Should you be able to see people on a watch list?

May 11, 2003

We don't see a problem with people knowing we're watching a certain cache. We would like to know who's watching ours, as we find it to be a compliment. Voted everyone.

May 20, 2003

ttp

Art

www.yankeetoys.org

www.BudBuilt.com

www.pirate4x4.com

May 20, 2003

I think I voted the other day, "just the owner"', but now that I think of it....Why should anyone care? The Owner at least should be able to know, but what would he/she do with that info? E-mail them and ask why they are watching?

I've thought about watching a few caches to see if an item I dropped was cool enough to pick up, but decided not to. I didn't want the owner to feel spied on.

I've only recently crossed over from the darkness of muggle-dom, and I often check the caches that I've found to see if what I left was indeed tradable. I also have a few NO FINDS that I watch to see if they're still there. That's the only reason I could think of to put a watch on a cache, and that's harmless enough.

I say at the least an Anonymous button, but I wouldn't mind everyone knowing.

Prophetically Challenged

May 21, 2003

I like the idea of the combo watch list, allowing an 'anonymous' choice for paranoid cachers, but still allowing the owner to see all of them.

He who hesitates is not only lost, but miles from the next exit.

1.4k · May 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by JetSkier:
What if you could "anonymously" watch a cache and in that case, only the owner could see you. If you didn't choose anonymous, then everyone could see you. That way the paranoid cachers could remain anonymous with their watch lists.

JetSkier

I like this approach.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

June 20, 2003

So, is this next after the cleaned up My Cache page?

UPSCWRU (University of Puget Sound, Case Western Reserve University)

June 20, 2003

I suppose I'm in the minority (whats new) but personally I kinda like the mystery aspect of it. I have several accounts watching several of my caches. Who? Why? I dunno. I find it somewhat a compliment that someone has taken that much of an interest in one of my caches. Even if ya knew who it was you still wouldn't know why they wanted to watch. But, it really doesn't matter either way to me. If I wanted to watch a cache I would, regardless of whether everyone or no one knew it was me watching it. I guess I'm Switzerland on this one.

someday we'll look back on all this and plow into a parked car.

3k · June 21, 2003

The month is long over, and 303 people have voted.

I don't see any need for anyone to know who is watching a cache. Just as the audit trail of a MOC is a tool of convenience for the cache owner, the watch list is a tool of convenience for cache seekers/previous finders.

The owner of a MOC has the audit list if they are interested in seeing who accessed their page; yet few cache owners take advantage of that "premium feature," often despite the fact that practically every cacher in their region may be a Charter/Premium member. So, I suggest that if people are concerned with who is visiting their pages, they should take advantage of features already available to them as Charter/Premium members by creating their caches as MOCs.

One of the most convenient uses of the "watch this cache" feature is the ability to receive e-mail notifications containing the text of subsequent logs to a MOC without reaccessing the page (or, for that matter, the website) unnecessarily.

I sense the real underlying issue is that some cache owners desire their caches to be "un-watchable;" if that is the case, then perhaps we should be discussing a feature that would permit cache owners to disable that feature.

But to date, and despite the vote tally, I have seen no compelling reason why viewing a watch list is necessary, or what benefit it will provide anyone.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on June 21, 2003 at 05:49 AM.]

June 21, 2003

Knowing who is watching (showing interest in) my caches is compelling.

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
The month is long over, and 303 people have voted.

I don't see any need for anyone to know who is watching a cache. But to date, and despite the vote tally, I have seen no compelling reason why viewing a watch list is necessary, or what benefit it will provide anyone.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on June 21, 2003 at 05:49 AM.]

3k · June 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hammack:
Knowing who is watching (showing interest in) my caches is compelling.

In my opinion, the only "interest" in a cache that matters is who took the time and made the effort to seek the cache. That information is readily available in the logbook and/or online logs.

Any other "interest" on the part of the cache owner or other parties, is really nothing more than "nosey-ness." (Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's hardly a compelling reason.)

9.4k · June 21, 2003

I would have to agree. 303 votes indicates to me that people don't give a wit one way or the other. This will continue to be a low priority item.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

38.2k · June 21, 2003

quote:
I would have to agree. 303 votes indicates to me that people don't give a wit one way or the other. This will continue to be a low priority item.

Actually 303 votes is very high for a poll. I just did a quick, informal survey and found that few polls garner more than 50 votes. The response to this poll was unusually high and 88 percent of those who voted said they'd like to see this feature added. I'd say that's pretty overwhelming sentiment in favor of it.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on June 21, 2003 at 11:52 AM.]

3k · June 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
The response to this poll was unusually high and 88 percent of those who voted said they'd like to see this feature added. I'd say that's pretty overwhelimg sentiment in favor of it.

