No way to hide found/hidden geocaches on profile?

[+Smory]

Is there not a way you can make your geocaching account private? You can hide statistics but not the geocaches you have found/hidden. If there isn't could this also serve as a suggestion.

[+Max and 99]

5 minutes ago, Smory said:

Is there not a way you can make your geocaching account private? You can hide statistics but not the geocaches you have found/hidden. If there isn't could this also serve as a suggestion.

The only way to not make found caches public is to not log them. For hidden caches you absolutely cannot make them private or else how will people know to go look for them? If you don't want people to go look for them then you need to not list them on the public website. 

[+Smory]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

The only way to not make found caches public is to not log them. For hidden caches you absolutely cannot make them private or else how will people know to go look for them? If you don't want people to go look for them then you need to not list them on the public website. 

No I meant on the profile, ovbs it would still show up in logs that you had found it, and people could still find your geocaches on the map. But it would be nice if there was an option to not have them all collated on your profile.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Smory

[+Max and 99]

4 minutes ago, Smory said:

No I meant on the profile, ovbs it would still show up in logs that you had found it, and people could still find your geocaches on the map. But it would be nice if there was an option to not have them all collated on your profile.

 

Thank you for clarifying your feature suggestion. 

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, Smory said:

Is there not a way you can make your geocaching account private? You can hide statistics but not the geocaches you have found/hidden. If there isn't could this also serve as a suggestion.

 

IIRC, unless you share, and leave 'em open, or allow to third-party sites (have you removed that too?), stats are private.

But caches found and hidden are part of the hobby's history.  

[Johannis10]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

The only way to not make found caches public is to not log them

... not log them as found, but you can log them with a "note". So this is how you can give some feedback to the owner although. That I would prefer.

Greetings Johannis10

[+Max and 99]

4 minutes ago, Johannis10 said:

... not log them as found, but you can log them with a "note". So this is how you can give some feedback to the owner although. That I would prefer.

Greetings Johannis10

But logging them with a note is still public. It won't show up on your profile but it will be public on the geocache page. 

[Johannis10]

18 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

But logging them with a note is still public. It won't show up on your profile but it will be public on the geocache page.

That's right, but I thought that is exactly what the TO wanted. At least that's how I understood him after his last post:

 

2 hours ago, Smory said:

No I meant on the profile, ovbs it would still show up in logs that you had found it, and people could still find your geocaches on the map. But it would be nice if there was an option to not have them all collated on your profile.

 

[+Max and 99]

8 minutes ago, Johannis10 said:

That's right, but I thought that is exactly what the TO wanted. At least that's how I understood him after his last post:

 

 

You're right! 

[+cerberus1]

42 minutes ago, Johannis10 said:

... not log them as found, but you can log them with a "note". So this is how you can give some feedback to the owner although. That I would prefer.

Greetings Johannis10

 

But that doesn't remove their caches placed, as "You can hide statistics but not the geocaches you have found/hidden" implies.

I'm one of many who might not remember a cache, but remember who owned it.

Not finding that cache on the owner's profile wouldn't work for me...

[Johannis10]

18 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

But that doesn't remove their caches placed

You're right. My workaround was only intended for the foundcounter. For the placed caches, you can release the cache for adoption. If you find a new "pseudo owner", or you have a "sock puppet"- account you can set the cache at the watchlist and maintain it yourselve. Not really a workaround that I like, but luckily I don't have the problem. I like to stand by the caches that I have built . Greetings Johannis10

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, Smory said:

No I meant on the profile, ovbs it would still show up in logs that you had found it, and people could still find your geocaches on the map. But it would be nice if there was an option to not have them all collated on your profile.

 

Why would that be nice? It would further erode the sense of community in the game. Your public profile doesn't reveal any of your personal details (real name, address, phone number, email address, etc.), it's just a made-up caching name with some finds and hides. What exactly are you trying to conceal from your fellow players?

