Audit Logs to be retired

[+rtb2425777]

On 10/25/2019 at 7:08 PM, L0ne.R said:

Nice to see that no one in the forums really cares that the audit log will be gone.

 

 

Not true.   Every puzzler I have spoken to in the Atlanta GeoCaching community is upset that the audit logs have been removed.   

[+on4bam]

18 minutes ago, rtb2425777 said:

This is information that I need to know and now I cannot

 

Yes you can, use your own system. The easiest way is to host the puzzle yourself (image, pdf....) and make sure you can see statistics of who looks at them or downloads them. It's not as accurate as you won't see returning visitors but you might combine with a "counter".

 

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

Geocheckers only tell you if your puzzle is a guesswork puzzle, not about interest unless is it a such.

Sure, if your solution checker reports that there were 42 incorrect answers and 3 correct answers, then it tells you that your puzzle is a guesswork puzzle.

 

But if your solution checker reports that there were 0 incorrect answers and 3 correct answers, then it tells you that the same number of people solved it (indicating similar interest in it), and that it is not a guesswork puzzle.

 

Around here, solution checkers are used on all sorts of puzzles, not just guesswork puzzles. They're also useful to make sure that you haven't fat-fingered the calculations, or fat-fingered copying the digits from the calculations to the solution coordinates, or whatever.

[+arisoft]

48 minutes ago, niraD said:

But if your solution checker reports that there were 0 incorrect answers and 3 correct answers, then it tells you that the same number of people solved it (indicating similar interest in it), and that it is not a guesswork puzzle.

 

If there is only 4/6 tries in the checker, what does it tell to the CO about how interesting the puzzle is? It tells just nothing. Audit log could still show continuous interest.

 

Only guesswork geochecker puzzles may be practical this way. When number of failed tries is decreasing, it is time for a new useless hint.

Edited November 1, 2019 by arisoft

[+L0ne.R]

51 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

If there is only 4/6 tries in the checker, what does it tell to the CO about how interesting the puzzle is? It tells just nothing. Audit log could still show continuous interest.

 

Only guesswork geochecker puzzles may be practical this way. When number of failed tries is decreasing, it is time for a new useless hint.

 

I wouldn't classify checker or audit pings as true interest. True interest is when someone at least attempts to visit the cache location and log a find (or DNF, or Note, as the case may be). 

Edited November 1, 2019 by L0ne.R

[+MartyBartfast]

50 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Audit log could still show continuous interest.

Or it might be showing that someone in your area has an offline list in C:GEO which they update frequently but they might have zero interest in your puzzles and may have never looked at them.

Meanwhile someone else who is interested in your puzzles is looking at them every day via the app or GSAK etc. and you will never know it.

 

Really the audit log wasn't providing any reliable information, it would probably require a significant effort to include visits via the API, and there's no way it could count people looking on offline tools. I think this is the real reason GS have dropped it and they're using GDPR as an excuse.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I'd wouldn't classify checker or audit pings as true interest.

Yep.

When I get a notification from the site of a new cache out, it doesn't say whether the cache is standard or pmo.

That pmo hide now has a false reading, with the CO "assuming" I'm interested just because I clicked on it.

 

Only one sorta-regular poster here has ever given a warning that the link presented in a post is to a pmo cache.

 - I'm not interested anymore in pmo hides while the audit's in place.  I could use a phone, but don't care to.  Don't PQ or use lists either.

It's not fair to me or that CO of those caches to think there's any reason I'm interested, when it was simply a click to a link in a post...

[+Max and 99]

As I've mentioned before, I've shown up on Thousands of Audit Logs ONLY because I frequently use the "Nearest Waymarks" link from a geocache page in an area I plan to visit. I have close to zero interest in the cache, but since the Waymarking site search features are broken in many ways, the Nearest Waymark link is what works best for me. I've mentioned to some geocache owners why I might be showing up on their audit lots frequently.  It's going to take me some time to get out of the mindset of the audit log showing my visit, but eventually I'll get used to not worrying about my name showing up. 