You visit the forums a whole lot more than I do Brian, so help me out here ... As I'm writing this, the mainpage of the forums proclaim that there are 40,732 registered members. Of those, 303 voted in the poll.

By my math, that's less than 3/4 of 1 percent (.743%) of the registered members. You state that 88% of those who voted, or .65% of registered members, voted in favor of the feature. That's hardly a mandate.

I think the negatives of the proposed feature far outweigh the curiosity of a such a miniscule percentage of users.

Now, I realize someone will present a counterargument that "not all registered members use the forums." I accept that and encourage anyone taking that position to figure out how many registered users visited the forums during the 6 weeks the poll has been active (whether they posted anything or not), and refigure the percentages from that total.

I will not be surprised when the refigured percentage amounts to a small minority of forum users.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on June 21, 2003 at 11:28 AM.]

38.2k · June 21, 2003

A minority of geocachers visit the forums and a minority of these bother to look at the polls. A very small percentage of those who do view the polls actually bother to vote.

As far as a percentage of geocachers 303 votes is indeed neglibible. Even as a percentage of forum users its small. But in comparison with other polls, the interest in this one was incredibly high.

This poll had over 2700 views and 303 votes. The only other poll with that many views that I could find had 121 votes. Far less than half.

I also looked at 10 other polls at random (throwing away obvious joke polls). Even including the one above with 121 votes, the other polls averaged 41 votes (only one other had more than 50).

So comparing this poll with other polls, the interest in this subject was unusually high. It had an unusually high number of votes and a significantly higher ratio of voters to views than any other poll I was able to find. I agree that these polls aren't scientific. If that's the rational for dismissing the results, then why was it even posted in the first place?

It's not much different from presidential elections. Only a portion of the 280 some million Americans are eligible to vote and only a portion of those are registered. Out of registered voters, barely half bother to vote. Yet if a presidential candidate garners more than 55-60% of the vote, it's considered by most pundits to "landslide" and a mandate.

If 60% is a landslide, what is 88%?

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

3k · June 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

As far as a percentage of geocachers 303 votes is indeed neglibible. Even as a percentage of forum users its small. But in comparison with other polls, the interest in this one was incredibly high.

But nothing even close to resembling what I would term, to use your word "overwhelming," or mine, a "mandate."

quote:
This poll had over 2700 views and 303 votes. The only other poll with that many views that I could find had 121 votes.

I think the number of views is useless, because we have no way of telling how many times anyone viewed the results ... one person (who may or may not have voted) could have viewed the results many hundreds of times over the six weeks of the poll.

quote:
So comparing this poll with other polls, the interest in this subject was unusually high. It had an unusually high number of votes and a significantly higher ratio of voters to views than any other poll I was able to find. I agree that these polls aren't scientific. If that's the rational for dismissing the results, then why was it even posted in the first place?

They aren't scientific ... but much more importantly, they aren't even representative.

quote:
It's not much different from presidential elections. Only a portion of the 280 some million Americans are eligible to vote and only a portion of those are registered. Out of registered voters, barely half bother to vote.

I would not equate the .74% of registered members who voted in this poll with the 40% of registered voters who might show up for a general election. .74% is statistically zero ... error margins for polls are typically 2%-4%.

quote:
Yet if a presidential candidate garners more than 55-60% of the vote, it's considered by most pundits to "landslide" and a mandate.

True; but that brings us back to the question I asked in a previous post: Has the "unusually high interest" this poll received amounted to anywhere near 50% of the registered users who visited the forums during the six weeks the poll has been active? My impression is that answer is "no."

Regardless, I stated in other posts why I think the suggested feature was a poor idea. Of the 88% of those who voted in favor, there was no compelling (or even persuasive) argument presented of who the feature would benefit and how.

And those should be the factors used to determine which new features should be added.

2.6k · June 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
It's not much different from presidential elections. Only a portion of the 280 some million Americans are eligible to vote and only a portion of those are registered. Out of registered voters, barely half bother to vote.

I would not equate the .74% of registered members who voted in this poll with the 40% of registered voters who might show up for a general election. .74% is statistically zero ... error margins for polls are typically 2%-4%.

The analogy is still quite insightful: No matter which option gets the most votes, it's the way how they count them.

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

June 21, 2003

I voted

quote:
NO ONE!

It's nobodies business whether I'm monitoring a cache or not!

I frequently monitor caches for various reason; mostly to keep up with recent listings on interesting caches that I have visited. Other times if I have posted a no-find on a cache, I will monitor the cache to see if someone else finds it or to determine if the cache may be missing.

If I want others to know if I have something interesting to say about the cache, I will post a note on the cache page. Otherwise, my interest in the cache is nobodies business but mine.

Rand (RandMan)

June 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
A minority of geocachers visit the forums and a minority of these bother to look at the polls. A very small percentage of those who do view the polls actually bother to vote.

