Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

0 votes
220 views
My statistics as reported by Project GC are incorrect.  I've figured out the reason: two of my finds are for caches that, for some reason, Groundspeak decided to change to "unpublished" rather than "archived".  The finds show up on my statistics page, and attempts to visit the cache pages from the logs give "cache is unpublished".  The same issue affects a number of my friends.  Is there anything that can be done about this?  Is it a flaw in the Geocaching API?

If there isn't a way to get correct stats through the Geocaching API, I suppose users could have a way to give project-gc the log number for their missing finds.
in Bug reports by not2b (140 points)

2 Answers

+1 vote
You are 100% correct. The case is due to "retracted" geocaches. They do not exist on the web, and neither in the API. In my personal opinion. Found geocaches should not be retracted, ever.

Since they do not exist in the API, there isn't much we can do automatically.

The plan is to have all data behind Profile stats editable, and that will then include exactly what you are suggesting as well.
by magma1447 (Admin) (225k points)
While the cache does not exist in the system, the log (with its log ID, GLxxxxxxx) does. If there were a way to give you the log IDs for the missing logs, the cache ID and the found date could be determined. The first person to enter a log for a withdrawn cache could enter the remaining information so others would not need to reenter it.
Also, doesn't the API give the total number of finds? The stats page could report the number of missing finds.
It would be great if gc.com offer similar option for retracted caches as they did for lab caches. SO, if cacher wants to delete his find on retracted cache he could do it from profile, similar as cachers could delete finds on lab caches.
The total number of finds exists in the API, including retracted and lab caches. We have chosen to not use this number though. We have decided to have a number that is in sync with the rest of the data, ie the logs that exists (in the api and on the web).

As mentioned, we do have plans to add so that one can add data just as one wants. Including actually changing D/T of geocaches, log dates and so on.
why not both? I was looking at my profile stats really confused, an option to have a subtitle with number of retracted and lab cache finds added would be nice. so that it reports a number that adds up to your actual find count and you can more easily confirm everything is square (waiting for time delays of course for it to actually update)
The main reason being that we can't find out how many labs/retracted you have. Only how many finds on non existing geocaches you have.

The number of finds does match up with the number of finds found when listing all your finds at Geocaching.com.
0 votes
Have you contacted Groundspeak to find out why a cache with a found log has been withdrawn? It should have been archived. Maybe they made a mistake.
by ChrisDen (4.1k points)
It's a more common practice than one might think and it seems it can happen for many different reasons. I found many threads about this in gc.com forums. That's why I think they should offer some possibility for cachers to delete their logs on retracted caches (if one wants to delete it), similar as with lab caches.
Correct, it's not very uncommon. In my personal opinion, the geocaches should not be retracted if they are logged. Or they should remove the logs as well. In most cases an archive and lock would be suffeciant. But I have seen cases where I can understand that they retract them, to be as sure as they can that none revisits the place. An extreme case would be a geocache that was published in an illegal area (think military) by mistake from the reviewer.
...