[+L0ne.R]

5 hours ago, Johannis10 said:

... not log them as found, but you can log them with a "note". So this is how you can give some feedback to the owner although. That I would prefer.

Greetings Johannis10

 

For the most part this is what I do, log notes instead of finds. 

 

Doesn't it seem creepy that we can get a handy list? For example, taking Max and 99's account, back in January they cached in neighboring state Kansas. And in January 2020 they had some geocaching fun in Arizona and California. Is it our right to have an easy-access chronological list of where and when someone has been caching? 

 

The OPs request/suggestion has been discussed on the forums for years. Link  Link Link Link It's unlikely Groundspeak will do anything. Perhaps if privacy laws mandate it. 

 

The downside to logging notes instead of finds is we can't use the map tools to remove "found" caches. The only way I can think to do that is to add the found caches to my ignore list.

A problem arises for those who like to hide caches. They won't know if an ignored cache is nearby. 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by L0ne.R

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Doesn't it seem creepy that we can get a handy list? For example, taking Max and 99's account, back in January they cached in neighboring state Kansas. And in January 2020 they had some geocaching fun in Arizona and California. Is it our right to have an easy-access chronological list of where and when someone has been caching? 

 

That's what I don't understand. Why is this creepy? Max and 99 is just a geocaching pseudonym with no links to any actual personal information on the site, so what does it matter that their caching history is visible to other players? Or for that matter what anyone could do with it. It's past history, no-one can go back in time to January and stalk them or burgle their house while they were there.

 

If caching becomes something that's totally anonymous with no public record of players' finds or hides, it loses all the "shared experiences" side of it that makes it a community game and not just a bunch of individuals out looking for anonymous tupperware in the woods. Sadly it looks like that's exactly where they're heading with ALs.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That's what I don't understand. Why is this creepy? Max and 99 is just a geocaching pseudonym with no links to any actual personal information on the site, so what does it matter that their caching history is visible to other players? Or for that matter what anyone could do with it. It's past history, no-one can go back in time to January and stalk them or burgle their house while they were there.

 

If caching becomes something that's totally anonymous with no public record of players' finds or hides, it loses all the "shared experiences" side of it that makes it a community game and not just a bunch of individuals out looking for anonymous tupperware in the woods. Sadly it looks like that's exactly where they're heading with ALs.

The funny thing is a year ago I was not in those states mentioned. I had a friend sign the log for me on his trip so I could meet my goal.?

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

The downside to logging notes instead of finds is we can't use the map tools to remove "found" caches.

The only way I can think to do that is to add the found caches to my ignore list.

 

I was considering that, now that the other 2/3rds isn't caching, as I don't care about stats or the find count.  

 - But then we'd have to split up all our caches (in case she returns...) and that'd be a pain-in-the-can.

Right now it seems my "stats" are only interesting to others for some odd reason, but where I've been isn't a concern anyway.

Many folks know my real name, and rough location.  They also see my profile, and realize I'm not gonna be taken easily.     

[+mustakorppi]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Max and 99 is just a geocaching pseudonym with no links to any actual personal information on the site, so what does it matter that their caching history is visible to other players? Or for that matter what anyone could do with it. It's past history, no-one can go back in time to January and stalk them or burgle their house while they were there.

There are a good few people who can connect my geocaching pseudonym to the license plates of my car, which gets them my real name and contact info. Or really, anyone who cares enough could connect my geocaching pseudonym to my real name and find what I look like just by stalking my online presence, but I guess that's on me. As is logging caches in real time even when I'm days away from home.

 

12 hours ago, Johannis10 said:

not log them as found, but you can log them with a "note".

A nefarious individual could maintain a local database of all notes in a given area (either using notifications or using the API through something like GSAK). A search interface for all log types including notes is offered as a third party service for all caches in my country: that service plays nice and automatically removes deleted logs, but someone keeping their own database wouldn't necessarily do that. Using notes or logging and immediately deleting the log is not a solution if you're truly worried. Obviously I'm not.