As far as a percentage of geocachers 303 votes is indeed neglibible. Even as a percentage of forum users its small. But in comparison with other polls, the interest in this one was incredibly high.

This poll had over 2700 views and 303 votes. The only other poll with that many views that I could find had 121 votes. Far less than half.

I also looked at 10 other polls at random (throwing away obvious joke polls). Even including the one above with 121 votes, the other polls averaged 41 votes (only one other had more than 50).

So comparing this poll with other polls, the interest in this subject was unusually high. It had an unusually high number of votes and a significantly higher ratio of voters to views than any other poll I was able to find. I agree that these polls aren't scientific. If that's the rational for dismissing the results, then why was it even posted in the first place?

It's not much different from presidential elections. Only a portion of the 280 some million Americans are eligible to vote and only a portion of those are registered. Out of registered voters, barely half bother to vote. Yet if a presidential candidate garners more than 55-60% of the vote, it's considered by most pundits to "landslide" and a mandate.

If 60% is a landslide, what is 88%?

_"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"_

I couldn't agree with you more. 88% of 303 votes is significant and shouldn't be dismissed. Perhaps Jeremy has a headache from endlessly modifying the search page and doesn't want to make anymore changes. Now that I can understand and believe.

--CoronaKid

3k · June 25, 2003

Yes, I agree that 267 votes out of a total of 303 is a significant number, but the implementation of any option affects all 41158 members currently registered. It would be patently unfair to implement this, or any other "controversial" feature when such a statistically insignificant (.648%) percentage of registered users showed positive interest.

June 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
Yes, I agree that 267 votes out of a total of 303 is a significant number, but the implementation of any option affects all 41158 members currently registered. It would be patently unfair to implement this, or any other "controversial" feature when such a statistically insignificant (.648%) percentage of registered users showed positive interest.

What's "patently unfair"? I personally think Jeremy was being nice to even ask our opinion. If it was me, I'd just go ahead and do it.

As for your quoting of statistics, I think previous posters have already made it quite clear that 303 votes IS significant. There's no need for repetition.

But just for fun, let me again point this out. For a registered voter to have voted, they would've needed to do the following:

1. Visit the Discussion Boards, then...

2. Visit the General Board, then...

3. Find and read Jeremy's post, then...

4. Care enough to vote.

Heck, I'm surprised that even 303 people voted.

--CoronaKid

1.6k · June 25, 2003

Quite frankly, if anyone really wanted to know the opinion of the majority of the members the poll should have been posted on the home page. There is practically nothing involved with setting up a small poll script.

You really want a response? Put it in their faces where they can see it and act on it.

CR

20.7k · June 25, 2003

I'm not convinced that the will of the populace is clear here. If it was decided to go forward based on this pole, what would the appropriate action be? Clearly, everyone should not have access based on this survey. Enough people voted owner or everyone but remarked that cachers should still be able to watch anonymously that the final totals should not be used as a black-letter guide to the voters' true beliefs.

Besides, does anyone have any passionate feelings one way or the other? I can't even remember how I voted.

Jeremy has plenty of projects lined up. What's wrong with this one being put on the back burner?

1.6k · June 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
Jeremy has plenty of projects lined up. What's wrong with this one being put on the back burner?

This one is pretty low on my list, most definitely.

CR

June 25, 2003

I think at least the owner should be able to see who's watching. Of course I also don't want to believe that anyone would use a service like this for evil, but I guess there is always someone.

"One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say."

Will Durant

June 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Quite frankly, if anyone really wanted to know the opinion of the majority of the members the poll should have been posted on the home page. There is practically nothing involved with setting up a small poll script.

You really want a response? Put it in their faces where they can see it and act on it.

CR

Nice idea, but it wouldn't work. Most people who regularly use a web site know where to go to get what they want, and go straight there. The front page is mostly for first timers and casual visitors. Most regular visitors wouldn't even notice.

But you're right. To get a true representation of public opinion, you'd have to put it somewhere that you can get everyone's attention focussed on it. For geocaching, that probably means having it come up first when you do a cache search, and doesn't let you through until you answer the question(s). But I don't think this issue is anywhere near important enough to do that.

Personally I'd like to have the list of watchers completely public, but it's just not a big deal. There are more important things to work on. Now, if it's a feature they can throw in easily while making other changes, they might as well, if they want to.

I don't see a poll like this as a definitive statement of the public will, but rather like dipping your toe in the pool of public opinion. Ultimately, Jeremy and his minions will do what they like with this site. The fact that he even bothers to ask questions like this just shows that he cares about what we have to say, and is trying to fit the site to our general desires.

And as far as keeping cache watchers hidden, what's the big secret? Privacy? If it's that big a deal to not let others know which caches you're interested in, don't put them on your watch list. If it had been set up originally so that you could see who was watching a cache, would anyone really be pushing to hide that info?

