NimravusHSSR
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NimravusHSSR
-
-
Ah... I sense much hate with this one. Lol.
Google goggles integration would be awesome! Scan with your glasses! I will be the first to buy google glasses, can't wait!
"This is Geocaching. Find cache. Sign log"... Sorry to tell you if you didn't know but Geocaching.com has much more to offer than just "Find cache. Sign log" If that's your cup of tea, then stick with it.
This won't affect you one bit, as I'm sure other types of "non-traditional" caches are not bothering you currently such as puzzle caches, Letterbox caches, Wherigo caches, event caches, virtual caches, webcam caches, location less caches which are not Find Cache and log it style. Are you suggesting Geocaching.com eliminate everything but Traditional caches?
-
Don J, I agree with every post you have made on this subject. I have had cell phones since the mid nineties, my first phone was a three watt bag phone. I got that phone to make phone calls and the phone I have today is to make phone calls, I have never owned a smart phone and don't want one, if I want to play with something I have two desktops, three laptops, a netbook, and a tablet. To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.
If you just want to go caching the old fashioned way, nothing would change for you. You wouldn't even know its there, like you probably don't even pay attention currently to Wherigo geocaches that require unlock codes, computers, smartphones, etc.
-
Ah, I forgot about the "Check in" popularity of other platforms! Lol. Thanks for reminding me. People "Check in" with Facebook and FourSquare all the time. On FourSquare you can become the mayor of the location by being top check in. People are fascinated and attracted to competition and counters (counting finds, check ins, etc).
Tying in a location proximity feature would be nice. My friends and I use check ins on FB and I really don't see rampant cheating going on. Where my friend would give me his phone for the day so I can take it with me and check in at a location. Lol. Or maybe it is and I'm oblivious to it. Maybe my friend really wasn't at the Hard Rock In Vegas, he just gave his phone to his friend for a few days. It's possible I suppose.
But in any event, there is data showing that check ins, competitive counters are addictive and working.
-
Yes, we all have problems with comprehension.
The responses support your statement, thank you for acknowledging. But I would much rather enjoy it if people did comprehend it.
That has to be the problem.
Yes, except for Post #99, he got it. Like or Dislike, he got it.
For someone that is so excited about new ideas, you don't seem to have any tolerance for ideas that may be new to you, especially if they conflict with your current thinking.
I almost fell off the chair laughing because this is SO TRUE, uhm.. but since it's my idea I think its the reverse... thats exactly what I've been trying to say!
It has been explained to you many times why your new idea would be pretty much doomed from the get go, and it is not so much because people would be resistant to it, but for the fact that people would exploit it.
The explanations came from a either a misunderstanding of the idea or just nonsense. Nonsense meaning for example, people saying this will create a quick stop caching trend when there are ways and caches already designed purely for quickly finding and racking up points already. It's possible to create those now. Or "What if the code is missing"... well, you would then log it in the logbook and log the find online like you normally would still. And Logbooks can and have been lost before, why isn't it rampant now? So this is just for Smartphone users now? I think one funny argument was what if someone was FTF the cache, takes the code from the cache and then gives the code to someone else. Then they both try and claim FTF rights... LOL.. AGAIN, it's possible already by just altering the logbook and claiming they were FTF, why isn't it happening now? So on and so forth. So the reasons that were given why this would fail are really not valid because it can happen now and its not a problem
Once again, if you want a game where you run around scanning codes, it has already been created by a competitor.
Have no clue what the competitor is and have no clue what running around scanning codes will do. That has nothing to do with my idea.
-
Exactly what purpose does your new idea serve if not to stop cheating? I guess we can go full circle all over again?
There is nothing wrong with new ideas, but the idea should serve a purpose and you can't seem to define what that purpose is? Besides, it's an old idea, at least the fallback to a code word part is. It was tried and the problems that it created were not worth the trouble. Re-branding an old idea as a new idea doesn't give you a license to disregard history.