[Johannis10]

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

if you're truly worried. Obviously I'm not.

The key to whether a note instead of a foundlog is the solution, lies in the question of why someone wants to hide their fundlogs. For some reasons the procedure is appropriate, for others it is not. I don't use this procedure myself, but I see it in logs from my owned caches and even sometimes Cacher write their reason, why they do this and it fits to there reason.

[+L0ne.R]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

If caching becomes something that's totally anonymous with no public record of players' finds or hides, it loses all the "shared experiences" side of it that makes it a community game and not just a bunch of individuals out looking for anonymous tupperware in the woods. Sadly it looks like that's exactly where they're heading with ALs.

 

I agree that total anonymity would make the game lose more of the important 'shared experience' side.  These days I'm noticing, while out in the field and using an app, that some logs are hidden. It does give me a moment of pause. I do hope more people don't hide their comments in individual caches, but I see it as their perogative. 

 

I think the OP is asking for the stalking list on the profile page to be hidden if a member decides they would like it hidden. 

 

 

The game has lost a lot of it's 'shared experience' in the last decade. When I started it was normal to have a logbook in the cache.  When microcaches showed up micrologs became the norm even in small or larger caches and owners asked people to not fill out the logsheets quickly, 'please write only your signature or initials'. Then everyone started treating all paper logs, even book size paper logs as if they were micro logs leaving only a signature. Then many of the online logs became TFTC only logs or meaningless cut n paste style logs--'I found a lot of caches today with some great caching pals. Thank you cache owners for placing your caches.'.

 

It's the few who do post meaningful logs and share experiences that keep the community side of the game going and make it appealing to more players. I believe we need to encourage more 'shared experience' style logs on the individual cache pages. I don't see the chronological "All Geocache Finds" list having much to do with the shared experience. 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's past history, no-one can go back in time to January and stalk them or burgle their house while they were there.

If people are worried to let people know they are away (burglars for instance), they needn't log any finds while away, but wait until they return home, before logging.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think the OP is asking for the stalking list on the profile page to be hidden if a member decides they would like it hidden. 

 

Not sure why anyone would think old info is a "stalking" list... but the OP also wants his caches hidden removed as well...   

That's part of everyone's history.

I feel if "privacy" is a concern, they could have thought about that before they joined. There's "stuff" to read before you join...

If something's now creating a privacy concern, any issue they're now experiencing would be best served in an email to HQ.

[+barefootjeff]

16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think the OP is asking for the stalking list on the profile page to be hidden if a member decides they would like it hidden.

 

How is it a "stalking list"? Caching logs aren't a private diary, they're meant to be read by other cachers, and are a record of where someone was in the past, not where they are in real time. If you don't log until you get home (or a day, week, month or year later if you want) and don't disclose any personal identification in either your profile or your log, how can you be stalked through them? It's just a record of the finds logged to an account that could be anyone's. Following in an anonymous person's footsteps days, weeks or months after they've gone is hardly what I'd consider stalking or threatening behaviour.

[+mustakorppi]

"Stalking" has some overtly negative connotations, including being the name of a criminal offense, but it is also used to mean researching someone on e.g. social media without their knowledge (the basic meaning of "to stalk" is to stealthily track someone/something). If you go to an individual account's profile and start reading through that person's logs, what exactly are you doing?

[+IceColdUK]

22 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

"Stalking" has some overtly negative connotations, including being the name of a criminal offense, but it is also used to mean researching someone on e.g. social media without their knowledge (the basic meaning of "to stalk" is to stealthily track someone/something). If you go to an individual account's profile and start reading through that person's logs, what exactly are you doing?

 

> what exactly are you doing?

I'm looking through a public record of somebody's finds.  I'm not doing it stealthily - and surely that's the key word that turns 'taking an interest' into 'stalking'.

[+mustakorppi]

35 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I'm looking through a public record of somebody's finds.  I'm not doing it stealthily - and surely that's the key word that turns 'taking an interest' into 'stalking'.

