thebruce0
-
Posts
8974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thebruce0
-
-
-
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:
You want to keep Block Parties rare; I understand your reasoning, but it also sounds selfish. The fact that you were early to the game should not give you any privileges here.
Umm.. that's an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. There is plenty I, for one, cannot receive since I've not been around since day 1. May as well allow anyone to become a charter member, eh? I mean, how unfair is it that they limited that label to only pre-2003 geocachers?
Selfish? Don't be ridiculous. I'll point again to the fact that that the icon was already exclusive and unattainable. They opened it to more people with no limitation to where it can be attained, per "worldwide". I think it's "selfish" to demand that something that's by definition a limited thing be equitably attainable by anyone and everyone everywhere; or at least by a standard that brings you into the fold.
And no, there is no guarantee that I will attain the icon, myself. I have zero plans at the moment, and if I do travel for it, it will be at great cost, in relation to my personal capabilities at the moment. It's a value judgment I need to make, whether I want to spend the money and time to make the trek to whichever event I think is worth it. That may mean no event. That may play out as dedicated effort to help make a local event into one.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:I wonder, would you say the same if you were the one 5000mi from it?
100% absofrickinlutely Yes I would.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:How would the communities in the US and Europe react if there was an Asia-exclusive event requiring all of you to do a long-haul in order to claim it?
No change. I would be jealous of those who could make it, if I judged that it was not within my means to attend. I would not demand that HQ somehow change the definition so that I could attend within my own arbitrary threshold of feasibility. If I do that, then I should support making it so that Joe Blow out in the boonies could host the same event himself, with no attendees, and still earn the same 'reward'. Ridiculous.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:Also, from your feedback I also understand that you struggle to comprehend the tight situation players face in some countries.
Thanks for telling me what I comprehend, but you are wrong.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:This by itself should not be a reason to deny players around the world a chance to join in the 25-year celebration.
No one is denying anyone the chance to join a 25 year celebration. I point back to my and other earlier posts. Megas, which can be held worldwide, and are merely an icon, are one method of celebrating 25 years, which anyone can attend, if it's within their threshold of ability (whether it's driving 100km or flying 5000 or planning and hosting).
You know what happens to an event when it flips from a mega icon to a block party icon? Nothing. It's still the same event. But now there's a different icon. If anything changes, it's because the organizers are so pumped that they may make their own event bigger and better. You're so adamant that HQ is being unfair, and anyone who agrees with them is being selfish; all this for an icon?
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:Either we are part of the game or we are not, and given this is not some quantity run for a souvenir, but a celebration, HQ should go out of their way to include as many players as possible, and not just on paper!
I guess they should just open up Virtual caches for everyone freely again. Open up webcam caches so people can log them from timbucktoo without having to travel and visit them. Hey may as well just let anyone log caches from the couch because it can be too costly for someone with 10 caches within 100km to get to that rare Virtual and get the icon. But that guy with 5 caches in 500km is worse off - he should get it too. I mean, if a handful of people 5000 miles from a mega event should be able to earn the Block Party icon on the basis of the fact that it may not be feasible to travel to get to the closest one and that's not fair...
You are opening a can of worms with this line of argumentation.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:Somehow the decision-making process at HQ always appears to be a painful one; remember the drama with Virtual Rewards 1.0
Yup. And with every iteration they are honing the 'selection' process, and it is never based on geographical region, outside of how the community itself is. But even so, unless they open it up to everyone on the planet, someone will always be 'left out', and that's "not fair". Apparently.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:A solution? They could take the map and apply a grid to it, determine if there are active players within that grid (long term COs active within the last 12 months for example, premium if need be), and drop 1 or 2 events per grid-tile. This way, you would not have too many events in crowded areas able to organise multiple Megas events, and technically you would also be able to satisfy a lone cacher if he were the only one in that grid. It would ensure a fair distribution that would spread the wealth a lot better. I would leave the fine-tuning to HQ.
I was interested in the possible solution idea (yay!), until the limitation per grid tile. That is something that won't happen; and, it'd be "unfair" to someone who thinks they could run a better event than that other guy who got the right to the event in their tile merely because they claimed it first. That's a geographical limitation that does not exist currently.
A region currently could have multiple megas that become BP. How is that "fair"? Because the community determined that, not HQ.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:I do not see why we should celebrate a game that chose to exclude us?
Oh stop it, no one's being excluded.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:It is simple, in a good number of countries, the game literally stands or falls by the effort of a few die-hards who keep things going against all odds.