SylvrStorm

*** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. ***

June 25, 2003

I said everyone because I'd like to start up a communication with geocachers in my general vicinity, maybe get together for a difficult one. I am going on vaca next week and it would be great to hook up with some other vacationers or locals to do some geocaching. I am also very new so meeting veterans would be a great way to learn the ins and outs.

I do, however, see a small possibility that knowing that someone (by seeing their screen name) might do a particular cache at some point in the near future might be bad if they had someone out to get them or something.

3k · June 25, 2003

quote:
As for your quoting of statistics ... There's no need for repetition. ... But just for fun, let me again point this out.

Don't bother; nobody wants to hear it. There's no need for repetition ... or iterating the obvious.

quote:
Heck, I'm surprised that even 303 people voted.

Based on what I've been reading in these forums lately, probably only 53 people actually voted; and 50 of them voted multiple times, each using 6 sock puppet accounts.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on June 25, 2003 at 09:34 PM.]

3k · June 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by SylvrStorm:
If it had been set up originally so that you could see who was watching a cache, would anyone really be pushing to hide that info?

As a long-time reader of these forums, I state without doubt "probably."

9.4k · June 25, 2003

Is that something like a definite maybe?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.6k · June 26, 2003

status quo appears to work for the majority

1.4k · June 26, 2003

I'm pretty sure Jeremy understands how people spend their time at the site.

If he felt posting a poll would result in so insignificant a result that it should be tossed out of consideration... I'm sure he wouldn't have wasted his time soliciting feedback.

SO. Rather than debate whether the poll is useful, it would be more helpful to him (I suspect) if we just shared our opinions on the watch list feature. Which is all I believe he was really looking for. Even if it's way past the one month the poll was intended to run for.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

3k · June 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:
Rather than debate whether the poll is useful, it would be more helpful to him (I suspect) if we just shared our opinions on the watch list feature. Which is all I believe he was really looking for. Even if it's way past the one month the poll was intended to run for.

Right. Jeremy revisited the thread a few days ago ... we know what he thinks, and we enjoy the "post mortem" discussion.

1.4k · June 27, 2003

gotcha.

Just for the record, basing an arguemant about statictics on the numbered of registered users is flawed.

You have no idea how many are 'sock puppets' or how many are "Hmm.. I forgot my password, I'll make another account." accounts.

Some accounts are shared by multiple people. So out of the 41,000 some odd accounts, we could in theory (however unlikely) be talking about 4000 people with 10 accounts each.

You already touched on this briefly.

In my mind... the only valid metric for gauging public opinions in the current setting is the forum. A vast minority of people frequent here, but those who come into our hallowed halls represent about every kind of personality and geography that is involved in geocaching.

Even the grumpy ones As evidenced by my 'bad mood' post last night.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

June 27, 2003

i voted for every one. it would be nice to see whos watching what.

"The price of freedom isnt Free"

20.7k · June 27, 2003

What were the words you are supposed to use to kill a thread?

3k · June 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:
You have no idea how many are 'sock puppets' or how many are "Hmm.. I forgot my password, I'll make another account." accounts.

I had considered that, and chose to ignore it. As you stated, the number of registered members includes sockpuppets and replacement accounts, as well as accounts for teams and the individual members of those teams, accounts created simply to "reserve" usernames similar to ones already in use, etc., etc. ... I chose to ignore that point because it's entirely possible some people voted multiple times on the poll using such accounts.

The point that the number of votes cast is a tiny percentage of registered members remains valid. ... As I was typing this post, I visited the Leaderboard site to try to find out how many ACTIVE members there are, (I figured that would be a somewhat more reliable number) but that information doesn't appear to be available any more.

3k · June 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
What were the words you are supposed to use to kill a thread?

"Resist the temptation to click on a topic if you don't want to read about it." (But I'm also surprised that Jeremy didn't close the thread after his "thanks for visiting and arrive home safely" post.)

June 27, 2003

Sorry sbell111, I know you want to see this one die, but I'm not ready just yet.

I've been reading through all the numbers, statistics and percentages being thrown around, and the conclusions concern me.

Like some have stated, over 300 votes (85% of which were in support of a feature) seems to be significant on some level. (I don't know if my numbers are exactly right, I haven't the patience to scroll back to look.)

I'm curious exactly how many people have to vote, and vote yes, before the results would be deemed "significant."

Sure 300 is something like .0000008 percent of the registered geocaching IDs, but was the intent of the poll to only go forward with the feature if 51% or more of all registered accounts voiced their approval?

I guess I don't understand the point, or the dismissal of what appears to be, on some level, significant results.

Either way, I think the important question is this, when are the new maps going up?

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

20.7k · June 27, 2003

No big.

BP- I can't not click. Its like staring out the window as you pass a wreck. You can't look away.

Should you be able to see people on a watch list?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation