An Example Of Why Webcams Should Never Return

[+JL_HSTRE]

Based on the logs, the webcam for the only webcam cache in West Virginia went down around this past New Years.

 

The CO has logged one cache since 2006. They did not Disable the cache until after 4 months of selfies but deleted no selfie "finds" taken before or after the Disable.

 

Between the webcam going down and the listing being Disabled there were 12 selfies logged as Webcam Photo Taken, 1 Note about the webcam being down, 0 DNFs, 0 NM.

 

Over the next two months, 6 additional selfies were logged as Webcam Photo Taken, at which time there was Reviewer Note, followed by another 8 selfie finds over the next two months before the Reviewer finally locked the listing.

 

26 false Finds over 8 months, the majority AFTER the listing was Disabled.

[+lee737]

I agree.... I think the age of the cam came and went years ago....

Now - how many AL logs are just as bogus?

[+Mudfrog]

We have always enjoyed webcam caches. They are a bit different than a traditional cache, no container or logbook, but still require a person looking for it to go to a certain spot. I personally wouldn't mind seeing them make a comeback. 

 

Just like traditionals, they require maintenance. A webcam cache owner has a duty to monitor the logs and delete as required. A webcam needs to be flagged and then archived if its owner doesn't want to take care of business. Traditional caches that get tons of armchair and other false logs should be treated no different but it's funny that we don't see that many complaints about those. And if somebody does complain on here, a lot of posters reply that it's not hurting them and that they need to move on. 

 

Let's not be hypocritical here. Webcams have problems, virtual caches have problems, and you guessed it, traditionals and every cache type out there has problems. It's fine if you don't webcams, I don't care for virtuals myself, but I would never call for them to be blasted off the earth because of my dislikes. The majority of the issues we see are caused by cache owners that don't care or that have left the building. I agree the cache spoken of in the opening post needed to be archived. It should not have gone that long building up the fake logs. However, the cache itself was NOT the problem. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Mudfrog

[+Harry Dolphin]

I remember that Webcam.  Found in it 2009!  I think the problem is that fake logs are more obvious on Webcam caches.  They do require maintenance.  I think I delete about 10% of the logs on my Webcam.  Not obvious on traditional caches.

[Keystone]

Here's another example of a webcam cache that's currently disabled and locked because of fake logs.  I locked the page in May, and I hoped that the new school year would mean repairs to the webcam.  That hasn't happened, and it's only a matter of time before the cache is archived and locked permanently.  Giving lots of extra time is a good idea because the cache type is so rare, but also because I won't get as much hate mail as I would have gotten if I archived the cache last June. 

 

Bonus points to anyone who spots what this webcam has in common with the one linked in the OP, besides both of them being on a college campus, disabled, locked and full of "selfie" logs.

[+SW00P]

Keystone published both caches?

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, SW00P said:

Keystone published both caches?

 

Correct!  But not the fact for which I was fishing.

 

In the early days of geocaching, I was the sole Reviewer for all of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia - a territory now covered by 7.5 Reviewers.  (The .5 may or may not be a dog.)

[+MartyBartfast]

All of these issues can also apply to any other cache type - soggy log/broken container, CO is out of the game, and subsequent finds without signing the logs etc. so it's unreasonable to single out Webcams as a special case.

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

All of these issues can also apply to any other cache type - soggy log/broken container, CO is out of the game, and subsequent finds without signing the logs etc. so it's unreasonable to single out Webcams as a special case.

 

Missing physical caches and physical caches in need of maintenance are of course problems. There are false finds too. But the problems are less egregious. There will be DNFs. Finds don't keep coming in on missing, Disabled physical caches.

 

Don't get me wrong: I like Webcam caches. I just recognize they have the most problems of any cache type.

[+MartyBartfast]

10 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I just recognize they have the most problems of any cache type.

But is that a symptom of their rarity, which would largely go away if they were more common?

 

E.E. Someone going to an area for a trip is likely to specifically exclude apparently missing/disabled "real" caches and concentrate on the ones that are there; on the other hand if there's a broken/disabled webcam then it's likely to be the only one for hundreds or thousands of miles and there's a good chance the cacher doesn't have any/many webcams so they feel that they want to  log it (even if it means bending the rules) while they're in the area as this might be their only chance. Similarly a disable webcam might attract people who specifically want to log it before it goes for ever.

 

I also suspect reviewers are more lenient in allowing webcams to remain disabled for a longer time due to the fact that "when it's gone it's gone", thus extending the period when it can be incorrectly logged; whereas they are probably more strict about archiving disabled physical caches.

To be clear I think Webcams have a place, but if they were to be brought back then they should be awarded in a similar way to  Virtuals, in order to limit the numbers and hopefully maintain some quality.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

Our only webcam visiting (in '05), we had to go to the site, capture the image (we did it in a relative's kitchen), then enter it on the cache.

Today you simply use your phone...

It seems (to me) that even though it was a sorta complicated process years ago, WCs got less fakers than now, when you just use your phone and done.  Stats...

The last thing I'd like to see is "awarding" them like Virtuals, if a person only needs to meet a simple cache goal and have all his friends Favorite it.

[+Bear and Ragged]

7 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I also suspect reviewers are more lenient in allowing webcams to remain disabled for a longer time due to the fact that "when it's gone it's gone", thus extending the period when it can be incorrectly logged; whereas they are probably more strict about archiving disabled physical caches.

 

Agree.

 

Also, where a physical cache is under the control of the CO - maintenance is the CO's responsibility, and can be carried out when needed - Web cams are often under someone else's control... And less easy for the CO to control.

 

However, deleting bogus logs IS under the CO's control.