Yep, what an awesome hobby that it even exists in some of these extremely remote areas, whether thanks to tourists or curious local individuals who found it online and decided to begin a local 'community'.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:It would be nice if HQ would recognise these MVPs, and not go out of their way to irk them each and every time.
I absolutely agree that it's nice when HQ recognizes and benefits people who help keep the game alive. And I'd greatly encourage them to continue to find more ways do so. I do not agree that making Block Parties available to any event worldwide is the answer.
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:Or bring back a global series similar to the Ape caches.
They brought back Seattle. And man, I really had to plan for a costly trip across the continent in order to finally visit that cache. And AFTER I'd already visited the 'replacement' non-official ape cache without the icon. So I had to visit it twice! They should have just given me the icon for visiting the location and container the first time so I didn't have to waste all that time and money on another trip. Come to think of it, they should let someone closer to me be able to place a cache (or me!) and make it an APE cache, to celebrate that series, other people can earn the icon who can't reasonably make the trip. I mean, re-opening Seattle wasn't enough since before that it would have been totally unfair to have had to make the trip to Brazil just to get that icon. It's not fair that someone who can't travel to Brazil, and not even Seattle, can't log a find and earn the APE cache icon. Come on HQ, don't you love us and appreciate us?
On 2/17/2024 at 10:28 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:we will not likely to see a BlockParty in Asia under current terms and conditions, we simply do not have the numbers. The sad bit is that I'm sure that HQ is well aware of that.
Then no one in Asia will be earning any Mega event icon any time soon either. Why not complain about that?
Rather, how awesome would it be to attend "the first Asian mega event" once the community makes it happen? Heck if I could attend it I might even do that - which would mean prioritizing the idea, planning and saving for it, if it's even possible. Just as anyone would need to do for any desire to travel anywhere. Even to the local cornerstore.Best suggestion to come out of this:
On 2/17/2024 at 4:42 PM, Barnyard Dawg said:Or bring back a global series similar to the Ape caches.
How about a new and different series like the APE caches. I would be 100% for that.
-
.png)
4
-
-
Until it's fixed, you could try forcing the mobile browser to request the desktop version of the website if it's available. It may help.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, kranfagel said:
At this time, this page is not approved. Any site or app used on a cache page needs to adhere to all international privacy laws, including a privacy policy and disclosure requirements.
So... that makes it sound like ANY external website requires a privacy policy and a disclosure agreement in order to be used on a cache page. That seems excessive. And way out of reach, as many websites used for puzzle caches are just websites with content. Now mob cache functionality is more than just a website that provides content, it's functional and makes use of user data. But "any site or app" is way more far reaching than user-functional websites... I hope that's what they were referring to, not just "any site". I know plenty of web-based puzzles set up on personal websites that don't have any form of policy let alone intentionally adhering to any international privacy laws.
Has the approval process for any and all external website links been changed?
-
1
-
-
Just now, FDor said:
I followed your suggestions and added the "NM" to my log. By the way, none of the five geocachers after me have a "NM" listed, but perhaps the logbook has already been replaced in the meantime?
We can't control what other geocachers do. Not everyone 'likes' to post NM/OAR. They are good to post if you feel the owner should tend to the cache. It's more annoying when no one posts one on a cache that clearly needs one, leading to a sub-par geocache find. So, yep, good that you added the maintenance log if you deemed it necessary.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:On 2/14/2024 at 9:38 AM, thebruce0 said:
Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'.
I log for the day I found the cache.
Yes, this is the correct practice, even if you log the cache [post the log] many days later. That's where occasionally there's confusion - 'log date' sometimes is used to refer to the date on the log, and the date the log is saved to the listing.
Date on the online log ~ should be date the cache was found
Date the online log is saved to the listing ~ not required to be done on the same date it was found.
-
17 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:
If you can back-log the date that wouldn't be too bad.
However, I have a feeling most of the people who log weeks or months later don't keep close track of their exact find date.
Phones or GPSrs, everyone I know who doesn't log right away has something - a draft or a flag on the device - that they set when they find it. Offline. Chance they'll log them all when they get home? 50/50 at best. I regularly hold drafts for a few days these days unless I feel the urge to post them or have an imminent immediate reason to (like ftf logs). I don't know anyone who tries to mentally "remember" which cache they found, let alone that and forget the date they found it.
Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'. Sometimes I see questions about whether you should 'log the cache the date you found it'. Some people interpret that as referring to the value of the date field on the log, and some interpret it as when you physically post the find log to the listing. I think the vast majority of cachers make sure the Date of the Found It is accurate the date it was found, even if they post the log on a different date. But I think there are some who do have a personal ethic of posting their Finds on the same date they actually found the cache (thus the Date Found value is implied accurate). But there is no rule/guideline saying that the Found It log must be posted on the same date as the log was signed nor the same date in the Date Found value; but it is good practice to date the Found It for the date it was actually signed, regardless of when you post the log to the listing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, arisoft said:
No problem, because the code lets you post your log only the date you found the cache, regardless when you finally decide to post it.
There is no time-out for the code, because it is always valid only the date you saw it. Let's call this an additional security feature of the token.
Yeah.... no.
Not so much a security feature as a sufficiently annoying requirement that would become a game-killer.
Won't happen.
-
"Don't overthink it" I think is paramount. FTF is too vague. Everyone has different ideas and personal etiquette. Just define what you're "first" off.
Someone who signed the log first might claim "first to sign". Someone who posted the log first might claim "first to log" if they were with other friends (happens in events a lot :P). You could claim ftf by "first to solve the puzzle AND sign the sheet" if the solution was determined by a loophole, eg. Or "first to find after publish" (against beta-tester ftfs). And so "first to sign AND qualify" is a perfectly legitimately FTF claim, IMO, even if someone else logs later saying they were first to sign the log sheet. There's no conflict - they were first to sign the log sheet, go on them. You were first to qualify as well. Good on you.
Who has rights to the "FTF" reward? There is no reward.
11 hours ago, MNTA said:I too use the date qualified as the date found. This method does skew the stats a lot not that it bothers me. Things like cache to cache distances specially when the cache is on the other side of the country gets affected.
This is why I use a trackable now for a more accurate distance-traveled. Much easier to make adjustments to be more accurate, and can include visits to non-find geocaches as well, and owner visits.11 hours ago, MNTA said:I claim the find on the day I check, if I don't qualify immediately. I then only check on days I need if I need a find. The problem is sometimes I forget to do this and then have to wait a year.
IMO there are 3 possible dates to log the find on for challenges, and I go with the latest date of the three, while the first is the 'cleanest' find.
1. Date the log was signed (permitted if already qualified)
2. Date qualified (if the log was signed before qualification)
3. Date qualification was determined (exception case, least preferable - eg, signed years ago, forgot, re-checked today and now qualify, but no idea when; so log it today, as that's more preferable than 'years ago')
But per the OP, yeah, just clarify what you're "claiming" first of. Then there's no determinable conflict or doubt.
-
54 minutes ago, Cheminer Will said:
I have never done this but.... I have had a few times doing maintenance on a hide from long ago and had to look harder to find my old cache than I do on other people's hides! It sure felt like a legitimate find even though it wasn't of course.
Another way you can put it, if you "find" something that someone else moved, which used to be how you hid it, then you didn't find your cache, you found whatever it is that the other person did to your cache, so it's still technically not a 'new' find on your cache. Still an owner maintenance if you fix it back to your cache.
-
1
-
-
Unfortunate for the web-based AR implementation, as that doesn't require any downloads. But it may just be the compatibility and accessibility isn't quite there yet.
It may also have to do with making use of GPS in the web app, similar to the question of 'mob' caches making use of gps safely and privately.
Who knows. But I definitely hope that HQ will in time allow web-based AR functionality. That's the way mobile devices are going, really
-
1
-
-
You can also design window decals to place on the outside of tinted windows. They'll last for some time but may eventually begin to peel or crack. Simple to replace anyway. Plenty of printers stores out there can create window decals.
-
6 minutes ago, FDor said:
If you really have that kind of friends, it is in the current system even much, much easier to cheat. Simply click on the cache on the website and click on the “found” button.
As I've said, the system is in place to allow the cache owner to decide if that log is legitimate. And yes, there are people who reportedly take advantage of the 'group caching' loophole. And it's frustrating and infuriating - but not "cheating", and most often people have just now decided to shrug it off because nothing can be done and it's not worth the effort. As I always say, as long as the cache was found that day, it no longer causes me angst if 30 people log it found when 1 person did and the rest just 'claimed' it under the group caching name. It's annoying, but it's not cheating. I choose to encourage better etiquette, because as mentioned before, those other 29 are "only cheating themselves" (while also annoying any cache owners who crafted a geocache experience that was skirted merely so they could earn a +1 smiley, and they can't do anything about it if the owner can't "prove" those 29 finders weren't also present). And no, a code word won't help, because that 1 person would just tell everyone the code word. Same problem. But even less agency on the owner's part.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:
As referred earlier, some players were used to log "Found" when they found the cache on their cache maintenance tour. I am sure that they comply with this "act of discovery and success" stipulation.