Oh darn it!!! I thought there was a break thru with post #99 lol.... but now we digress. Sigh, for the gazillionth time, its not to stop cheating.. lol. People are addicted to anything that tally's up, like say a counter (find counts). I've defined many benefits it would bring, and if you missed those posts, I don't know what to tell you.
-
Maybe I misunderstood NimravusHSSR suggestion. I understood that if the cache were listed on Geocaching.com anyone could sign the physical log and log the find online. However, if you found a cache with a verification code you would provide the codes - either through a smartphone app or by a a special box in the online log form - and get a "verified" find. There would be two types of finds. Verified and unverified. All caches would allow unverified log, only caches that registered a verification code would be able to get a verified find.
I'm somewhat intereted in knowing how much demand is actually out there for a verified find. Clearly TGTMNBN has gotten some traction along with other location based/checkin style apps. So I suppose that this sort of thing appeals to some people just as playing virtual farmer on Facebook appeals to some people. Currently Geocaching.com is doing quite well with the more informal method of signing logs. That doesn't mean new idea shouldn't be explored, but there should be some evidence that this change is going to attract a significant number of users.
Hallelujah.....Hallelujah.... (with the choir in the background and sun rays peeking out of the clouds...).... LOL
FINALLY, Like or Dislike aside... someone that finally got what I was saying.... And it would be more of a Scanned Find and Traditional Find since technically the logbook is supposed to be there for verification. This just might add another element people can enjoy. Those who don't just log traditional finds...
I think the word "Verified" threw people in a frenzy... I should have used "Scanned" logging vs Traditional logging. Would have saved 17 days and 99 posts... lol!!!!
-
You still haven't come up with any reason why your proposal would make the game more fun other than a generic comment that other people find things fun that you don't understand. Would you find it more fun to find caches with barcodes and verification codes in them? If so, perhaps you could explain how you'd find it more fun. If not, then it seems all you've got in your idea is a random thought that some unspecified people might find it more fun even if you can't explain why.
I have mentioned lots of reasons, just not ones you agree with. I can say you still haven't come up with any reasons why this wouldn't add more fun to the game other than you don't like the idea and don't want to take the effort in filtering or skipping this type of cache, in which case you are just saying you don't like the idea just because...
-
It's easy from the cache types to figure what you're going to find. A traditional cache means the box is at the coordinates. A multi means it isn't there but something else probably is and you gather information from one or more intermediate stages. A puzzle means you solve the puzzle. A Wherigo means you use a player to follow a prescribed route to find the box. An event means you sit around drinking beer and talking to other cachers.
Adding the barcode or whatever other "verified find" method now means some caches will have it and some won't so you need to be able to filter them based on whatever preference you might have. The last thing you'd want to do is make the effort to hunt down a 5/5 multi only to find you could only log it using the "verified find" method when you didn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, or you lost the code on the way back, or some such.
You would filter it out using attributes, or the same way you would a traditional, multi, etc.... And if someone doesn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, then they can still log the find but not get the verification count added until they remember to bring something suitable to record the verification code.. lol. Losing the code? well I don't know what to say about that one, what if someone lost their GPSr on the way to the cache and had no way to find it, what if what if.
See, this is what I'm talking about. We can go on and on about what if... what if I go to a cache and I didn't see that it's 12 miles round trip. Or what if I go to find a cache and I forget to bring my GPSr, or what if I go find the cache and the logbook and pencil is missing.. how do I log it then? What if I go to find a trackable and it's not in the cache... what if I go to find a cache and forget why I'm driving? what if what if what if... we can do this all day long...
-
I don't understand why twitface is so addictive at all but it obviously is.
I have no idea what twitface is, but you made my point, thank you...
I'm not sure that "try ideas until something sticks" is a very good way to go about things,
Google does this very well, I suppose they are a failing company though...
it suggests doing all sorts of random things with no particular pattern until we stumble upon something that might work, and hope that users don't get sick of the entire site along the way.