[+capsai]

I would really like to see some new webcam caches. and i can't be the only one.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Here's what always bugged me about webcams.

 

You read a cache description which tells you to go to a specific place and strike a pose or something. In early ones when webcam websites presented mostly live feeds, you had to coordinate with someone on a computer to be looking at the webpage, grab a screenshot of you standing there and submit it. That's fun! Later, when the feeds were logged, you could do it yourself by accessing the right time-spot in the logged feed.

 

That's the basic 'webcam'.

 

What always bugged me was that there was no requirement that you 'find' anything. Even Virtuals (in their classic form) require you to locate something and prove you were there by answering a question about it. 

 

As an example I'll use the one that used to be across the street from the Alamo, because I was excited about nailing it on my first visit to San Antonio, Texas, but I learned when I got there that the camera was down that week. Boo-hoo. About a decade ago, and I didn't file a DNF on that one, but I sure wish I had, now.

 

I knew exactly where I had to stand in the plaza in front of the Mission building because there were a bunch of previous logs with good, appropriate pics of people standing in exactly the right spot. And I think the spot was described on the cache page.

 

So, no GPS use required, no hunting, no finding. OK, it's a 'fringe' cache type, a gimmick inserted into the hobby at best. Fun!, as long as the exception doesn't become the rule.

 

Please don't come back at me about how you don't really need a GPS for most caches because your brother-in-law only caches with printouts from Google Maps. Or the 'hunt' is finding your image in the streaming log. Yeah, yeah.

 

So I stood there on that spot in the plaza, knowing that the feed was down, trying to spot the camera. I knew from the angle on the logged photos that it must be on one of those two buildings, with lots of 19th century scrolly detail on the second floor so it was hard to pick out, and I never did. I even walked over to the buildings and looked. Maybe 'down' meant 'gone'. Maybe 'down' meant 'physically out for repair'. 

 

I think I determined at that point that I would only claim a find on a webcam cache if I could find the camera. I just checked; I have no webcam finds.

 

-------------------------------------

 

So, to bring this back to the OP's point (and justify my musings in this thread), should they come back? 

 

I don't think so. I find MOST new cachers with whom I interact, for a lot of reasons that have been debated here in lots of threads are pretty thoughtless in their caching. The rules (even those that ARE rules, not just guidelines) are routinely ignored either willfully or through ignorance. Consider the entire "I put one here because there was a big enough space" thing.

 

People are people and new webcam caches would just be claimed with selfies more often than not. Webcams are a pretty high-minded concept in terms of where they fit into geocaching (and where they don't), and personally, as much as I like that concept, I think it's too much of a stretch for today's GeoCaching.

 

[+dealfarms1]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Here's what always bugged me about webcams.

 

You read a cache description which tells you to go to a specific place and strike a pose or something. In early ones when webcam websites presented mostly live feeds, you had to coordinate with someone on a computer to be looking at the webpage, grab a screenshot of you standing there and submit it. That's fun! Later, when the feeds were logged, you could do it yourself by accessing the right time-spot in the logged feed.

 

That's the basic 'webcam'.

 

What always bugged me was that there was no requirement that you 'find' anything. Even Virtuals (in their classic form) require you to locate something and prove you were there by answering a question about it. 

 

As an example I'll use the one that used to be across the street from the Alamo, because I was excited about nailing it on my first visit to San Antonio, Texas, but I learned when I got there that the camera was down that week. Boo-hoo. About a decade ago, and I didn't file a DNF on that one, but I sure wish I had, now.

 

I knew exactly where I had to stand in the plaza in front of the Mission building because there were a bunch of previous logs with good, appropriate pics of people standing in exactly the right spot. And I think the spot was described on the cache page.

 

So, no GPS use required, no hunting, no finding. OK, it's a 'fringe' cache type, a gimmick inserted into the hobby at best. Fun!, as long as the exception doesn't become the rule.

 

Please don't come back at me about how you don't really need a GPS for most caches because your brother-in-law only caches with printouts from Google Maps. Or the 'hunt' is finding your image in the streaming log. Yeah, yeah.

 

So I stood there on that spot in the plaza, knowing that the feed was down, trying to spot the camera. I knew from the angle on the logged photos that it must be on one of those two buildings, with lots of 19th century scrolly detail on the second floor so it was hard to pick out, and I never did. I even walked over to the buildings and looked. Maybe 'down' meant 'gone'. Maybe 'down' meant 'physically out for repair'. 

 

I think I determined at that point that I would only claim a find on a webcam cache if I could find the camera. I just checked; I have no webcam finds.

 

-------------------------------------

 

So, to bring this back to the OP's point (and justify my musings in this thread), should they come back? 

 

I don't think so. I find MOST new cachers with whom I interact, for a lot of reasons that have been debated here in lots of threads are pretty thoughtless in their caching. The rules (even those that ARE rules, not just guidelines) are routinely ignored either willfully or through ignorance. Consider the entire "I put one here because there was a big enough space" thing.

 

People are people and new webcam caches would just be claimed with selfies more often than not. Webcams are a pretty high-minded concept in terms of where they fit into geocaching (and where they don't), and personally, as much as I like that concept, I think it's too much of a stretch for today's GeoCaching.

 

Kinda off topic but, I remember that webcam at the Alamo.  Back years ago, long before geocaching, when I taught Texas History we would occasionally pull that cam up and watch the feed for a few minutes in class just to make sure that the Alamo was still standing and that Ozzy was not sneaking around.  My students really enjoyed the diversion.

 

More on topic, I for one wish there were still more webcam caches in the wild to be found, to me they present an interesting challenge.  Having said that IMHO, if they are brought back it should be on a limited basis.  Again IMO.