Merging accounts - owned geocaches

[+DarkZen]

When I met my (now) wife we were both already caching and had our own accounts. Though being an item for several years we maintained our own accounts. But we eventually got married (yay!) and have decided to use one account. We are not so concerned with moving finds but we are interested in merging our owned caches together.

 

I started the process with the adoption page (https://www.geocaching.com/adopt/) but with 400-500 active caches that is going take a lot of time and effort. 

 

Is there a way to move them over en masse?

 

Thanks

[Keystone]

Sorry, but there is no "mass adoption" utility.  You will need to process the transfers one at a time.  Note than any archived caches cannot be adopted.

[+DarkZen]

Thank you for the response. 

[+Max and 99]

8 minutes ago, DarkZen said:

Thank you for the response. 

I think if I were in your position I would not be moving them. I'd keep them under the old account. I'd still get notifications for them and then on my new profile I would just mention that you have hides under the other name.  It would save a heck of a lot of time. Just my two cents. 

[+captnemo]

If you add the existing caches to the watch list of the new combined account you will get notified when there is a log. This would be a lot faster then adoption.   

[+Max and 99]

2 hours ago, captnemo said:

If you add the existing caches to the watch list of the new combined account you will get notified when there is a log. This would be a lot faster then adoption.   

Sure would! Maybe two minutes tops since we can bulk add geocaches to a list? 

[+Vooruit!]

I would take a look at automation software that could do the trick for you. Granted, it'll take some time to set it up correctly, but it's probably going to be way more fun. Well, perhaps that's just me being a programmer, but maybe it's something for you.

[+dprovan]

I guess I don't understand why you'd want to lose the history of which account planted which caches.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I suggest keeping the caches under whichever account placed them. Any new hides would go under just one account.

 

If the two of you have different hiding styles it would probably be better to keep hides separate as well so seekers have a better idea what they're after.

 

While I can understand couples who started caching together having a single account, if I married another cacher I would still want us to keep both accounts. Even if we always cache together now our caching history before we met is different. In the future, one of us might get bored with caching before the other. There is of course the possibility of death (or statically speaking, divorce). One of us might occasionally find caches when the other is not around.

[+IceColdUK]

43 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

While I can understand couples who started caching together having a single account, ...

We had a single account, though I guess it was always really my account, and sometimes my wife came with me.  The first day she found caches without me (one in Rome, one in Vatican City - two new countries!) was the day I separated our accounts.

[+DarkZen]

Well, I might just take the advise given here. I've transferred a few and I already see an issue... now I have to check her email to see activity on my hides. 

[+Vooruit!]

That's easy, just change the account's email to a new address that automatically forwards to both adresses.

[+FootyFan123]

Or put all the caches on your watchlist

[+DarkZen]

Question (re: FootyFan 123)

if I let my premium membership lapse, can I still put caches on watch?

[+Isonzo Karst]

15 hours ago, DarkZen said:

if I let my premium membership lapse, can I still put caches on watch?

 

Yes, watch is a feature available to all cachers.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

52 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

Yes, watch is a feature available to all cachers.

 

 

Years ago I saw that there were a few people watching one of my caches.  I sent them a PM and they said that they were basic members and were using their watch list as a "bookmark list"

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Years ago I saw that there were a few people watching one of my caches.  I sent them a PM and they said that they were basic members and were using their watch list as a "bookmark list"

Wait...you can see the names of the cachers who are watching one of your caches?

[+Isonzo Karst]

12 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Wait...you can see the names of the cachers who are watching one of your caches?

You cannot see the names of watchers, but you can log to the cache page and ask who is watching.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

You cannot see the names of watchers, but you can log to the cache page and ask who is watching.

Yep, that's what I did.   

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

18 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

You cannot see the names of watchers, but you can log to the cache page and ask who is watching.

Yep, that's what I did.   

OK, that makes perfect sense.

[+DarkZen]

On 3/22/2021 at 10:01 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

... they said that they were basic members and were using their watch list as a "bookmark list"

Sorry to be thick here but what does that mean? What kind of a bookmark list?

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, DarkZen said:

Sorry to be thick here but what does that mean? What kind of a bookmark list?

https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/default.aspx?guid=0e8c4301-4d94-44ea-96bc-87f8f7e7be9c&WptTypeID=137

[+dprovan]

14 hours ago, DarkZen said:

Sorry to be thick here but what does that mean? What kind of a bookmark list?