No, it doesn't suggest that at all...
Every idea that doesn't stick represents wasted development effort and irritated users.
So new ideas must work the first time every time. Yeah... that's the way it is out there...
Challenges are a classic example - they were a game that had the potential to be used in interesting ways but if anything Groundspeak themselves messed that one up with the launch. Their first challenge was to kiss a frog and post a picture, which made the whole thing look like it was just a sop towards people who don't want to have any real challenge but just want to snap something random with their smartphone and share it with the world. Now Challenges have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and didn't make Groundspeak look particularly good along the way. If Groundspeak continually introduce new ideas and new variations on the game and they keep falling flat they just start to look like they've lost the plot completely.
So google must have that image too, they buy a company a week, try and squash projects all the time.... yup, Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was built when it was first conceived. Why do they even have over a dozen different cache types? they should have stuck with the traditional cache this whole time. Geocaching should have done what Kmart has done, never change and stay the same...
Lots of people live on apps of one sort or another. Personally my view is that an activity like geocaching has some scope to be totally impromptu (people asking "I wonder if there are any caches near here" and using a smartphone app to find out) and some scope for what I consider to be better quality caches left in places that require a bit of effort to reach.
Your view and mine differ, impasse
Too many cache-n-dash hides turn the game into a largely pointless numbers game of just grabbing endless film pots behind signs, which I find increasingly uninteresting.
This option already exists, why isn't it rampant and destroying your idea of caching?
Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.
Already answered this one
-
Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.
That's just ridiculousness? It's already fragmented, on the FAQ page it even states:
"Are there different types of geocaches?
Yes. There are currently over a dozen "cache types" in geocaching, with each cache type being a different variation of the game."
BUT it's really really easy to filter through and know exactly what you are going to find. I've never gone out to find a traditional cache and accidentally ended up at a Cache In Trash Out Event Cache... and had to pick up trash... lol... just being funny.
-
I can't say I've seen anything in this thread that I'd say was aggressive. I've seen lots of people who don't think your idea is a good one (myself included) and have said why. Some of them may have missed just what you were trying to say in the first place (and if a lot of people miss the point it's possible you didn't make the point as clearly as you first thought).
As you've probably seen there are lots of ideas promoted here. Some of them seem like good ideas, some of them seem like they'll create work for Groundspeak and not offer any benefit. If it looks like an idea will create work but not offer a benefit it's unlikely to ever happen.
I haven't seen lots of people who don't think its a good idea. Maybe 10 or so here on this thread? and the reasons they give are passive aggressive I guess... Like stating it would create armchair cachers, or quick score cachers when those caches already exist, etc etc. So they are just looking for any reason to dislike it and put it down even though their reasons why don't make sense. I think it would create a huge benefit, and yes maybe 10 or a dozen or so on this thread think it won't, doesn't mean its a bad idea just because few people here say so.
-
I think some of the reaction you are getting is because of The Game That Must Not Be Named (TGTMNBN). Your original proposal with a physical barcode and scanning with a smartphone is so close to what TGTMNBN is that someone may think you are promoting it.
Based on some of what I've heard, TGTMNBN has had some success in certain areas. Due to its rules it is fairly easy to place game pieces so in some areas its enthusiasts have pretty well saturated these areas. Geocaching, on the other hand, has long had a set of guidelines and a review process that limits how quickly new ideas can take hold.
The other issue that your proposal faces is that already there are cachers who play TGTMNBN and who put TGTMNBN's pieces inside the caches they hide. Because of Groundspeak's rule that TBTMNBN must not be named, it is generally difficult to know in advanced if a cache contains one of these pieces. Should Groundspeak want to add an option like you suggest, there may be problems in dealing with caches that alread have a TGTMNBN piece inside.