And... the mechanics no longer provide for logging Found on your own cache. So the point is moot.
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:Almost every day I am looking for things I have put somewhere and I may find them with act of discovery and success.
That is not what the log in the context of geocaching implies. May as well log that I 'found' the trailhead. I 'found' parking. I 'found' the GC code! No, the "Found It" log is created to indicate that user has accomplished the needed task in order to state that they have discovered and found the geocache. That's the implication. An owner can't do this on their own physical geocache.
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:Don't you think that the primary reason to discourage finds to own caches is "stats abuse"? (Regardless of what "stats abuse" means.)
That is one reason, I can agree.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
Most of the events here are pretty low key, with the attendees themselves bringing nibblies for the table, and about all the host does during the event is draw the FTF prize. Even for my Community Celebration Event, where I provided a puzzle based on identifying ten Classic Central Coast Caches from a set of photos, most of the preparation was done beforehand and there was little for me to do other than mingle during the event.
Same here in Canberra. Mostly all the CO has to do is attend.
Yep, and that's what the log implies - the poster has attended. A host may also "host" the event, but there is no log for that
The host hosts, and attends, and earns the right to log Attended.
But if a "Found It" log implies the act of discovery and success, a hider cannot "Found it" on their own geocache [which they hid, not including adopting after finding].
-
14 hours ago, arisoft said:18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
To log a geocache as 'Found', you need to find the geocache.
Do you have any reference for this requirement? It is new to me. Many players sign caches they definitely haven't found but they meet the requirements to log a find. In many cases, this happens when a group on geocachers are searching a cache at the same time and only one of them actually finds the cache.
We both know what "you" means. The nature of getting your name - or the name you're caching under for that find - on paper is irrelevant and always arguable. Personal ethic aside, HQ will not arbitrate the method of ink on paper. The point to the phrase is that you - whether by touch or sight or vocal confirmation or some other sense - have "found the geocache!" and your goal is to have the paper signed with a name you identify under. The intent of the spirit of the activity is confirmed as a "find" by signature on paper.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, FDor said:
If there had been a code word in the container, you would have simply taken a photo of that code word with your smartphone and then later logged the discovery online at home.
And then one person takes that photo and shares it to their group of friends privately, they all log the finds, claim it, and lock them in because "but we had the code word!"
It's nowhere near as simple as that. And you add layers up on layers of methods to thwart such 'cheating'. Or, you can let people duke it out themselves, while encouraging the proper spirit of the activity - sign the logsheet, or convince the owner you found it. Then log it online.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, FDor said:
But speaking of “cheating”: in practice, in the current system of online reporting on the website, there is no obstacle to reporting a cache as found.
There isn't - until a diligent owner who upholds their agreement in owning a cache and maintaining it (including the online listing) checks the log and finds that the user's name isn't on the sheet. Then *wipe* goes the log from the history. And it won't be restored unless appeals decides that there's sufficient evidence that the find is legitimate, per the guidelines. Beyond that they generally take a hands-off approach encouraging the hider and finder to decide themselves. And if that's the case most likely nothing will change unless the finder can change the hider's mind.
The mechanics of this hobby are set up so there is no technical "cheating" - mainly because it's not a competition (whether or not someone's find count is accurate does not affect any other user one iota), and any comparative value placed on stats is entirely inferred and subjective. There can however be misleading information - typically, inaccurate logging practices that can mislead geocachers. But that's not "cheating", that's abusing the system and negatively affecting others' experiences. That's why cache owners have responsibilities, and why guidelines are in place to demonstrate good etiquette and processes to minimize that angst from misleading information.
But as soon as you insert a technical programmatic line that universally determines validity of a find, 100% absolutely guaranteed there will be people from every nation taking advantage of the fact that with no judgment to be made, illegitimate finds can be logged and protected purely for the sake of the numbers and stats. And then, the 'find' loses all meaning if the owners can't make the reasonable judgment about what is and isn't a find. And if you say well, they still can, then there's no point ultimately in the technical logging allowance. Just sign the sheet.
Just sign the sheet.
Or explain why you believe you found the cache and your log should stand so the CO will agree.