Stealthily as in without the target of your surveillance being aware of it. You could demonstrate 'taking an interest' in someone by talking to them. If you instead choose to look into someone without revealing anything about yourself in return, well...

 

But I stress that this definition of "stalking" has nothing to do with why you are taking an interest in someone or what you intend to do with the information you find; it's simply about how you choose to go about getting that information.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

If you go to an individual account's profile and start reading through that person's logs, what exactly are you doing?

Taking an interest in public logs. Maybe finding they are interesting to read. Some people write nice logs. HQ is even encouraging people to read logs, with the "Great Story" &  "Helpful" buttons. I have clicked the helpful button on someone's log. For me personally, it's usually looking for a clue in previous logs to a cache that I am having trouble finding.

 

How the heck do you know someone is reading your logs?

Edited March 30, 2021 by Goldenwattle

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Stealthily as in without the target of your surveillance being aware of it. You could demonstrate 'taking an interest' in someone by talking to them.

Is it 'without them knowing'? Or is it 'subverting standard protocol to avoid detection'?  The profiles are by nature public and without a form of 'surveillance'. Having one, we have to know and realize that. There is no way for someone to view a profile in another manner. Every manner is 'without them knowing'. So in this case I'd say 'stalking' is lighter meaning - doing research using the tools provided in the intended manner. 

 

 

Now another thought. We have a feature that is similar to this with our bookmark Lists. We can make them private (invisible to all but self), public (pushed for display on the cache listings to which they belong), and shareable (caches contained and public, but not shown on the cache listings).  I say it's similar, because if our hides are treated like a 'list', its default is set to 'public' being shown on the profile. What if there were an option to make our hides list on the profile something like 'shared'? Our hides may be public, but seeing that collection as a list isn't something we want broadcast.

 

Yes, caches hidden are public (insofar as PMO allows at the limited end), but the collated list on the profile is the issue raised, not that they can be found through other means of research.

An easy workaround is Search - merely looking for caches placed by the person. Outside PGC, that search only returns non-archived caches. For basic members that doesn't include PMO caches.

 

Basically there's no method nearly as complete to attain an extensive list of as many of a geocacher's hides as allowed to see in one place, than the profile list. I can understand why it would be concerning to some =/

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Basically there's no method nearly as complete to attain an extensive list of as many of a geocacher's hides as allowed to see in one place, than the profile list. I can understand why it would be concerning to some =/

 

Sorry but I still don't get it. Why is a list of a cacher's hides concerning? What risk does it expose them to, particularly as there's nothing in a cacher's profile that would identify the actual person? Published caches are, well, public within the caching world, so how is a list of them an invasion of privacy? What is the problem you're trying to fix???

[+thebruce0]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Published caches are, well, public within the caching world, so how is a list of them an invasion of privacy?

Well it's not an "invasion of privacy" and I'd disagree with anyone concerned with it if they called it that - just like all find logs are by their nature public, so are your cache listings, fundamentally (apart from GDPR annoyances). The concern I could understand is the ease by which someone could achieve an almost guaranteed 100% complete of list of geocaches owned by a user in one single place. 

Hey I have no skin in the game, I don't care myself. I don't know if the misuses of that ease justify any kind of change to the system. I'm just commenting my understanding of the concern; a concern that some may have, and not others.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Hey I have no skin in the game, I don't care myself. I don't know if the misuses of that ease justify any kind of change to the system. I'm just commenting my understanding of the concern; a concern that some may have, and not others.

 

I'm just trying to get my head around how it could be misused. What risk does it expose the cacher to?

[+thebruce0]

People concerned of stalking (whether it's personal information or property) are more concerned about the ease by which information can be attained. Not necessarily that information can be attained. I'd say the 'risk' is in the fact that all the information is readily available in one single place that every user has immediate access to.