[Blue Square Thing]

8 hours ago, little-leggs said:

why why why are we pampering to the ( phone app society ) every thing seems to being geared up for phone apps  

 

They're not - people who use the phone app won't have shown up on an audit log because it didn't record app visits. Whatever it might be about, it's not about pandering to app users at all.

[+CAVinoGal]

18 hours ago, rtb2425777 said:

The reason I created most of my caches as Premium Only was to get the audit log....now there really isn't much of a reason to create Premium Only caches anymore.  The Audit log on PMO caches was an interesting little bonus for me, but it was/is not the primary reason I make some of my caches PMO.  Those reasons are a topic for another thread.  

 

I use the audit logs to determine interest in my caches and whether I should adjust their difficulty levels, etc.  It is fun to see who is trying my various puzzle caches and it's great when you see the same cachers taking interest.   I use(d) the Audit logs as one means of determining interest - but there are better ways as the Audit log is only a small slice of the audience that is interested.  Using puzzle checkers like Certitudes lets me see who is attempting, and also what their missed attempts are - that gives me a good idea of how the puzzle is being interpreted and if I might need to change some wording, or up the difficulty.

 

Overall, the audit log was a quick view of who had used the website to view my cache pages; but other tools give me a more rounded picture of how the cache is doing and how much real interest there is.  Finders' logs, and DNF's give me more valuable clues than someone's name on the audit log.  And in this area, a good number of cachers use their phone and the app to view the cache page, and those visits do not show up at all on the audit log.

[+lee737]

Feature request added to website forum..... 

[+little-leggs]

8 hours ago, rtb2425777 said:

yes, please reinstate it.

we want it back ( please ) 

[+little-leggs]

can anyone tell us why the function has been removed ?

[+little-leggs]

On 10/26/2019 at 10:18 AM, The Cuthies & Max said:

Audit logs where a fun feature especially when your cache had just been published.

 

I used to love looking to see who had been looking who had looked first , and who'd looked more than once , then I liked to try and guess who would be the FTF

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, little-leggs said:

can anyone tell us why the function has been removed ?

 

From the announcement:

Quote

Due to privacy concerns and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) considerations, we will remove the Audit Log on Premium-only caches on October 31. This is the tool that owners of Premium-only caches can use to see which users have viewed the cache page.

 

[+Max and 99]

Just now, little-leggs said:

 

I used to love looking to see who had been looking who had looked first , and who'd looked more than once , then I liked to try and guess who would be the FTF

Now the guessing game is even more fun!

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Really the audit log wasn't providing any reliable information, it would probably require a significant effort to include visits via the API, and there's no way it could count people looking on offline tools. I think this is the real reason GS have dropped it and they're using GDPR as an excuse.

 

Agreed.   Though maybe I'd say it was time to let it go, and the GDPR was convenient.  

Guess I'm a little (but just a little...) surprised that folks, knowing the audit hasn't really functioned accurately for years, are upset by losing it now.

 

[+geoHerri]

I want the audit logs back.

The reason why it was removed is ridiculous. Everybody knows that reading the listing is monitored.

The control over my listings is now gone. I can't see anymore if some Muggle with Fake-Premium-Accounts are reading my listings and then steal the cache-containers. This has happend in the past.

Increasing the privacy would be, that nobody can see the logs i have made, beside the owner. If i had this option i would choose it.

[+cerberus1]

2 minutes ago, geoHerri said:

I want the audit logs back.

The reason why it was removed is ridiculous. Everybody knows that reading the listing is monitored.

The control over my listings is now gone.

I can't see anymore if some Muggle with Fake-Premium-Accounts are reading my listings and then steal the cache-containers.

 

But reading isn't even needed to be "monitored".   Just accidently clicking on it does the same. No "reading" needed... 

 - And since most new cachers are using phones, you wouldn't know if that "muggle with a fake account" was ever there anyway. 

[Rock Chalk]

9 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Really the audit log wasn't providing any reliable information, it would probably require a significant effort to include visits via the API, and there's no way it could count people looking on offline tools. I think this is the real reason GS have dropped it and they're using GDPR as an excuse.

