[FEATURE] Audit Logs

[+HEADLANDERS]

Allow Premium Members to view the 'Audit Log' on all caches that they own and not only the PMO caches.

[+Hurricane Luke]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

[+HEADLANDERS]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

[jholly]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

But it does point out the major flaw in thinking that the audit log shows who has been looking at the cache.

[+cerberus1]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

 

This forum section is "Feature Discussions and Suggestions".

If everyone agreed with your suggestion, there'd be no reason to discuss it.

In fact, I would like to see the audit removed from PMO hides as well.

So easy to dodge with GSAK, PQs & many smart phones, there's really no reason to keep it.

[+niraD]

Given the incomplete data, perhaps it would be better to just eliminate the audit log completely.

[Mr.Yuck]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

 

This forum section is "Feature Discussions and Suggestions".

If everyone agreed with your suggestion, there'd be no reason to discuss it.

In fact, I would like to see the audit removed from PMO hides as well.

So easy to dodge with GSAK, PQs & many smart phones, there's really no reason to keep it.

 

Yeah, sorry you don't like the answers Headlanders. In addition to the above methods, in the USA only, I can get all the cache information on a PMO cache without visiting it via text message inquiries. But I see you're from the UK, and I'm probably aggravating you even more.

 

People can also use various methods of posting a find log to your PMO, without showing up in the audit log. I for one am an advocate of eliminating it completely. To answer your question, I'm quite certain it was asked for multiple times when they had a couple different 3rd party "feedback" forums, and the answer was no back then.

[AZcachemeister]

Allow Premium Members to view the 'Audit Log' on all caches that they own and not only the PMO caches.

 

Despite the previous discussion, I would ask..why?

 

To what end?

What would you hope to gain if this were implemented?

[+frinklabs]

Given the incomplete data, perhaps it would be better to just eliminate the audit log completely.

 

I make every effort to not show up on anyone's log; I won't even click on forum links to caches without pasting them into a different, not-logged-in browser to verify they are not PMO first.

 

An exception is absentee-owner caches where the logs aren't viewed; I didn't have a problem viewing the page for GCY86W as the CO hasn't been on since 2009.

 

If they got rid of the audit logs altogether it would be easier to view PMO caches but it would take away my satisfaction of sticking it to The Man.

[+Hurricane Luke]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

 

Au contraire. If there's a flaw in an initial system (audit logs), any idea arguing for an extension of said system needs a discussion of what is wrong with the system in the first place, and how such flaw could affect the outcome of a new idea.

 

Since there already multiple ways one can avoid appearing on an audit log, my belief is that if one were to extend the audit log feature TO ALL caches, more people would probably start looking for ways to avoid the audit log, making such methods more popular, thus making the audit log even more useless than it is now. Implementing such an idea will only make a broken system more brokener (wait, that's not a word is it!).

 

And it's not Groundspeaks' fault either, since they can't possibly detect if a cache is viewed offline.

 

If it came to a vote, I would say 'no', and draft a proposal to go in the opposite direction and abolish the audit log altogether.

[+HEADLANDERS]

While I've used PMO occasionally to ensure a valuable cache is 'safer' - there are ways to skirt the audit log so you do not appear on it. There's not really much point in an idea like this.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

 

Au contraire. If there's a flaw in an initial system (audit logs), any idea arguing for an extension of said system needs a discussion of what is wrong with the system in the first place, and how such flaw could affect the outcome of a new idea.

 

Since there already multiple ways one can avoid appearing on an audit log, my belief is that if one were to extend the audit log feature TO ALL caches, more people would probably start looking for ways to avoid the audit log, making such methods more popular, thus making the audit log even more useless than it is now. Implementing such an idea will only make a broken system more brokener (wait, that's not a word is it!).

 

And it's not Groundspeaks' fault either, since they can't possibly detect if a cache is viewed offline.

 

If it came to a vote, I would say 'no', and draft a proposal to go in the opposite direction and abolish the audit log altogether.

 

As I said previously each is entitled to his own opinion but please don't try to change the opinions of others and more importantly assume your view is the correct one.

Edited July 13, 2012 by HEADLANDERS

[+HEADLANDERS]

 

I make every effort to not show up on anyone's log; I won't even click on forum links to caches without pasting them into a different, not-logged-in browser to verify they are not PMO first.

 

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I make every effort to not show up on anyone's log; I won't even click on forum links to caches without pasting them into a different, not-logged-in browser to verify they are not PMO first.

 

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?.