Simple concept, really. Code words and technical hurdles codified in the game are just adding complexity that will also add enticement to circumvention and make the whole process an enormous headache to keep 'legitimate'.
-
1
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, MNTA said:
I hope this is far fetched but I'm trying to prove a point that signing the log does not prove you found it.
No one ever believed or says that a name on a log sheet is hard objective proof that the one who signed the name is the one identifies with the name. And with that you see why everything else is a grey area. Who signed? You? A friend? Were you 1 foot away or 10 feet? Alone or in a group? Signed with initial or full name? Real name or caching name? Is it even legible? No, in practical application the rule does not require a person to sign their own legible name to a log sheet to 'earn' the right to log it online.
In practice, in effect it's simply that the name you cache under and sign the log with for that find is on the logsheet in order to protect your log against deletion from the CO. And the mature, reasonable adults need to arbitrate their own disagreement first.
13 hours ago, MNTA said:One mechanism to prove the find is outlined in the OP
I don't think HQ ever meant that the reason behind this 'rule' was literal "proof" of a find. It's merely the most streamlined mechanism for making a judgment which can never be guaranteed correct 100% of the time. It's a simple rule, a straightforward rule, and fighting over it is ultimately much more hassle than it's worth so it's up to the participants to decide how to deal with the disagreement. HQ doesn't want to get involved with quibbling as a very distant 3rd party.
It's simple: Name in log = Online log. Who's going be first to try to skirt the spirit of this activity? The finder or the hider? Hopefully neither if both understand the spirit.
If I log a find online by photo log or for whatever other reason I'm sure it's 'found' but my name is not on the log sheet, I am ready for the log to be deleted and accept that fate if the CO decides. Because I know the find log isn't "I saw the cache" or "I touched the container" or some other opinion about what constitutes a "Find". My Find log for physical caches implies that I got to the finish line and signed the logsheet. If I try to log a cache found where that wasn't the technical outcome, then I'm fine if the owner deletes my log. Sure I could be miffed if I really feel the find was deserved, but again, my feelings and opinion don't prove anything.
Adjust your goals so that signing the logsheet (having your name in the log after having found the cache, whether alone or with friends) is your personal and primary goal when looking for a physical geocache. Then all the bases are covered. And if you're not certain the owner will be satisfied, document your accomplishment in photos and be ready to ask for an appeal.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, MNTA said:17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.
How is this proof for the finder?
Hypithetically, lets say a cacher finds a cache and signs the log.
Let's say now the CO decides for some reason that they wish to delete the log. How can the finder prove he found it? Yes they can dispute it with GS. The CO could invent a log omitting the finders signature. GS probably would side with CO. I'm guessing, never had to apeal anything. Maybe others know better here.
Mhm, that's how it works. It's not a perfect system, but if people play legitimately, that's the purpose for signing the log sheet. If a person claims that the signature is theirs, almost certainly an appeal will have the find log reinstated and locked so the CO doesn't delete it. That's the intent. Of course there's always room for people to be deceptive. Let's not encourage it. If the CO finds no reasonable evidence that a user actually found the cache (typically by signature on the log sheet) they have grounds if they choose, to delete the Find log, and generally HQ will stand by that. Yes, people quibble over details. Ultimately that's not relevant to the reason the guidelines say (in so many words) that you sign the log sheet and you then may log it online.
That's the baseline. Not signed? CO has grounds to delete the log. Signed? The CO should be letting the online log stand. Beyond that, quibble it amongst yourselves and sort it out. Still not solved? HQ will arbitrate based on that one guideline: Is the log signed? If so, then the find is locked against deletion.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I contact the last holder and give it a short amount of time. I know there are times I have dropped a TB, aiming to log it along with my logs, but someone by chance swings by and finds it the same, grabbing from me, or the other cache it was in, thinking it was forgotten or something. I want to give it miles, so I have to message them and let them know I'm grabbing it back so I can properly drop it by log into that cache, on the correct dates, then they can properly pick it up from that cache. Then I message the owner to let them know what's going on. It's a big hassle.
But there are 2 takeaways:
1. Log trackable activity as soon as possible (I try to now to log TBs separately and immediately if I'm out on a trip and may not get to logging caches for a day or two or more).
2. Don't assume a TB is missing or forgotten; make a habit of contacting the last holder to see if they just forgot, and find out what they plan to do. Nothing? Then grab it.
