Zuckerruebensirup

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: I don't fit any of these poll categories, as I'm exactly 30. Happy birthday, Fuzzy! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will. Malfeasance? Ooh, big words! (At least ClayJar includes a convenient link for those of us with a less well-rounded vocabulary.) And actually, I think that particular word usually pertains to public officials. But it sounds fancier than "to be mean". (I know I was impressed with it, and I'm sure others will be, too.) quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentage of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: That's really stretching it, since the two procedures are not interdependent. Hmm...I guess you accidentally left off the "Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct." immediately following the excerpt you quoted? quote:You want to guarantee people log to the page? Then __require__ that a user logs a find or couldn't find to the last cache page downloaded __before__ being permitted to download another. Throw out your bulk downloads, folks. There ARE no guarantees (not even with death and taxes...though the probability is high enough on those that it's safe to consider it a practical guarantee)...but that's a whole other discussion. Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go up, even if only slightly? As for the suggestion you made above (which I'm assuming does NOT represent your own opinion, but was shared just for 'demonstration' purposes)...it would obviously inconvenience a large majority of the current cachers (since many like to seek multiple caches in a day)...so I hardly think it qualifies as a comparison to the suggestion of having to log in before viewing cache coordinates. (Now...if I were suggesting that we had to re-login for EVERY separate cache page looked at...I could see how your example might be valid.) quote:I think the present system works about as well as any system could. Now there's a relevant statement. Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks for sharing it. (I hope you also put your vote in on the poll.)

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will. Malfeasance? Ooh, big words! (At least ClayJar includes a convenient link for those of us with a less well-rounded vocabulary.) And actually, I think that particular word usually pertains to public officials. But it sounds fancier than "to be mean". (I know I was impressed with it, and I'm sure others will be, too.) quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentage of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: That's really stretching it, since the two procedures are not interdependent. Hmm...I guess you accidentally left off the "Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct." immediately following the excerpt you quoted? quote:You want to guarantee people log to the page? Then __require__ that a user logs a find or couldn't find to the last cache page downloaded __before__ being permitted to download another. Throw out your bulk downloads, folks. There ARE no guarantees (not even with death and taxes...though the probability is high enough on those that it's safe to consider it a practical guarantee)...but that's a whole other discussion. Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go up, even if only slightly? As for the suggestion you made above (which I'm assuming does NOT represent your own opinion, but was shared just for 'demonstration' purposes)...it would obviously inconvenience a large majority of the current cachers (since many like to seek multiple caches in a day)...so I hardly think it qualifies as a comparison to the suggestion of having to log in before viewing cache coordinates. (Now...if I were suggesting that we had to re-login for EVERY separate cache page looked at...I could see how your example might be valid.) quote:I think the present system works about as well as any system could. Now there's a relevant statement. Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks for sharing it. (I hope you also put your vote in on the poll.)

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: ROT13 is [...] the encryption system we use for hints and encrypted logs. Ah! Thanks! (Then really, encrypting all the logs this way wouldn't make the coordinates any less accessible to the general public...unless we added a line in the log that said, "Add three hundred twenty seven to the latitude minutes above, and five degrees to the longitude to calculate the REAL coordinates to the cache." Kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just think of the havoc THAT would wreak on the people who do mass downloads, and never read the cache pages.)

quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: ROT13 is [...] the encryption system we use for hints and encrypted logs. Ah! Thanks! (Then really, encrypting all the logs this way wouldn't make the coordinates any less accessible to the general public...unless we added a line in the log that said, "Add three hundred twenty seven to the latitude minutes above, and five degrees to the longitude to calculate the REAL coordinates to the cache." Kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just think of the havoc THAT would wreak on the people who do mass downloads, and never read the cache pages.)