 

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Agreed.   Though maybe I'd say it was time to let it go, and the GDPR was convenient.  

 

Trying to keep track of and respond to all the false information in the forums is a fool's errand. But I'll pipe up to say GDPR is the reason for this. Period.

 

Privacy issues are going to continue to be a thing, both on Geocaching.com and tons of other websites. GDPR is a big deal. A really, really big deal. So is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which takes effect January 1. If you guys want to keep dreaming up conspiracy theories, go for it. But you are 1000% wrong about this.

[+MartyBartfast]

6 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

But I'll pipe up to say GDPR is the reason for this. Period.

I'd be interested to know what part of GDPR is being contravened by the audit trail in a manner that can't be resolved if there was a real wish to keep it.

[+radioscout]

9 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

Privacy issues are going to continue to be a thing, both on Geocaching.com and tons of other websites. GDPR is a big deal.

 

Many thanks for removing the audit log. Can I be sure that it will never come back? And if it will be back, can I be sure that the ""old" listing views are not showed?

[+StratOman]

I am totally gutted by the removal of Audit log.
I have 130 ish puzzle caches out there and used it to see if interest had waned , then I would add a new hint to get it going again.
Also great to see what type of puzzle was popular and what wasn't.
Also if a FTF was imminent.
Why couldn't the cachers name just be coded or removed like the geochecker does. In this way I still know the activity but the privacy is protected.

 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, StratOman said:

.
Why couldn't the cachers name just be coded or removed like the geochecker does. In this way I still know the activity but the privacy is protected.

 

 

It will drive many nuts not knowing who is pinging their cache page. Before PMO it seemed there was a weekly “Tell me who is “Watching” my cache page” request/demand on the forums. 

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It will drive many nuts not knowing who is pinging their cache page. Before PMO it seemed there was a weekly “Tell me who is “Watching” my cache page” request/demand on the forums. 

The Audit log never answered that question...

[+arisoft]

10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I'd be interested to know what part of GDPR is being contravened by the audit trail in a manner that can't be resolved if there was a real wish to keep it.

 

It doesn't have to be a specified part of GDPR. The problem is the penalty which is " 20 million euros, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of their total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. " If you suspect that your acts may violate GDPR you want to be sure that you don't.

Edited November 2, 2019 by arisoft

[+kunarion]

27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It doesn't have to be a specified part of GDPR. The problem is the penalty which is " 20 million euros, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of their total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. " If you suspect that your acts may violate GDPR you want to be sure that you don't.

 

This is an awesome revelation!  Now this web site can be completely fixed, because they comply with threats.

 

I hearby demand that Geocaching.com stop using gray text on gray backgrounds, or send me 20 million euros, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of their total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by kunarion

[+on4bam]

Congratulations, you've just proven you don't understand GDPR..... at all.

 

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, on4bam said:

Congratulations, you've just proven you don't understand GDPR..... at all.

 

 

Are you suggesting that GS understand GDPR?

[+on4bam]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Are you suggesting that GS understand GDPR?

Nope, My reaction was about the grey on grey "threat" by kunarion.

 

[+qbee37]

Why does Groundspeak continue to give cachers less reason to cache.  I use Audit Logs extensively to see who's looking at my puzzles and how often.  This allows me to gauge how much interest there is in some of the more difficult ones. Has it gone un-found for six months because it's tough to solve, or because no one is interested. With audit logs I can easily make that determination by looking at how many times and how often individual cachers are looking at the cache page.  Without them. I have no idea as to whether i should leave the cache intact (thereby potentially blocking other cache placements) or archive it and allow something new to be placed in the area.

