Hidden date changed?

[+Nite*Owls]

I was going through caches for a challenge and noticed the hidden date on a cache changed. How is this possible and why? This kind of thing can really mess with stats so this could be a big problem.
The cache I just happened to notice this on is Peacock Heaven - GC89QGH
Hidden date at the top says 09/07/2023 and we found it on 01/12/2023 so this caught my attention. The date this cache published was 06/19/2019.

There's nothing in the logs that say the date was changed except for Owner attention requested and Owner maintenance logs between the 09/07/2023 date. 

I'm guessing the hider changed the hide date for some reason but now this also makes me wonder how many other caches this has happened to... I'm going to assume and hope not many at all.
I hate it when titles, ratings and sizes change, but dates is a whole 'nother problem. Some things should NOT be allowed to be changed.

[+Smitherington]

I found the cache on 3/21/2023.

 

The question of why the placed date was changed was asked in a log on 9/9/2023 by Ge0TwoFl and was not answered by the CO.  The CO did not answer.

[+MartyBartfast]

As to how : It's always been possible for a CO to change the hidden date on a cache, nowadays I believe you can only change it to a date within the last year, but at one time you could make it any date, even one before Geocaching was invented.

Changing the date doesn't create any sort of log so there's no record on the cache page of when it was done.

As to why : I remember a discussion years ago about a CO who always changed the hidden date every time he did maintenance to the date of the maintenance visit, I dont think the discussion ever got to the bottom of why he did it though. Maybe this CO is doing the same for whatever reason, but the only way to know for sure would be to ask him.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I've heard of COs who change the Hidden Date whenever they replace or move the container. They're rare and they're wrong.

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

How is this possible and why?

 

There are legitimate reasons for this, such as:

• The cache owner hides a large number of caches along a trail, submitting a few each day as they have time to do the writeups.  Once published, the CO edits all the cache pages to make the hidden date uniform for their series.
• A hider really really wants to own a cache hidden on February 29th.  Being a good hider, they submit the cache page for review on February 22nd, asking their Reviewer to publish it on the 29th.  After the review process is finished, the Reviewer locks the cache page until publishing it on the 29th.  After publication, the hider changes the hidden date to the coveted leap day.

[+Nite*Owls]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I've heard of COs who change the Hidden Date whenever they replace or move the container. They're rare and they're wrong.

I agree, it's very wrong. If CO's feel the need to change things like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates after say a good week of making sure they are set, then they just need to archive the hide if they feel they need to change it again. Just archive and replace it with a new hide so it doesn't screw with stats. It's not like hides today are super rare like the early 2000's hides.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

If CO's feel the need to change things like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates after say a good week of making sure they are set, then they just need to archive the hide if they feel they need to change it again.

On the other hand, I consider churning hides like this to be wrong. If the CO hasn't changed anything significant about the actual hide, then archiving the listing and creating a new listing is wrong. The original listing should have been kept, and any minor details like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates should have been updated.

 

2 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

Just archive and replace it with a new hide so it doesn't screw with stats. It's not like hides today are super rare like the early 2000's hides.

So it's fine to screw with stats you don't care about, as long as no one screws with stats you do care about. Got it...

 

If you want to play a side game with your stats, then keep track of them yourself. Don't expect cache listings to be frozen in time for the convenience of your side game.

[+Nite*Owls]

51 minutes ago, niraD said:

On the other hand, I consider churning hides like this to be wrong. If the CO hasn't changed anything significant about the actual hide, then archiving the listing and creating a new listing is wrong. The original listing should have been kept, and any minor details like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates should have been updated.

 

So it's fine to screw with stats you don't care about, as long as no one screws with stats you do care about. Got it...

 

If you want to play a side game with your stats, then keep track of them yourself. Don't expect cache listings to be frozen in time for the convenience of your side game.

Stats I don't care about?  Lol what are you talking about?? When people change their titles, D/T ratings, sizes, dates, etc. it messes up EVERYONE's stats who found those caches. Most people I've heard do not like that. I for one find challenge caches fun, but it sure can get screwy when stats are changing. Most people play "side games" with their finds and stats and how they keep track of things on here. It's part of what makes it fun. We obviously play the game very differently so agree to disagree and don't be so rude with your replies. I know there's nothing I can do about it and I accept that of course, I was just confused and curious about the drastic hidden date change as I had never seen that before.

[+lee737]

10 hours ago, Keystone said:

A hider really really wants to own a cache hidden on February 29th.  Being a good hider, they submit the cache page for review on February 22nd, asking their Reviewer to publish it on the 29th.  After the review process is finished, the Reviewer locks the cache page until publishing it on the 29th.  After publication, the hider changes the hidden date to the coveted leap day.