I'd like to see choices for Large, Regular, Mini, and Micro, too. In the meantime, though...I think most people would consider a 4.9 gallon container to be "Large" rather than "Regular". (This isn't "The Price Is Right." It's ok to round down, here. ) I try to describe and/or show a picture of all of my caches on the cache page. Besides just the size, it's nice to know what TYPE of container to look for. An olive green ammo can vs. a clear round Rubbermaid container with a bright white lid, are completely different animals...even if their volumes happen to be identical. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

I'd like to see choices for Large, Regular, Mini, and Micro, too. In the meantime, though...I think most people would consider a 4.9 gallon container to be "Large" rather than "Regular". (This isn't "The Price Is Right." It's ok to round down, here. ) I try to describe and/or show a picture of all of my caches on the cache page. Besides just the size, it's nice to know what TYPE of container to look for. An olive green ammo can vs. a clear round Rubbermaid container with a bright white lid, are completely different animals...even if their volumes happen to be identical. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

What do you think of the idea of having an option (like a box to check), when hiding a cache, to either: "DISPLAY cache coordinates to ALL users", or "HIDE coordinates from unregistered visitors to the site"? To see the coordinates, all a user would have to do is log in to the site (the same as we have to to post any messages here, or to add a log to a cache page). It would still be completely free to play...the same as always.

What do you think of the idea of having an option (like a box to check), when hiding a cache, to either: "DISPLAY cache coordinates to ALL users", or "HIDE coordinates from unregistered visitors to the site"? To see the coordinates, all a user would have to do is log in to the site (the same as we have to to post any messages here, or to add a log to a cache page). It would still be completely free to play...the same as always.

I agree whole-heartedly with the posts above which suggest that we make it an option for the cache owner when submitting the cache. There would be sure to be some caches out there that people who aren't ready to register could look for...and it would pacify those of us who aren't comfortable with trolls looking for our caches with no intent on logging. Plus, polls in a forum like this, which only represent a sampling of the large user base (and represent nobody who's NOT registered), are by definition skewed. If cache owners had the option, the choices they make on each cache would be the real votes...and those statistics wouldn't lie. (Of course, the non-registered users would still be unrepresented in that case. But part of choosing not to register is giving up your right to have a say, isn't it?) _________________ New poll submitted (and in the right Topic area this time). [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 06:45 AM.]

I agree whole-heartedly with the posts above which suggest that we make it an option for the cache owner when submitting the cache. There would be sure to be some caches out there that people who aren't ready to register could look for...and it would pacify those of us who aren't comfortable with trolls looking for our caches with no intent on logging. Plus, polls in a forum like this, which only represent a sampling of the large user base (and represent nobody who's NOT registered), are by definition skewed. If cache owners had the option, the choices they make on each cache would be the real votes...and those statistics wouldn't lie. (Of course, the non-registered users would still be unrepresented in that case. But part of choosing not to register is giving up your right to have a say, isn't it?) _________________ New poll submitted (and in the right Topic area this time). [This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 06:45 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: But by far the great majority of caches were available for them to peruse, in full detail. You want to eliminate even that. The only thing I want to hide is the COORDINATES. And anyone could register to look at even those. So I'm not suggesting taking anything away from anyone who wants to participate. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Hey, if it's what the majority of users want, I'll support it; but it seems foolish to me. That's what I was trying to assertain with this poll: what the majority of users want. If it seems foolish to most of them, I'll support that. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: It seems impractical and wasteful to me. But it's also not my logistical nightmare ... it's for Jeremy to decide. Yes. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what the majority of users want. The only vote that REALLY counts is Jeremy's.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: But by far the great majority of caches were available for them to peruse, in full detail. You want to eliminate even that. The only thing I want to hide is the COORDINATES. And anyone could register to look at even those. So I'm not suggesting taking anything away from anyone who wants to participate. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Hey, if it's what the majority of users want, I'll support it; but it seems foolish to me. That's what I was trying to assertain with this poll: what the majority of users want. If it seems foolish to most of them, I'll support that. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: It seems impractical and wasteful to me. But it's also not my logistical nightmare ... it's for Jeremy to decide. Yes. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what the majority of users want. The only vote that REALLY counts is Jeremy's.

Wow, so far (if you discount the discussion, anyway...and just look at the votes), it's 100% for the Yes's. Imagine that! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

