude (and possibly other solution checkers) can show you who has entered a correct solution to your puzzle, and can show you how many times correct and incorrect solutions have been entered. That could serve curious owners of puzzle caches once the audit log is gone.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Vanity! ;-)  I guess I’m less troubled knowing that my progress is being monitored if I’m actually making progress.  The trouble is you don’t generally know, from the outset, how you’re going to get on.

Meh. There are so many reasons I might look at a cache page, I'm not too worried if the CO, rightly or wrongly, thinks it's because I can't solve the puzzle. I can't imagine my vanity getting in the way since the CO has no way of knowing whether I didn't solve it the first time because I was stumped, busy, or bored.

 

I do think it's a little forward for a CO to ping someone when they show up in the audit log, but personally I don't think it's a big deal to just say "no thank-you!" if the CO asks me if I need help.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Meh. There are so many reasons I might look at a cache page, I'm not too worried if the CO, rightly or wrongly, thinks it's because I can't solve the puzzle. I can't imagine my vanity getting in the way since the CO has no way of knowing whether I didn't solve it the first time because I was stumped, busy, or bored.

 

I do think it's a little forward for a CO to ping someone when they show up in the audit log, but personally I don't think it's a big deal to just say "no thank-you!" if the CO asks me if I need help.

 

Honestly, this isn’t something I lose sleep over, and I certainly don’t boycott PMO caches, but it does come into my thinking when I see that PMO banner.

 

And I’m still waiting to hear the positives that will cancel out my feeling of being stalked. ;-)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Agreed.     If a person was in need of help or had any questions, it's pretty simple to mail the CO. 

I thought that's why there's both a "send message" and email contact on profiles.

 

We still have a few here who don't even log a Found It online. 

 - I'd bet knowing someone might be keeping track of them anyway would freak some out.   :)

 

Yeah it feels like the CO set a puzzle so that he could check to see who s/he's stumping. Perhaps even a puzzle that requires help from the CO. Maybe the CO is looking to connect with finders, but it's a strange way to go about it. If a CO wants to help puzzle solvers,  it would be more comfortable for finders to have the CO put a note in the description saying they would be happy to help anyone who needs a nudge. To be stalked via the audit log is not a friendly form of communication. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

How about we put audit log on our profiles. Imagine the weirdness and trouble that would ensue if we could see who's checking out our profile. It feels uncomfortable knowing that someone could know we were looking at their profile. The audit log feels like that too (to a lesser degree, but similar).

 

And that's coming from someone whose team account for hiding caches was once PMO for a few years. But we never looked at the audit log. It is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. If someone attends events you get to know people...pseudonyms are tied to real people. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Actually I like the audit log and don't have these problems with it that a few others have. So, someone can see I have checked their cache. So...:rolleyes:.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

How about we put audit log on our profiles. Imagine the weirdness and trouble that would ensue if we could see who's checking out our profile. It feels uncomfortable knowing that someone could know we were looking at their profile. The audit log feels like that too (to a lesser degree, but similar).

 

And that's coming from someone whose team account for hiding caches was once PMO for a few years. But we never looked at the audit log. It is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. If someone attends events you get to know people...pseudonyms are tied to real people. 

I use a website that  DOES list on the person's Profile everyone who has looked at the profile page, starting with the most current view. Everyone can see it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I use a website that  DOES list on the person's Profile everyone who has looked at the profile page, starting with the most current view. Everyone can see it.

Yes - there is another mainstream website that has the option of seeing who has viewed your profile.  But a user can only see who has viewed their profile, if they agree that other users can see that they have viewed theirs.  It's similar to a 2-way consent.

 

 

On 12/12/2018 at 5:33 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

My feeling is that if a person wants the modest security PMO status affords, they can pay for it.

On 12/12/2018 at 4:38 PM, 10011010 said:

You are way off the track. That's not what this discussion is about.

17 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I still think that if a Basic Member wants, " the same protection" (the protection of not allowing other Basic Members to see their cache pages   :huh: ) they can pay for Premium Membership and then make their owned caches PMO. 

I think the disconnect here is that the OP is not saying there is "protection" with PMO status.  They aren't saying anything about PMO status.  They want to have an audit log on all caches placed by a Premium Member CO, whether that hide is PMO or not.  The implication is that having an audit log will provide "protection" to the Premium Member CO's hides. Some of those hides may be PMO, while others may be non-PMO - and open to Basic Members.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, arisoft said:

Occasionally I may check is there any visitors. ...