Remember when street view started happening and people were crying out about their home being broadcast to all of the internet? Privacy out the window pretty much. Even though obviously the front of your house is technically 'public knowledge', now anyone anywhere could access that information easily and at the touch of a button. Of course that didn't change anything but, the concern I think is similar with this easy-access list of active property.

[+barefootjeff]

So suppose I just completed a truly awesome cache. The cache page was well-written with a story that unfolded at each waypoint, leading me on with growing anticipation to a beautifully constructed themed container at a breath-taking location. After writing my appreciative log and giving it an FP, I click on the owner's profile to see what other wondrous caches they might have hidden...

 

WARNING! WARNING! STALKER ALERT!

 

Is that really how you want the game to develop?

[+8142009]

Honestly, I don't really see the concern that big of an issue.

 

Suppose I did a regular geocache. I liked it and wanted to do more like it. Well, if I look at the owner's page, it can say his hides so I know where more are to have some fun with. It isn't an invasion of privacy.

 

Also, since I don't have as many finds as a lot of other players, than looking at the finds out of curiosity, it can motivate me to get more finds and have more fun.

[+cerberus1]

30 minutes ago, 8142009 said:

Also, since I don't have as many finds as a lot of other players, than looking at the finds out of curiosity, it can motivate me to get more finds and have more fun.

 

We know a cacher that checks us out time-to-time simply because the caches I'll do they like too. 

We had no clue until they mailed once about one they couldn't get to. 

I met them there with rope a day later, and now they ("oh my...") know what I look like too.  

[+barefootjeff]

There's another side to this that no-one's mentioned so far. Consider a rogue CO who thows out lots of rubbish hides, performs no maintenance and ignores the NMs piling up as they all quickly turn to litter and are eventually archived by a reviewer. Should that cacher be able to hide his way of playing from the community? Or is it helpful for other players to be able to see something like this at a glance in their list of hides?

 

The same goes for listing finds. Having a player's history easily visible to the community might not be a panacea for all evil, but it must go some way towards encouraging integrity in the game.

[+mustakorppi]

”I’m not a stalker, I just follow people around to see if they litter.”
 

Or could we perhaps try not to actively misconstrue each other’s points? Just to see how it feels?

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There's another side to this that no-one's mentioned so far. Consider a rogue CO who thows out lots of rubbish hides, performs no maintenance and ignores the NMs piling up as they all quickly turn to litter and are eventually archived by a reviewer. Should that cacher be able to hide his way of playing from the community? Or is it helpful for other players to be able to see something like this at a glance in their list of hides?

The same goes for listing finds. Having a player's history easily visible to the community might not be a panacea for all evil, but it must go some way towards encouraging integrity in the game.

 

Had the idea, but get tired of being the wet blanket.  

Things like you mention do happen.  Many of us remember when "unique" or "distinct" was directed to cache find totals.

 - Having to "publicly" tell the person asking where he's off, that he's been logging his own caches found at every maintenance.   

Afterwards, many of those folks "hid" their stats instead of deleting those finds.

If we can't go to their profile to see, nearly every question dealing with finds/hides would have to go to HQ.

I've told a few people now, "I would have been happy to help, but you have your stats hidden from view...".    

[+thebruce0]

On 3/30/2021 at 7:33 PM, barefootjeff said:

After writing my appreciative log and giving it an FP, I click on the owner's profile to see what other wondrous caches they might have hidden...

 

WARNING! WARNING! STALKER ALERT!

 

Is that really how you want the game to develop?

 

I haven't seen anyone claim that. But you just described a good reason to make showing your entire "Hidden" cache list a profile option.

Edited April 1, 2021 by thebruce0
emphasis

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

On 3/31/2021 at 10:33 AM, barefootjeff said:

After writing my appreciative log and giving it an FP, I click on the owner's profile to see what other wondrous caches they might have hidden...

 

WARNING! WARNING! STALKER ALERT!

 

Is that really how you want the game to develop?