Basic members can't use the bookmark list feature, but they can mark a cache as watched and then look at the list of watched caches. That gives them a single bookmark list. I assume that's what he's talking about. Dunno how many basic members have come up with that idea, but I hope not too many.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 3/25/2021 at 12:53 PM, dprovan said:

Basic members can't use the bookmark list feature, but they can mark a cache as watched and then look at the list of watched caches. That gives them a single bookmark list. I assume that's what he's talking about. Dunno how many basic members have come up with that idea, but I hope not too many.

 

Yes, that is what he was doing.  I  don't why it would be a problem if more people did it.  It might demonstrate the advantage of using bookmarks and provide an incentive to become premium members.  

[+dprovan]

40 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Yes, that is what he was doing.  I  don't why it would be a problem if more people did it.  It might demonstrate the advantage of using bookmarks and provide an incentive to become premium members.  

I was mainly thinking about the fact that "N people are watching this cache" wouldn't really mean what it's supposed to mean if some people are "watching" the cache just to put it in their special list for unknown reasons. That count isn't terribly accurate to begin with, of course, but widespread use of the watch list for other purposes would make it meaningless.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I was mainly thinking about the fact that "N people are watching this cache" wouldn't really mean what it's supposed to mean if some people are "watching" the cache just to put it in their special list for unknown reasons. That count isn't terribly accurate to begin with, of course, but widespread use of the watch list for other purposes would make it meaningless.

Okay, I give up. What is "N people are watching this cache" supposed to mean?

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Okay, I give up. What is "N people are watching this cache" supposed to mean?

Number?

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Number?

dprovan wrote "'N people are watching this cache' wouldn't really mean what it's supposed to mean" which leads me to ask, what's it supposed to mean.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

Okay, I give up. What is "N people are watching this cache" supposed to mean?

I was talking about the line that tells you how many people (for example, "N") are watching the cache. I could have sworn that somewhere in the user interface, there literally was a place that said "5 people are watching this cache" which is why I put it that way, but now that I'm looking, all I can find is the "Watch (5)" line which means that but doesn't say it that way.

[+The Jester]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I was talking about the line that tells you how many people (for example, "N") are watching the cache. I could have sworn that somewhere in the user interface, there literally was a place that said "5 people are watching this cache" which is why I put it that way, but now that I'm looking, all I can find is the "Watch (5)" line which means that but doesn't say it that way.

But what meaning do you put to the number of people watching a cache?  And why would the reason someone put a cache on their watch list change that meaning?  How would it make it "meaningless"?

 

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, The Jester said:

But what meaning do you put to the number of people watching a cache?  And why would the reason someone put a cache on their watch list change that meaning?  How would it make it "meaningless"?

You'll have to take that up with GS. They think it's meaningful, so they show it. If I had to speak for the population at large, I'd just say that the number gives us a feel for how many people are interested enough in this individual cache to want to see any new logs posted to it. If the number is dominated by basic members flagging caches for reasons of their own -- perhaps the list of caches they'll look for next weekend or puzzle caches they've solved -- then it no longer reflects whatever GS thought it reflected.

 

If your point is that it's already meaningless so it should be eliminated for reasons having nothing to do with how basic members use the watch list, then I'd be hard pressed to argue with you. But given that the number is there, I have to assume it's because people find it useful, and whatever use they find it, it's certainly not because it reflects how many random people put this cache in a list for random reasons.

 

Gee, I thought I was making an obvious minor observation. I wasn't expecting to have to explain it syntactically, semantically, and philosophically.

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

You'll have to take that up with GS. They think it's meaningful, so they show it. If I had to speak for the population at large, I'd just say that the number gives us a feel for how many people are interested enough in this individual cache to want to see any new logs posted to it. If the number is dominated by basic members flagging caches for reasons of their own -- perhaps the list of caches they'll look for next weekend or puzzle caches they've solved -- then it no longer reflects whatever GS thought it reflected.

 

If your point is that it's already meaningless so it should be eliminated for reasons having nothing to do with how basic members use the watch list, then I'd be hard pressed to argue with you. But given that the number is there, I have to assume it's because people find it useful, and whatever use they find it, it's certainly not because it reflects how many random people put this cache in a list for random reasons.

