"Last visited" date

[+PlantAKiss]

When a cacher's profile lists a "last visited" date, is that only for when someone logs into the GC website or does it also reflect the GC app and affiliated app usage as well? I sent a note to cacher who "last visited" in 2019 so I'm thinking maybe I'm not going to hear back. 

[+lee737]

I think it reflects actual website access only.

[+cerberus1]

Yep, as Lee said, visited the website.  Some with phones never visit the website, and why we tell people that's not an indicator of activity.

Those people we usually send an email and (gasp...) do the message center as well to try to contact them.

[+PlantAKiss]

Ahhh. Thank you both! I'll try an email then. Good to know. 

[+Max and 99]

I've seen quite a few "never visited".

[+PlantAKiss]

I emailed the CO and for some reason every apostrophe came out like this: 

I'd

Why? And also I didn't see any way to attach photos. Is that not allowed in a GC email? Through the message center I couldn't because of file size.

 

Thanks for your help.

[+cerberus1]

44 minutes ago, PlantAKiss said:

I emailed the CO and for some reason every apostrophe came out like this: I'd

Why? And also I didn't see any way to attach photos. Is that not allowed in a GC email? Through the message center I couldn't because of file size.

That was explained a while ago.  I don't remember why, just something that is.  

But... The person receiving it sees it as you intended...

[+GeoElmo6000]

22 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Yep, as Lee said, visited the website.  Some with phones never visit the website, and why we tell people that's not an indicator of activity.

Those people we usually send an email and (gasp...) do the message center as well to try to contact them.

 

I wonder why that was never addressed.  It doesn't seem particularly difficult to fix and it'd make the last visited info more helpful.

[+lee737]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

I wonder why that was never addressed. 

+1. There are a few things in this site where I think the same!

[+GeoElmo6000]

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

+1. There are a few things in this site where I think the same!

 

I read a story about a developer who joined a software company.  He got to work fixing a particular bug, and once he was done, he gave a sigh of relief and gave his two weeks notice.  He had only joined the company to fix the bug, as he was a user of the software and the bug drove him nuts when using it.

 

I'm wondering if Groundspeak is hiring software developers...

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

On 8/12/2024 at 7:22 AM, cerberus1 said:

Yep, as Lee said, visited the website.  Some with phones never visit the website, and why we tell people that's not an indicator of activity.

Those people we usually send an email and (gasp...) do the message center as well to try to contact them.

 

I wonder why that was never addressed.  It doesn't seem particularly difficult to fix and it'd make the last visited info more helpful.

 

I actually like that it only counts website visits, as it clearly shows who the app-only cachers are who've never visited the website and hence have never seen a cache page in its entirety. While there may be exceptions, they often have little understanding or interest in the nuances of the game beyond just tapping on Navigate in the app and following the arrow, and end up causing COs no end of grief on the more involved caches where you can't just do that.

[+lee737]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

never seen a cache page in its entirety

At the moment I think the background image is about the only thing you can't (easily) see using a phone... 

[+barefootjeff]

38 minutes ago, lee737 said:

At the moment I think the background image is about the only thing you can't (easily) see using a phone... 

 

Yes, that and the inbuilt checker for mystery caches. But the rest of the cache page, like attributes, waypoints and even the description, are hidden away in the app and can only be viewed piecemeal by scrolling down and tapping on the respective buttons. I may be old-fashioned, but I think there's a lot to be gained from looking at the cache page as a whole, particularly for non-traditional caches. When opening a cache page on the website, you at least have the description right there in front of you so you're likely to notice any highlighted stuff and images that the CO really wants you to be aware of, even if you don't read it in its entirety.

[+hzoi]

On 8/11/2024 at 4:07 PM, PlantAKiss said:

When a cacher's profile lists a "last visited" date, is that only for when someone logs into the GC website or does it also reflect the GC app and affiliated app usage as well? I sent a note to cacher who "last visited" in 2019 so I'm thinking maybe I'm not going to hear back. 

 

You can always try checking to see when their last find was, if they have made that public.

 

Alternatively, you can browse through their owned caches to get a sense of how active they are. If most of them are archived, or most of the ones that are active are either disabled by reviewers or have the "needs maintenance" red wrench attribute, odds are they're not super active anymore.

[+Max and 99]

16 minutes ago, hzoi said:

You can always try checking to see when their last find was, if they have made that public.

That is typically the first thing I will look at. Good suggestion!

[+PlantAKiss]

Thanks. Good idea!  I will check her finds. I did scroll through the logs on this cache and was shocked to see comments about "just a baggie", "found baggie by the trail", etc. that went back to like 2022! Not 1 NM. Why won't people log an NM on a cache obviously in distress?? And obviously CO hasn't checked on it. So I have a feeling I won't hear anything back. 

[+PlantAKiss]

I did look at this cacher's hides--75% are archived. I also looked at finds and she found a cache on 4-24. So she is still actively caching but I guess just not maintaining. I have no response from message or email. Maybe it needs an NA.

[+lee737]

Nothing flushes them out like a NA.....

[+KYcachingguy]

On 8/15/2024 at 12:07 AM, PlantAKiss said:

Why won't people log an NM on a cache obviously in distress??

I think people aren't aware there is a NM option to log. If they are only using their phone, the NM is "hidden" at the bottom. The log button only gives three options: Found It, Didn't Find It, and Write a Note. Website shows you all the options when logging. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 8/11/2024 at 5:22 PM, cerberus1 said:

Yep, as Lee said, visited the website.  Some with phones never visit the website, and why we tell people that's not an indicator of activity.

 

But those people are only nominally active in the sense that they're occasionally finding and logging caches. In the practical sense they usually might as well be inactive.

[+hzoi]

On 8/14/2024 at 11:07 PM, PlantAKiss said:

Why won't people log an NM on a cache obviously in distress??

 

Some folks don't want to be the "bad guy," not realizing that allowing other cachers to find a swampy cache or ratty plastic bag isn't exactly taking the high road.

 

Others may be lazily copy/pasting their logs and just don't pay attention to which cache it was that was in bad shape.

 

I log as I go, and when it needs owner attention, I say so.

 

19 hours ago, lee737 said:

Nothing flushes them out like a NA.....

 

What REALLY brings folks out of the woodwork is when a reviewer archives the cache after owner activity. They "don't get the emails" for all the DNFs or needs maintenance logs or reviewer notes, but somehow that one final email when the cache finally gets archived manages to pierce through the spam filter. What are the odds? 

[+lee737]

5 hours ago, hzoi said:

What REALLY brings folks out of the woodwork is when a reviewer archives the cache after owner activity. They "don't get the emails" for all the DNFs or needs maintenance logs or reviewer notes, but somehow that one final email when the cache finally gets archived manages to pierce through the spam filter. What are the odds? 

Inconceivable!