 

Privacy?! Get real, we're all using made-up names.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, qbee37 said:

Why does Groundspeak continue to give cachers less reason to cache.  I use Audit Logs extensively to see who's looking at my puzzles and how often.  This allows me to gauge how much interest there is in some of the more difficult ones. Has it gone un-found for six months because it's tough to solve, or because no one is interested. With audit logs I can easily make that determination by looking at how many times and how often individual cachers are looking at the cache page.  Without them. I have no idea as to whether i should leave the cache intact (thereby potentially blocking other cache placements) or archive it and allow something new to be placed in the area.

 

Privacy?! Get real, we're all using made-up names.

 

None of my puzzles are PMO so I've never had the benefit of the audit log to gauge interest, yet I've never felt I was in an information vacuum. There are other things like discussions at events and in the local FB groups, messages from friends about their attempts, checker logs, etc. But the puzzle's out there, does the CO really need to keep that tight a grip on it anyway? If the D rating is too low or someone's jumping up and down wanting to use GZ for another cache you'll likely hear about it regardless. I often look at puzzles I see others mention, or I might look at what other caches a CO owns after I've found one of theirs, or I might just be looking at what caches there are in an area I might be visiting, none of which mean I'm actually trying to solve the puzzle. And even if looking at the cache page spikes my interest enough for me to have a go at the puzzle and perhaps even solve it, that doesn't mean I'm likely to go out and find the cache, especially if it's some distance from home; it'll most likely just end up in my growing list of unfound caches with corrected coordinates (currently 40). I'm sure my name appears in many more audit logs than in the logbooks of PMO caches I've found or are intending to find.

 

My latest challenge cache, published early last month, has had 71 successful checker hits and 123 unsuccessful ones, most of which I presume would have come via the cache page, yet it's only had two finds to date. If this is any indication, don't think page visits correlate very well at all with cache finds.

 

As for the privacy afforded by nicknames, that only lasts until the first event you attend or the first time you bump into other cachers on the hunt. Maybe it's different in a big city, but in a small community a nickname won't keep you anonymous for long.

Edited November 2, 2019 by barefootjeff

[Blue Square Thing]

1 hour ago, qbee37 said:

Privacy?! Get real, we're all using made-up names.

 

Which identify us uniquely. So the data has to handled responsibly.

 

Groundspeak seem to be doing a decent job at this. Not overkill, but responsible enough.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

As for the privacy afforded by nicknames, that only lasts until the first event you attend or the first time you bump into other cachers on the hunt. Maybe it's different in a big city, but in a small community a nickname won't keep you anonymous for long.

 

At events, there is no requirement to introduce who you are and what is your nickname. If you let anyone to know who is behind your nickname it happens with your consent.

 

Audit-logs are as good as cache logs. The next obvious step is to hide cache logs for the same reason. I think you can not disprove this reasoning.

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Audit-logs are as good as cache logs.

 

With a cache log, you have chosen to post the information in the log where it can be viewed by the public.

 

With an audit log, you have merely visited the cache page. You have not chosen to make any information public.

 

That seems like a significant difference to me.

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

With a cache log, you have chosen to post the information in the log where it can be viewed by the public.

 

With an audit log, you have merely visited the cache page. You have not chosen to make any information public.

 

That seems like a significant difference to me.

 

You mean that the player has not consent to give this information to the CO? This may apply to this case. We know that GS still collects this data, it is not public any longer.

[+barefootjeff]

27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

At events, there is no requirement to introduce who you are and what is your nickname. If you let anyone to know who is behind your nickname it happens with your consent.

 

Maybe you haven't given your full name, address and date of birth, but you've shown your face and, in small communities, you're likely to bump into other cachers in non-caching circumstances, like in the shops, on the beach, in trains, etc. I've lost count of the number of times that's happened and there aren't many cachers around here.

 

30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Audit-logs are as good as cache logs. The next obvious step is to hide cache logs for the same reason. I think you can not disprove this reasoning.

 

How much or how little detail you put in a cache log is entirely up to you and you know that as soon as you click Submit it'll be there on the cache page for all to see. The audit log was different; it was more like the CO watching through the keyhole. Also cache logs are a record of the past and give no indication of where the logger is now or what they'll be doing tomorrow (other than it's pretty unlikely they'll be going back to the cache they just logged a find on). An audit log on the other hand could be used as an indicator of future intent, however unreliable that might be.

[+bflentje]

On 10/25/2019 at 3:15 PM, The A-Team said:

For those who haven't noticed, an announcement was made a few hours ago by HQ:

 

Thoughts? Concerns?

 

Personally, I won't miss them. I've never made any of my caches PMO and therefore haven't used the logs myself. However, we've seen a number of cases mentioned here in the forums where innocent cachers were harrassed simply because they viewed a cache listing and showed up on the audit log. Since there are multiple ways to get around the audit log and it often seems to cause angst, I think retiring them is A Good Thing™.

 

 I liked the audit log on the VERY few caches I set to PMO. However, it won't change my life. It was more or less useless in pointing out cache maggots anyway.

[+L0ne.R]

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

At events, there is no requirement to introduce who you are and what is your nickname. If you let anyone to know who is behind your nickname it happens with your consent.

 

Audit-logs are as good as cache logs. The next obvious step is to hide cache logs for the same reason. I think you can not disprove this reasoning.

 

Interesting. Do you give a false trailname at events? Have you ever been discovered and called out? 

If one goes to more than one event I expect that one's actual trailname will be known, and likely your real name too (and your profession, possibly your cell number (for PAFs)).  

[+arisoft]

25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Interesting. Do you give a false trailname at events? Have you ever been discovered and called out?

 

What do you mean? I have attented only one event where we have a roll call and some participants declined this opportunity.

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

At events, there is no requirement to introduce who you are and what is your nickname.

True, but we do sign a log book at events, and a lot of the fun at events is getting to know the people behind the names I see on the logsheets.  We have one local cacher that makes namebadges for anyone who wants, with their geoname, actual first name, and city of residence.  No one is required to get one, but nearly every local cacher around here has one and wears it at events - we like knowing each other!

 

Our online posted logs are public, just as every word we write in these forums is public, and I am aware that it is public when I post.  Yes, the audit log is different, but it just shows that I visited a certain cache page at some point, maybe several times.  Having a CO know that doesn't bother me.

 

And trying to use the audit log to gauge interest in my caches never made any sense - it's only a subset of cachers or others who looked at the page, interested or not.  There are much better indicators of interest, IMHO.  As others have stated, discussions at events, finds on the cache, messages asking for hints, etc.  The notifications I get when someone finds one of my caches and their logs are a much better indicator of interest, to me!

Edited November 2, 2019 by CAVinoGal
typo corrections

[+thebruce0]

I'm pretty sure the GDPR applies to Groundspeak differently than human event hosts to keep a paper log with signatures. One is a worldwide business which also operates in the UK and maintains a database of information offered by individuals.  The intent is that if someone wants to 'erase' themselves, companies can be held accountable because they have collected such data, so they're required to kill it all, any connection to the real person.

This discussion was already launched with the whole "Deleted User" change a while back when GDPR was first enacted.

I'm sure GS wants to keep as much public information public as possible. GDPR has been a pain for loads of internet companies.

[+Shop99er]

I'm not  sure whey there are PMO caches anyway. There are several known work-arounds for non premium members to log them, and TPTB don't care about that, so why bother?

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

What do you mean? I have attented only one event where we have a roll call and some participants declined this opportunity.

 

Events here are never that formal. Usually anyone in the dozen or so attendees who isn't known will introduce themselves to those they chat with, or other cachers will introduce themselves to those; likewise at impromptu mini-events that occasionally happen at GZ of a new cache. I usually wear an old Hang Ten tee shirt with the barefoot insignia on it to events, in case my real life bare feet aren't enough to uniquely identify me, and that's usually enough for anyone I haven't previously met to immediately know who I am - no need for a nametag .

 

1 hour ago, Shop99er said:

I'm not  sure whey there are PMO caches anyway. There are several known work-arounds for non premium members to log them, and TPTB don't care about that, so why bother?