 

I haven't seen anyone claim that. But you just described a good reason to make showing your entire "Hidden" cache list a profile option.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is COs ought to be able to conceal their list of hides to prevent those who've enjoyed one of them from seeing what other ones they have that they might enjoy. This whole thread is doing my head in.

[+thebruce0]

21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is COs ought to be able to conceal their list of hides to prevent those who've enjoyed one of them from seeing what other ones they have that they might enjoy.

 

Consider yourself corrected. No one has said that. People who are concerned over the full public list of all their hides in one place - the ones at least who understand that the hides themselves are public - are concerned about the (admittedly rare) potential of stalking. They don't want to hide their great hides from people who will enjoy it, they want to hide an easy-access list of all their geocache property in the case of someone showing antagonism towards them as a cache owner, perhaps with multiple instances of directed destruction or theft of their caches.

IMO, if a CO wants to hide their caches from their profile, that wouldn't bother me, even if they have amazing caches.

Edited April 1, 2021 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

57 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Consider yourself corrected. No one has said that. People who are concerned over the full public list of all their hides in one place - the ones at least who understand that the hides themselves are public - are concerned about the (admittedly rare) potential of stalking. They don't want to hide their great hides from people who will enjoy it, they want to hide an easy-access list of all their geocache property in the case of someone showing antagonism towards them as a cache owner, perhaps with multiple instances of directed destruction or theft of their caches.

IMO, if a CO wants to hide their caches from their profile, that wouldn't bother me, even if they have amazing caches.

 

Okay, but you'd better also remove the "owned by" search option because, for someone intent on vandalising another's caches, that's only one extra click to get the exact same list (minus any archived caches, but they'd be a bit tough to vandalise I'd have thought). I just don't like this trend to hide everything from view "in case" something bad might happen. To see where this is heading, just look at ALs where you can't tell what ones anyone owns (other than through any associated bonus caches) or see the ones they've done, which has totally depersonalised them. The AL's owner might just as well not exist from the moment their creation goes live. Each AL is a vacuum unto itself and allowing concealment of all the finds/hides profile information would do the same thing for regular caches. There are lots of people who, if they see a bunch of "privacy"-related checkboxes in their settings, will just check them all regardless, and then it'll just be a bunch of ghost cachers seeking out tupperware in the woods with so sense of community behind it.

Edited April 1, 2021 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Okay, but you'd better also remove the "owned by" search option

Already addressed the different ways in which owned caches can be found and why the complete list on the user profile is different.

 

Let me be clear about my position: I understand the concern that's been raised. I can see features to implement that can address those concerns. I'm not advocating they should be implemented. Nor am I saying they shouldn't. Just discussing the points raised in concern.

And waving way concern about something "potentially" happening ignores the reason the concern exists - if it has happened.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I just don't like this trend to hide everything from view "in case" something bad might happen.

I don't either. The GDPR stuff didn't help at all. Geocaching is a public game. But this is a listing service, and there are a number of privacy options already in place. It's easy to say "well don't use it if you are concerned about privacy of your identity and property". But at the same time if there are things that could be deemed helpful or make people more comfortable using the service, it's worth at least discussing benefits and drawbacks.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Let me be clear about my position: I understand the concern that's been raised. I can see features to implement that can address those concerns. I'm not advocating they should be implemented. Nor am I saying they shouldn't. Just discussing the points raised in concern.

 

Where in this thread have any of these "concerns" been stated, other than L0ne.R's insistence that looking at another cacher's finds is tantamount to stalking them and your suggestion that a malicious cacher could use it to vandalise another's hides (which they could do just as easily using the Owned By search so hiding the profile list won't stop that). What exactly are the real world problems that would be solved by concealing the profile finds and hides list? The OP just said it would be nice to do that without giving any reasons and, as far as I can see from the subsequent posts, no-one else has either.