3. If you grab it without indicating where you grabbed it from (like a cache, if it was still listed in someone's possession), consider being courteous and giving it the travel mileage by dropping it in the cache you found it in, then retrieving it. You can delete any extraneous logs.
That at least is how I tend to handle TB corrections and etiquette these days.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, arisoft said:
It has been said that the organizer of the event also participates in the event. But it is even more certain that the owner of the cache has visited the cache coordinates. There is no difference between these cache types whether the player visited coordinates or not.
enh. To log an event as Attended, you just need to Attend the event; as a host of the event you also attend the event.
To log a geocache as 'Found', you need to find the geocache. If you placed it, you didn't find it; you own it. There is a difference between "attended" and "found it".
-
7
-
-
Suggestions that improve the accepted process of the actual hobby can be much more reasonable and feasible than suggestions that attempt to alter the core process at a fundamental level introducing new mechanics that people will, guaranteed, inevitably attempt to circumvent. Especially if it's new-and-shiny, where the established norm has gone through many years of rigorous 'playtesting' as it were, and still survives.
The more that strict rules and processes are introduced, the much easier it will be for people to 'break' them and objectively cheat and cause heartache and frustration in the community. As people will always try to push that limit, this game has accepted that a massive grey area with few strict rules, wherein community is encouraged to lean towards ethical activity and the spirit of the hobby and debate amongst itself issues of opinion rather than codifying them into law, is the least chaotic mechanic for this hobby's success and longevity.
Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.
If there are issues, the owner and the finder can duke it out. If it comes to breaking a general term of use for the website, or breaking one of the few rules, appeals can step in. They regularly recommend that geocachers come up with a solution themselves, since HQ does not want to be the arbiter of subjective he-said/she-said debates.
Technology will be broken by people who desire it enough, and if the 'rule' to break is solely defined on what the technology is programmed to do, then cheaters will win. Rather, leave it loose and encourage the spirit of what this is about, so there is less 'value' in cheating because then, as they say, "they're only cheating themselves".
Game developers (vs cheaters), system administrators (vs hackers), puzzle creators (vs puzzlers), and others, often deal with this same dilemma. Hackers have to weigh the desire to win with how much effort it takes to do so. So you either make it ridiculously hard to cheat, or you make it less 'rewarding' to win. In geocaching, "cheating" merely gets you statistical numbers and you miss out on experiences. So, focus less on numbers and more on fun, without trying to 'protect' the numbers.
If someone can get a smiley by spoofing their geolocation easily and quickly, or getting an answer without doing work, generally speaking, they will. Especially if there's nothing the other side can do about it.
Adventure Labs had to deal with that - the technical aspect. And they're still attempting to deal with people circumventing the 'spirit' of the concept; eg armchair-logging massive airport series requiring only an easily attained code for each 'Location' (ironically) to boost that smiley count).
Geocaching Challenges (in their hayday) had to deal with that - the value proposition. Except that it got SO loose and people abused it towards mocking the concept that they killed it off.
No, the reason why geocaching is unique and still successful after 24 years is that no other game is like it (well, letterboxing which predates it I guess). All these other location-based digital technology games have a hayday, and often die off, whether the cost of keeping it running is too high, or cheating runs too rampant, or something bigger and better comes along... Why hasn't that happened with geocaching? Because ultimately the best value one can attain is in the experience, not the numbers, and it does not rely on changing technology nearly as much as any other game. GPS. Website. Simple rules. Deal with everything else yourselves. Forge amazing experiences for others to enjoy. Boom, done.
Other methods of 'proving' the find have been suggested over the many years this game has been around. So this suggestion really is nothing new (sorry to say), which is another reason there's a good amount of blowback. The debate's been rehashed over the years; there's nothing new under the sun.
-
4
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, niraD said:21 hours ago, x7Kevin said:
A big problem would be that if the codeword gets smudged or is unreadable that means the cache can no longer be logged by anyone, even if the container is in fantastic shape.
Part of me wonders about handwritten codewords that might be confusing
Yup. For a cache or two I published in the past, I used label makers to punch numbers/text into sticky labels. Those last through weathering and are super easy to read, 3d, and easy to replace if lost or broken. Highly recommended. But, whatever is on those labels is always used as an intermediate waypoint needed to get to the next stage or final - not a requirement to log a find online. (ick)
-
1
-
.png)
.png)
Block Parties to celebrate 25th anniversary in 2025
in Geocaching HQ communications
Posted
The irony.
Exactly. I don't think there's anything more that can be said. Cheers.