That makes more sense... It was rather shocking... I haven't been on the forums here in years and I thought I'd post an idea to bounce around and BAMN.... People were getting aggressive... lol.. I was like dang. It was just strange that people really don't think before they post. For example, they commented that this would promote fast park and grab style caching.... but those specifically designed like that already exist... or the comments "what if I don't have or want to use a smartphone"... Geez.. what if I don't have a GPSr? It's not fair that only people with GPS capable devices get to play! LOL...
I think we all forget that options already exist? For example, multi-caches. Not everyone likes them. So do they complain about multi-caches? Or do they just filter them out or ignore them? I don't understand why people are so hostile to just another option? I think your explanation helps me understand.
-
No, there's another location based game out there where people scan QR codes with a smartphone that automatically records their capture of the code and awards them points. It seems naming it here is frowned upon.
Oh, I don't know about any other caching sites except this one and the one Garmin promotes
-
OK, so can you explain how finding a cache with a barcode in it is any more fun than finding a cache without a barcode in it?
Well I have no clue how farming on Facebook in a virtual cartoon is addictive but somehow it is. My wife is addicted to anything that has to do with collecting points and such... I suppose that's why Geocaching.com has a found count and milestone system? Maybe some people will find it fun to rack up code find counts? I don't know what makes things addictive, we just have to try ideas until we find ones that stick. The ones that don't get squashed as learning experience?
Some people love smartphone apps, some could care less. I have friends that live on iPhone apps, and others that have android smartphones because they got it free or cheap and use it just for texting and calls.
I think everyone is different. I have been caching for over a decade and have found probably over a thousand caches but I have logged only 19 so far because I enjoy the hunt. I could care less about the cache count because thats so easily manipulated, doesn't mean anything to me.
I think Geocaching needs to be fresh and willing to try new ideas. Otherwise, eventually it will become the Kmart of caching... old and tired.
-
At least initially there will be very few caches to find that will have a verification code. It isn't clear that the number of verifiable finds will reach the critical mass need to support a new game. People who want to verify something would be better off playing that other game whose name cannot be mentioned.
I have to agree with this. If you play the other Game That Must Not Be Named (GTMNBN) you get to verify your find right there and then as your smartphone checks your GPS location against the GPS location recorded for the item you just found. Sure, someone could take their friend's smartphone along or write some convoluted application to fake a bluetooth GPS signal (which probably wouldn't be all that hard for anyone so inclined), but cheating there involves more than just picking a random cache and claiming a find on it.
Some geocaches contain game pieces for That Other Game which seems to work fine - there's no reason you can't play two games at the same time. No need to try and combine geocaching with other game pieces.
Are you talking about the current Geocaching.com game Wherigo? With verification system combined wi Geocaching.com? It already exists.
-
Why do we need a "verified found" option if not to weed out the people who log finds that can't be verified (i.e. people who are cheating)? As I've said before (and don't recall getting a clear answer to my concerns) the way I see it this idea has many downsides:
1. It will require development work to implement
2. It will create disputes over who was FTF (if one person signs the log and another records a barcode but doesn't sign the log)
3. It will create confusion as without a new cache type or attribute nobody will know which caches have this new Additional Logging Requirement
4. It will create issues if a verification code is required but has gone missing despite the cache being present
5. It will do nothing to prevent people signing logs for their friends
All it will do is prevent armchair cachers from logging finds, and you said yourself you don't see cheating as a rampant problem so it's not like that's a major issue to be dealing with. So on that basis I still don't see any more than a marginal benefit where a small number of cheaters are concerned, and the change represents disproportionate disruption to the game for the sake of a few people who are really sad enough to cheat to get some yellow smiley faces on a map.
Because the verification IS NOT TO VERIFY but just add another level of "fun". How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? Lol. Dang.
#1 yes like any new features added as has many in Geocaching.com's history... Work and development is necessary. So are you suggesting because it takes work and development Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was when the site was created? It's changed so much over 10 years its completely different than I remember it over a decade ago.
#2 why isn't this rampant now? One can easily take the logbook, put in a new one with their signature and claim they are FTF. Or rip out pages, etc. it's soooo rampant right now that of course it won't work.