I do this - for pi day.... The system won't let you post-date a hide, so you need to get it submitted before, then change the date afterwards.

 

I just noticed one of my sons has a weird hide-date that needs to be changed - it was published this week, with a hide date of February. This is because we make some blank listings ahead of time, so when we hide at short notice or opportunistically, we have a GC code to put in the log.... 

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

Stats I don't care about?  Lol what are you talking about??

You apparently don't mind churning cache listings every time anything trivial changes with a more recent cache, but you seem to be fine editing listings for "super rare [...] early 2000's hides." But maybe I misinterpreted your comment.

[geoawareUSA9]

Perhaps we can stick to the discussion at hand, rather than poking at each other's caching preferences.

[+baer2006]

10 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

I agree, it's very wrong. If CO's feel the need to change things like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates after say a good week of making sure they are set, then they just need to archive the hide if they feel they need to change it again. Just archive and replace it with a new hide so it doesn't screw with stats. It's not like hides today are super rare like the early 2000's hides.

Let's suppose you get what you want, and every CO archives the old listing and puts out a new one, when anything about their cache has to change (e.g. because the environment has changed) - D/T, size, attributes etc. Are you sure you'd want that for very old caches, too? For a 20+ years old cache, chances are rather high, that the original hide is no longer viable. I can imagine the sh*t storm you get for suggesting to archive the old listing, and churn out a new one !

[+JL_HSTRE]

11 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

There are legitimate reasons for this, such as:

• The cache owner hides a large number of caches along a trail, submitting a few each day as they have time to do the writeups.  Once published, the CO edits all the cache pages to make the hidden date uniform for their series.
• A hider really really wants to own a cache hidden on February 29th.  Being a good hider, they submit the cache page for review on February 22nd, asking their Reviewer to publish it on the 29th.  After the review process is finished, the Reviewer locks the cache page until publishing it on the 29th.  After publication, the hider changes the hidden date to the coveted leap day.

 

These examples, while reasonable, raise some questions about what the Hidden Date is supposed to reflect. 

 

Seeme to me like it should be the date the physical container was originally placed or the date the listing was originally published. Probably the latter, since that data that could be set automatically by the publication process.

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Seeme to me like it should be the date the physical container was originally placed or the date the listing was originally published. Probably the latter, since that data that could be set automatically by the publication process.

 

I always set the Hidden Date to the date I actually placed the container, which is usually the same date as I submit the listing for publication. Publication itself may happen quite some time later, the longest being almost two weeks when our regular reviewer was on leave. I don't know what real significance the Hidden Date has, though, as it doesn't make any difference to anyone apart from those who gather such stats.

[+BirdSearcher]

I have seen at least one challenge that requires finding caches hidden on every day of the year, so changing dates would mess that up, as the OP noted..

Edited April 17 by BirdSearcher

[+Nite*Owls]

On a side note, I wrote to Geocaching HQ about the hidden date change, and this is the reply I got. They mixed things up pretty bad lol.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head, sigh and move on. If anything, it gave me a chuckle.

 

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ. 

Those two dates are not always the same. The date at the top of the cache page (Hidden) is the actual date that the cache was published and available for all to find. The date at the bottom of all of the logs (Publish listing) is actually the day that the cache page was created by the cache owner and is not the date that it was published for all to find. 

The cache listing is correct and cannot be updated at this time. 

Best regards, 

 

[+Nite*Owls]

4 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Let's suppose you get what you want, and every CO archives the old listing and puts out a new one, when anything about their cache has to change (e.g. because the environment has changed) - D/T, size, attributes etc. Are you sure you'd want that for very old caches, too? For a 20+ years old cache, chances are rather high, that the original hide is no longer viable. I can imagine the sh*t storm you get for suggesting to archive the old listing, and churn out a new one !

That's why I wrote "it's not like hides today are super rare like the early 2000's hides." Meaning the very old hides should be the only exception to the rule, although they can still be made to fit their listing. Of course nobody wants old caches archived. Anyway again, my main point was about the hidden date being changed to way after it was hidden and published, thus making finds look like they were before the cache was hidden. It looks silly and confusing. That particular CO must think they need to change the hide date every time they do maintenance.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

14 hours ago, Nite*Owls said:

I agree, it's very wrong. If CO's feel the need to change things like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates after say a good week of making sure they are set, then they just need to archive the hide if they feel they need to change it again. Just archive and replace it with a new hide so it doesn't screw with stats. It's not like hides today are super rare like the early 2000's hides.