 

Usually it's not muggles-with-apps logging caches that's the problem, it's with them finding them and causing mischief, intentionally or otherwise. That requires viewing the cache page on the website or app and setting a cache to PMO can be effective where this is a problem (for example the Cache-Smasher that lived up to its name in the Newcastle area last year).

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, Shop99er said:

I'm not  sure whey there are PMO caches anyway.

There are several known work-arounds for non premium members to log them, and TPTB don't care about that, so why bother?

 

I feel that having a "members only" cache is a good thing, showing support for the hobby.      Most games have a premium feature.

The last six years  or so it's sometimes been used to keep "muggles with apps" away. Anyone who remembers the "Intro" app can probably attest...

These were often new, basic phone-app members, loading an app,  using it for a weekend without even knowing how the game's played, then move on to another "app game" the following week.

We lost a couple ammo cans,  after new, not-bothering-to-read-anything app players took them, then placed them at other locations because, "I thought that's how the game was played...".   Most were later found by friends, some just laying along a trail's edge.

Making them pmo would have fixed that for us.

 

IIRC the site cared enough to allow a "work around" for basic members to log them. Logging not the same as access to the cache page.

Having to pay a PM for every family member just to log a find would be a bit much for many.  This is a family-friendly game.

[+1949Sidewinder]

This sounds like a really lame excuse to get rid of one of the few features on the site that I find very useful. I like to hide caches out in the back-country that can be extremely difficult to access. Very few have the interest and gumption to actually go find them so it is important (to me) to know if anybody is even looking at the listings. It is interesting to see whom is looking at your listing, but it is important to know if "anybody" is looking. It would be nice to see a more imaginative solution to the problematic nature of the audit log!

[+arisoft]

37 minutes ago, 1949Sidewinder said:

it is important (to me) to know if anybody is even looking at the listings

 

Don't worry. There is another way to get statistics. It is called a web bug. Here is an example https://www.loggly.com/docs/tracking-pixel/

 

 

 

[+radioscout]

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is called a web bug.

 

   

[Blue Square Thing]

1 hour ago, 1949Sidewinder said:

This sounds like a really lame excuse to get rid of one of the few features on the site that I find very useful. I like to hide caches out in the back-country that can be extremely difficult to access. Very few have the interest and gumption to actually go find them so it is important (to me) to know if anybody is even looking at the listings. It is interesting to see whom is looking at your listing, but it is important to know if "anybody" is looking. It would be nice to see a more imaginative solution to the problematic nature of the audit log!

 

I'm interested in what you've done if you've found that people aren't looking at them (or if you've found that people are).

 

I've never seen an audit log (or appeared on one) so I don't quite understand how knowing what traffic a cache page is getting from the website would help a cache owner make decisions about their cache. Thanks.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Blue Square Thing said:

I don't quite understand how knowing what traffic a cache page is getting from the website would help a cache owner make decisions about their cache. Thanks.

 

I've had very few PMO caches (two I adopted). But I used to look at the audit log for a couple of them to decide if someone's intending to hunt them. When everyone has one hit except for recently with the guy with 60, I might go out there and clean it off, set it up, restock the swag, and maybe replace that faded cache log. Everything is OK as is, but I could set it up for the ideal presentation. By extension, I'd check on my other nearby caches.

 

If I'm not seeing interest in a particular cache, I might target a different area for a maintenance run instead.

 

That cache with one guy's 60 hits? Whoever it is, I'll see the Find log in a few weeks.

 

I'm not so concerned about nobody viewing my HTML cache page. But if there are no favorites and no logs that stand out from ordinary logs, I get the impression that people aren't impressed with it. So audit logs, I don't care. But if you think a cache is cool and fun, be sure I find out. Otherwise, I might clear the area for a cool one.

 

But I saw the self-described evil super-villain COs (you know the kind) use the Audit Log to mess with people.  Aha!  "Too many people" were looking at this cache... so he removed a "hint" image, or whatever.  If that story and similar Audit Log messin' with people gets around, soon TPTB will punish that guy by removing the Audit Log from the web site.  That'll show him.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by kunarion