#3 Uhm.... Lol.... Uhm.... The Attribute legend? Maybe... Look at the attribute list?
#4 that's happens, like missing logbooks. Just log the find and report as maintenance required, no change from now
#5 that's not rampant now with friends signing logbooks. Or is it? I don't know. You keep repeating this issue, but it's not even the point of this new idea. Lol. Wow.
The point is not to prevent cheating so most of your argument is void. It's to add another element of addiction.
-
Oh, and if the code goes missing (it would be like now if the log goes missing?) you would still be able to log the find but with maintenance needed. Without the verification code, you just won't get the count towards the verified find count.
It would just add another fun element to those who CHOOSE to participate. Those who don't like it... Can change the channel lol.
-
You haven't been reading either I guess. Wy would it be mandatory to have a verification code to get published? Is it mandatory for a cache to be premium only to get published? Or mandatory to be a multi-cache to get published? No, it's the CO's choice. And it's competitive to a certain degree with find counts and milestones.
-
I really don't see a problem with this except people just don't like change. There have been many changes or additions to options over the last decade. Just like Premium Caches, when they added that... I bet some people went nuts. But hey, if you don't like it, filter out premium caches.
If you don't like the idea o verified caching, filter it out. These same people that whine are the people that sit and watch a show complaining how dumb it is.... Just change the channel! It's called .... Choice? Lol
-
Lol. I just don't see cheating as rampant as you do I guess. Not too many cachers know thousands of friends that go caching to cheat with.
I'm just open to new ideas. I know new ideas are difficult though, it's like an invasion on what you are used to.
-
You don't scan any barcode with your flip phone. If you had read some of the replies in this thread, that's been discussed already. For those without smartphones you use a verification code. And for those that don't want to participate, you can still log the cache found without the verification badge being added. Or you just won't be able to log the find at all depending on the setting set by the CO. I think you are like the 3rd person to ask that same question. Lol.
-
I know people don't like change and new ideas (or maybe the ones protesting are cheating? LOL.. JUST KIDDING!!!)
Thats just human nature. Currently, Geocaching.com is king of caching sites. But nothing lasts forever.... Kmart was the retail king once, Sears was the king of department stores, MySpace was the king of Social Media, so on and so forth. Those that don't approve of new ideas can always ignore them and not participate... but this is what Google is doing so well. They are trying tons of new things constantly and most people don't even realize it. Only a few really make it to prime time, but I think they learn from failed projects and gain valuable information. Here is what I'm talking about: http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/
Geocaching.com must constantly throw up new ideas and collect data on what works, what doesn't, encorporate what works into future ideas, etc...
If it remains the same with no change as most people want, something bigger and better will come around to take it's place... like Target walking all over Kmart because Kmart failed to change with the times...
-
There is a very simple way for a finder to "verify that they found the cache." They can take a picture of the logbook, possibly with the container, showing their sign in, and post that with the log online. This doesn't help the CO, but it is something I always do when I find a cache where there may be a question whether I really found it
The naysayers here will say that your friend can sign your name, take a picture and send the picture to you and you can take the find. Lol.
-
Thanks for all the replies. I think we are at a road block here due to differing opinions. There is no right or wrong here so I don't want to go on infinitely round and round. At some point we have to recognize that you believe a certain way and I believe a certain way and those beliefs collide. Example: I believe I offered up great benefits and reasons, you don't believe I have.
Luckily for us in the USA for now, we can openly express our beliefs and have a public debate about them. Thanks for the opportunity to see other points of view.
Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.
in Website
Posted
Everything has a lifespan. Look what happened to IBM, Kmart, MySpace, Sears, etc etc. Once iconic giants, now laughing stocks with newer, fresher entities emerging. Who would have thought Facebook would eventually crush mySpace? At the peak of mySpace days, if anyone would have suggested FB taking over... They would have been laughed out of town.
So should we go back to when geocaching first started? No change. Status quo... Like Maglite, never change, wither away....