 

4 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Let's suppose you get what you want, and every CO archives the old listing and puts out a new one, when anything about their cache has to change (e.g. because the environment has changed) - D/T, size, attributes etc. Are you sure you'd want that for very old caches, too? For a 20+ years old cache, chances are rather high, that the original hide is no longer viable. I can imagine the sh*t storm you get for suggesting to archive the old listing, and churn out a new one !

 

Even worse - let's say a CO owns a dozen hides in a crowded downtown area, or on a remote trail.

He or she does a maintenance run and makes adjustments to every one of them, so they all get archived and re-created.

 

You found them years ago, so they're not in your 'active' memory. Suddenly, a dozen 'boings' go off on your phone for the new hides, and you make the trip into the city or plan and execute a major hike up into the hills. You get there and realize....every one of them little green circles on the map...

[+NanCycle]

I just came across this very same situation.  A cache originally placed in 7/23, which I found in 12/23, went missing and the CO replaced it in 3/24, changing the placed date to 3/24.  So how did I find it three months before it was placed?  

 

[+Smitherington]

You must be a Super Geocacher. I’m not certain that TPTB have recognized this class of cachers yet, but this topic provides a basis for this classification. Of course I am also deserving of this distinction.

[+Nite*Owls]

3 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I just came across this very same situation.  A cache originally placed in 7/23, which I found in 12/23, went missing and the CO replaced it in 3/24, changing the placed date to 3/24.  So how did I find it three months before it was placed?  

 

Yep, exactly my point, the one thing that should NOT be able to be changed is the hidden date. Doing maintenance is not publishing a brand new hide, therefore the hidden date should stay the same as it always was. I guess maybe some very few COs don't understand this. I wish HQ would lock the hidden date when published because that would solve this issue. But they don't care as shown with the reply I got. Every single time over the years I've emailed them about something, I get a generic response over and over. Whether it's a bug issue, an idea, etc. They just don't seem to care at all. Seems lately all they care about is putting out more souvenirs. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the souvenirs, but I really wish they'd listen to their year-after-year paying premium members more and take into account our ideas, opinions, etc.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, Nite*Owls said:

Yep, exactly my point, the one thing that should NOT be able to be changed is the hidden date. Doing maintenance is not publishing a brand new hide, therefore the hidden date should stay the same as it always was. I guess maybe some very few COs don't understand this. I wish HQ would lock the hidden date when published because that would solve this issue.

 

There are a few situations where the hidden date needs to be updated after publication, such as the Pi Day caches lee737 mentioned earlier. The hidden date can't be set to a future date and the publication process can take a week or more, so if the date has special significance then the CO needs to be able to edit it straight after publication.

[+Nite*Owls]

23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There are a few situations where the hidden date needs to be updated after publication, such as the Pi Day caches lee737 mentioned earlier. The hidden date can't be set to a future date and the publication process can take a week or more, so if the date has special significance then the CO needs to be able to edit it straight after publication.

I do understand that, and I think it's fine to change the hidden date shortly after publication if need be. I'm talking about months or years after publication. 

[+BG2015]

As to the why, I guess it could be used by a cacher in cahoots with a CO to get that lofty 6x Jasmer stat.

[+Smitherington]

I received this reply from Geosphinx about the cache Peacock Heaven and the change in Placed Date that started this discussion.  

 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

9 hours ago, Smitherington said:

I received this reply from Geosphinx about the cache Peacock Heaven and the change in Placed Date that started this discussion.  

 

 

 

Clearly that's a misunderstanding; he thinks you're talking about a log entry, and you're talking about the cache page. Clear it up with him, or let it go.

[+papu66]

On 4/18/2024 at 1:36 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

There are a few situations where the hidden date needs to be updated after publication, such as the Pi Day caches lee737 mentioned earlier. The hidden date can't be set to a future date and the publication process can take a week or more, so if the date has special significance then the CO needs to be able to edit it straight after publication.

If you want a cache that's hidden on a specific date you go and hide it on that day. If you want it published on a special day you have to hide it well in advance and ask politely for it to be published on that day. I don't see why the two dates should be the same. I mean, if you want to contribute to the two different find date statistics, you can always hide two caches, right?

Also, I don't get the whole concept of hiding caches for one day of the year. Personally, if I would publish a pi day cache, and I have been thinking about it, that would be the day I hide it and people could find it when it suits them.

 

As for the subject of this thread, changing the hide date is obviously pointless and wrong, unless you've made mistake looking at the calendar.