 

Gee, I thought I was making an obvious minor observation. I wasn't expecting to have to explain it syntactically, semantically, and philosophically.

I agree that it's probably to show how many people are interested in that cache.  But, I don't think the reason why someone is interested has any meaning to anyone (except the person who put it on the watch list).  It's just a number.  Until GS starts specifying  how/why someone can add it, you really can't ascribe any meaning to the number.

 

I've used many different reasons why I've watched a cache.  Because I want to find it sometime.  Because I want to read the stories of others who find it.  Because it's part of my monitoring  of my Challenge Cache (historic caches).  Because I want to know when it is enabled to found again (related to the first reason).  Because I want to see how long it takes for the second-to-find to get it.  All of these are valid reasons to watch a cache (they all show interest in that cache), but the +1 I add to the watch count doesn't show which one I'm using this time.

 

So, if you don't know why GS lists this number, or why someone has added to their watch list, how can you then say "using it this way makes it meaningless."  Not at all obvious to me.

 

[+CAVinoGal]

On 3/27/2021 at 8:44 AM, dprovan said:

If I had to speak for the population at large, I'd just say that the number gives us a feel for how many people are interested enough in this individual cache to want to see any new logs posted to it.

I agree, though the reasons for their interest are wide, and varied.  And the simple number tells you nothing of WHY that particular cache is being watched.

 

On 3/27/2021 at 8:44 AM, dprovan said:

If the number is dominated by basic members flagging caches for reasons of their own...

I don't see this happening.  First of all, "basic" members typically aren't aware of all the features potentially available to them.  Second, you can't use the app to put a cache on a watchlist, so only basic members who use the website will take this extra step to "watch" a cache.  I doubt that the number of pepple watching a cache is going to be, or already is, "dominated" for this reason.  And isn't ANY cache put on a watchlist done for a "reason of their own"?  There are no rules for WHY you can put a cache on a watchlist - why is a newbie or a basic members reason any less valid than anyone else's?

 

On 3/26/2021 at 2:51 PM, dprovan said:

widespread use of the watch list for other purposes would make it meaningless.

I think this statement sparked most of the discussion.  For me, the number of people watching any of my caches is interesting to see, but really tells me nothing (it's already "meaningless") because I have no idea why it's on their watchlist(s).  I know why I put caches on my watchlist, but that's all I know.

 

On 3/27/2021 at 8:44 AM, dprovan said:

I thought I was making an obvious minor observation. I wasn't expecting to have to explain it syntactically, semantically, and philosophically.

I guess for some of us it wasn't obvious that the watchlist had a specific purpose - folks use it for whatever they see fit.  And for you to bring it up at all seems to imply it is not so minor for you.  I have a number of caches on my watchlist, for a variety of reasons of my own.  And I don't give a thought to the CO's of caches on my watchlist - if a note was posted asking who was watching and why, I'd likely respond, but I've never been asked.

 

This is straying off topic from the OP though - which is what generated the topic of watchlists to begin with....

[+dprovan]

On 4/2/2021 at 8:36 AM, CAVinoGal said:

I agree, though the reasons for their interest are wide, and varied.  And the simple number tells you nothing of WHY that particular cache is being watched.

What you're saying makes sense in theory, but in practice I find that when I look at the watch count, I know very well why people are watching the cache. If it's a new cache planted in an off limits locations, I know that's mostly or entirely people that recognized the problem and are waiting to see how long it takes to be corrected...or found because it turns out it wasn't off limits, after all. If it's a hard puzzle cache, people are watching to see who finds it...or hoping for the CO to post hints. If it's a cache with a broken puzzle, people are watching to see when it's fixed. And on and on. The point is that when I look at the number, there's a reason I'm looking at the number and while I might be wrong, that reason is very likely exactly what is driving the number up. Or not up: sometimes I look, and there aren't any watchers, so I go back and reassess why I thought there would be.

 

On 4/2/2021 at 8:36 AM, CAVinoGal said:

On 3/27/2021 at 8:44 AM, dprovan said:

If the number is dominated by basic members flagging caches for reasons of their own...

I don't see this happening. 

Yes, of course. My comment that kicked off this side discussion was, "Dunno how many basic members have come up with that idea, but I hope not too many," so I think we've come full circle.