Edited April 1, 2021 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+thebruce0]

On 3/28/2021 at 8:50 PM, L0ne.R said:

The OPs request/suggestion has been discussed on the forums for years. Link  Link Link Link It's unlikely Groundspeak will do anything. Perhaps if privacy laws mandate it.

 

This is not a new concern, jeff.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

On 3/29/2021 at 11:50 AM, L0ne.R said:

The OPs request/suggestion has been discussed on the forums for years. Link  Link Link Link It's unlikely Groundspeak will do anything. Perhaps if privacy laws mandate it.

 

This is not a new concern, jeff.

 

Looking at the most recent of those threads, back then I was equally struggling to understand what the actual problem was. As I said in my last post of that thread, "My logs don't tell anyone where I currently am because I always log from home after a day of geocaching. I really don't see how someone knowing where I was yesterday, a week ago, a month ago or a year ago is a privacy concern because, assuming I found the cache, it's a location where I almost certainly won't be tomorrow."

 

Look, as I see it caching at its most fundamental level is a communal activity: some players hide caches and have them published, others go out, try to find them and write a public log telling of their experience. But I've just recently had an experience of the opposite individualistic secretive approach to the game, when I received repeated messages from a PM, who'd never visited the website and had a completely blank profile (no bio, no finds and no hides), wanting, no demanding, more and more hints on one of my hides. Eventually it seems they figured it out and found it, because a couple of weeks later there was a new signature in the logbook (a different name though), but no online log and no reply to any of my MC responses. Now that's what I consider a bit creepy. If that's how everyone wants the game to be played going forward, well so be it, but it's not the geocaching I discovered and fell in love with.

 

If there are rare instances of cacher vandalism or estranged partners stalking each other, they should be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than by tearing down the whole social fabric of the game which probably won't solve the problem anyway. Instead, if concealing finds and hides in the profile becomes an option, we'll just end up with a whole heap of anonymous players like my mysterious PM with no feedback and no accountability.

Edited April 2, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

An example of how useful this public profile information is has just happened. Late this afternoon I received a message from a cacher who'd attempted one of my multis but was unsure of what to do with the information she'd collected. By going to her profile, I could immediately see that she'd joined about a year ago, had visited the website today (so not an app-only player) and had found about 20 traditionals but no prior multis or mysteries. Knowing all that, I was able to form a good mental picture of her experience with the game and frame my response in a way that I thought would be most helpful to her. It worked. But if all that information had been hidden, I'd have been flying blind and would have had to ask a whole heap of back-and-forth questions to try to get a sense of what she needed and she probably would have gotten annoyed with me long before we'd reached a point where I was actually able to help.

[+mustakorppi]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

By going to her profile, I could immediately see that she'd joined about a year ago, had visited the website today (so not an app-only player) and had found about 20 traditionals but no prior multis or mysteries.

Yeah, and some people are creeped out by the prospect of someone casing them like this, possibly because a similar thing has lead to unwanted interactions in the past. I don’t really see why anything further needs to be said on the topic.
 

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd have been flying blind and would have had to ask a whole heap of back-and-forth questions to try to get a sense of what she needed

You mean you would have got to know someone in the normal way, by talking to them?

[+barefootjeff]

41 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

You mean you would have got to know someone in the normal way, by talking to them?

 

I wasn't trying to "get to know her", I was trying to help her resolve her problem with the multi AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. Why is that so terrible? Or should I have just ignored her message completely because any action on my part would be seen as inappropriate. I give up.

[+mustakorppi]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Or should I have just ignored her message completely because any action on my part would be seen as inappropriate. I give up.

None of this is about you or what you should do. This is about what ”she” should be able to do, if she deems it necessary. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by mustakorppi
Grammar

[+me N u]

2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Yeah, and some people are creeped out by the prospect of someone casing them like this, possibly because a similar thing has lead to unwanted interactions in the past. I don’t really see why anything further needs to be said on the topic.
 

If somebody is "creeped out" by the prospect of someone casing them, why would they contact the cache owner (probably a total stranger) at all?