Given that with the current audit log:

  • You're not seeing views via API apps.
  • You're not seeing views via a PQ download into an offline app.
  • You are seeing false hits from C:geo users who have done a mass download into an offline list.

Then the data you're looking at is unreliable and may be wildly inaccurate. If the data you're looking at is so questionable then it is of little or no value, and the conclusions you're drawing from it are no better than speculation, and so the tool isn't really very useful.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

And I’m still waiting to hear the positives that will cancel out my feeling of being stalked. ;-)

Well, I tried to explain the positive, but I'll repeat it: your friends get to see that you're interested in their cache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Then the data you're looking at is unreliable and may be wildly inaccurate.

 

This is true but it doesn't render the data totally unuseful.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:
10 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

And I’m still waiting to hear the positives that will cancel out my feeling of being stalked. ;-)

Well, I tried to explain the positive, but I'll repeat it: your friends get to see that you're interested in their cache.

 

I do get that, but for me it’s not enough to cancel out my negative feelings.  (And to be honest, my good friends know I’m interested in their caches without the need for an audit log.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

Certitude (and possibly other solution checkers) can show you who has entered a correct solution to your puzzle

 

Certitude allows anonymous use. Just mentioning.

Edited by BillyGee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't look at the audit logs on my PMO caches very frequently but it usually only is for two reasons.  Curiosity (who's been viewing my caches) and volume as it pertains to date.  This lets me see if there's a chance that I might get visitors to one of my caches and I'll go check it if the volume of visitors goes up noticeably.  I actually haven't done the second type in a few years so it honestly doesn't really matter to me if it's kept or removed.  I don't really see a reason to get rid of it but I don't really see a reason to keep it either.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I do get that, but for me it’s not enough to cancel out my negative feelings.  (And to be honest, my good friends know I’m interested in their caches without the need for an audit log.)

I'm not sure where you're headed with this line of thought. Are we just expressing opinions about the audit log, or are we discussing whether to get rid of it. I've given the positives. You have negative feelings. Are you proposing that your negative feelings are justification for eliminating it despite other people liking it?

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Are you proposing that your negative feelings are justification for eliminating it despite other people liking it?

Well, "negative feelings" (and an EU law based on those feelings) seem to be enough for the forum to allow people to completely delete a forum thread. Given the ability to delete "personal information" that was deliberately posted to a public forum, it seems odd to me that personal information found in the audit log would be visible to people who haven't agreed to handle that personal information responsibly. Every time that I've had access to log data, I've had to sign documents confirming that I understood my obligation to handle such data appropriately, and that I agreed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm not sure where you're headed with this line of thought. Are we just expressing opinions about the audit log, or are we discussing whether to get rid of it. I've given the positives. You have negative feelings. Are you proposing that your negative feelings are justification for eliminating it despite other people liking it?

 

I’m simply expressing an opinion...

 

I don’t have any PMO caches, so I don’t use the functionality.  And what you’ve never had, you don’t miss!

 

I dare say, if it was available on my non-PMO caches, I would use it out of curiosity - hypocritical, right?  - but none of the positives that I’ve seen posted come close to making me consider switching my caches to PMO.  (Nothing against PMO caches, but I don’t think this is a good reason for them.)

 

To be honest, I think it would be a far more logical implementation to have made the audit log a benefit of Premium membership, rather than a reward for making a cache PMO.

 

This could be addressed, but I don’t see how the fundamental flaw, i.e. it’s inaccuracy, can be resolved.

 

So, there are three options:

 

1. Improve it - it could be improved, but I don’t think it’s accuracy can be fixed.

 

2. Leave it as it is.

 

3. Remove it.

 

If there was a vote, and I also take into 

account my ‘paranoid’ unease and niraD’s valid privacy concerns then I’d vote ‘3’.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

To be honest, I think it would be a far more logical implementation to have made the audit log a benefit of Premium membership, rather than a reward for making a cache PMO.

 

If it doesn't eventually go bye-bye, I'd rather they remained only on pmo caches thanks.    :) 

I like this hobby, and would like to continue with all those others without that audit. 

 - How would the site let members know an audit's working on "all other" cache pages ?  Easy now,  all caches pmo include it ...

Never saw the audit as a "reward",  simply that it came with making a cache pmo.   A premium member benefit anyway.

 

I like the idea of a "members only" cache, and for whatever belief the CO feels it benefits.   Or just because they can.

 - It's just that audit that comes with it , that I've had actual issues with,  is why I steer clear of 'em ...

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×