 

I can't answer for him, but I'm from the East Coast USA. Once I was surfing the Geocaching.com Google Maps, and clicked on an MOC. At the time, you had no clue if a cache on the maps was MOC or not, I believe that has now changed. Anyways, nosey girl from California sends me an email asking why I looked at her cache page. This of course is after she looks through my finds and hides, and references where I'm from in the email. I did not answer it. I thought it was an invasion of web surfing privacy. My opinion, of course.

 

P.S. There are multiple ways to LOG an MOC without showing up in the audit log. I don't go out of my way to not show up in the audit log. But I'll bet Frinklabs does.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+HEADLANDERS]

 

I make every effort to not show up on anyone's log; I won't even click on forum links to caches without pasting them into a different, not-logged-in browser to verify they are not PMO first.

 

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?.

 

I can't answer for him, but I'm from the East Coast USA. Once I was surfing the Geocaching.com Google Maps, and clicked on an MOC. At the time, you had no clue if a cache on the maps was MOC or not, I believe that has now changed. Anyways, nosey girl from California sends me an email asking why I looked at her cache page. This of course is after she looks through my finds and hides, and references where I'm from in the email. I did not answer it. I thought it was an invasion of web surfing privacy. My opinion, of course.

 

P.S. There are multiple ways to LOG an MOC without showing up in the audit log. I don't go out of my way to not show up in the audit log. But I'll bet Frinklabs does.

 

I'm missing something as I am not aware of the abbreviation 'MOC'. I've looked up various acronyms but none make sense. I'm genuinely interested in knowing this then maybe I can understand the concern.

Edited July 13, 2012 by HEADLANDERS

[Keystone]

MOC = PMO

[+frinklabs]

And it's not Groundspeaks' fault either, since they can't possibly detect if a cache is viewed offline.

It is possible for them to create an audit log of API calls requesting PMO cache data, from which the offline view is created -- but I hope they do not.

 

 

There are multiple ways to LOG an MOC without showing up in the audit log. I don't go out of my way to not show up in the audit log. But I'll bet Frinklabs does.

Not only for myself. My daughter's account is non-PMO and we did a cool Earthcache together which was inexplicably PMO. Her account used the back door method to log.

 

 

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?.

You could assume that, but you would be incorrect. I would have thought my sticking-it-to-The-Man assertion was clear. Since notifications of Found It logs are sent to non-PMO COs as well, that makes them not The Man.

 

Since we are doing Q&A, perhaps a response to this might clarify your request and change our opinions of it:

 

To what end?

What would you hope to gain if this were implemented?

[+niraD]

As I said previously each is entitled to his own opinion but please don't try to change the opinions of others and more importantly assume your view is the correct one.

Pot, kettle, black...

[+HEADLANDERS]

As I said previously each is entitled to his own opinion but please don't try to change the opinions of others and more importantly assume your view is the correct one.

Pot, kettle, black...

I don't recall giving any opinions or being negative about the comments of others but just asking the questions.

 

Anyway, I can see why am always being advised to stay away from the Forums. Lesson learned.

 

Thanks for your time. I'm out of here now.

Edited July 13, 2012 by HEADLANDERS

[+frinklabs]

I'm out of here now.

Sad Trombone

 

I was genuinely curious and was hoping you'd answer this before you split:

To what end?

What would you hope to gain if this were implemented?

[+niraD]

As I said previously each is entitled to his own opinion but please don't try to change the opinions of others and more importantly assume your view is the correct one.

Pot, kettle, black...

I don't recall giving any opinions or being negative about the comments of others but just asking the questions.

Color me confused. I thought this thread was started by you offering your opinion that the audit log feature should be available for all caches owned by a premium member, and not only for PMO caches.

 

Others have offered their opinions about the audit log feature.

 

AFAICS, everyone (including you) assumes that their opinion is correct. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

There are times when people argue positions that they do not believe are correct. It's common in competitive debates. Playing the devil's advocate can be helpful. And trolls do it for fun. But again, AFAICS, that is not what is happening here.

[+frinklabs]

I thought this thread was started by you offering your opinion that the audit log feature should be available for all caches owned by a premium member, and not only for PMO caches.

Not even an opinion. Just a request:

Allow Premium Members to view the 'Audit Log' on all caches that they own and not only the PMO caches.

 

That being said, we still don't know the rationale behind the request.

[+T.D.M.22]

Who says there has to be rationale? It seems a LOT of people want things done their way, regardless of weather Groundspeak feels the need to or not. I have also noticed people requesting features that are already implemented. I still don't get what the Audit log is for anyway. Maybe the OP has had some cachers somehow damage the cache and thinks he can play detective by seeing who views the caches?