Wow, so far (if you discount the discussion, anyway...and just look at the votes), it's 100% for the Yes's. Imagine that! ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum. [...] Whew, I'm glad you included a link to the definition of that, as it was way above my slow-as-molasses head. Your logic trail that eventually lead to "why don't we change all the posts to Japanese or even close down the site, in order to 'save more caches from being plundered'?" (to paraphrase) isn't completely sound. For, obviously, those things would also inconvience a LARGE MAJORITY of cachers. Either measure would likely (or certainly, in the second case) cause death to the site. Requiring a log-in to see the coordinates would definitely inconvenience the trolls who never intend to log any of their finds online...and it will most likely discourage a few people from trying out the sport for the first time. But would it cause a measurable inconvenience to the majority of current cachers? (That is why I posted the poll...to find out whether the majority of respondants feel the inconvenience would be worth the benefit [if there even IS a benefit, that is] of not having it so convenient for anyone/everyone to view cache coordinates without ANY accountability/traceability). The balance between convenience and safety isn't the only reason I was thinking it would be good to require a log-in. I think it would also increase the caches-found to caches-LOGGED ratio. (I'm betting some people don't log their finds online because they are paranoid about registering..and others are just too lazy to register, since there's 'nothing in it' for them.) I believe that, in the spirit of 'giving back', we should ALL log our finds online. (And yes, I know that, even if registration was required to view coordinates, some people STILL wouldn't bother to log their finds. But even so, I'm still betting the percentages would increase.) -Zuck P.S. By the way, what's ROT13?

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum. [...] Whew, I'm glad you included a link to the definition of that, as it was way above my slow-as-molasses head. Your logic trail that eventually lead to "why don't we change all the posts to Japanese or even close down the site, in order to 'save more caches from being plundered'?" (to paraphrase) isn't completely sound. For, obviously, those things would also inconvience a LARGE MAJORITY of cachers. Either measure would likely (or certainly, in the second case) cause death to the site. Requiring a log-in to see the coordinates would definitely inconvenience the trolls who never intend to log any of their finds online...and it will most likely discourage a few people from trying out the sport for the first time. But would it cause a measurable inconvenience to the majority of current cachers? (That is why I posted the poll...to find out whether the majority of respondants feel the inconvenience would be worth the benefit [if there even IS a benefit, that is] of not having it so convenient for anyone/everyone to view cache coordinates without ANY accountability/traceability). The balance between convenience and safety isn't the only reason I was thinking it would be good to require a log-in. I think it would also increase the caches-found to caches-LOGGED ratio. (I'm betting some people don't log their finds online because they are paranoid about registering..and others are just too lazy to register, since there's 'nothing in it' for them.) I believe that, in the spirit of 'giving back', we should ALL log our finds online. (And yes, I know that, even if registration was required to view coordinates, some people STILL wouldn't bother to log their finds. But even so, I'm still betting the percentages would increase.) -Zuck P.S. By the way, what's ROT13?

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: I vote we go back to the discussion. Just in case anyone really wants to talk about it, there has been a discussion on this going on in the the login to see coordinates thread on the Geocaching.com Discussion where it belongs. (I am abstaining from posting a full reply here on principle. I'll post it there instead.) Point taken, Clay Jar. Actually, that's the discussion that sparked my curiousity for seeing the results of a poll. Discussion is great, but sometimes people will vote when they won't leave an actual post saying where they stand (perhaps they prefer the anonymity?). I'm not sure how I managed to paste the poll here, rather than in the Geocaching.com Discussion area. But I've e-mailed Jeremy, and asked if he could transer it over there (or close this one out). In either case, though, I'm still interested in seeing the poll numbers along with the verbal discussion. (Statistics are fun...even when they only represent a sampling of the overall group.)

quote:Originally posted by ClayJar: I vote we go back to the discussion. Just in case anyone really wants to talk about it, there has been a discussion on this going on in the the login to see coordinates thread on the Geocaching.com Discussion where it belongs. (I am abstaining from posting a full reply here on principle. I'll post it there instead.) Point taken, Clay Jar. Actually, that's the discussion that sparked my curiousity for seeing the results of a poll. Discussion is great, but sometimes people will vote when they won't leave an actual post saying where they stand (perhaps they prefer the anonymity?). I'm not sure how I managed to paste the poll here, rather than in the Geocaching.com Discussion area. But I've e-mailed Jeremy, and asked if he could transer it over there (or close this one out). In either case, though, I'm still interested in seeing the poll numbers along with the verbal discussion. (Statistics are fun...even when they only represent a sampling of the overall group.)

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Something like this could potentially scare away or turn off some initial visitors. Members Only caches have turned off some initial visitors. Does that mean we should do away with them? It appears that activity on this site has increased exponentially in the past year or two. I doubt, even with amount 'scared off', the site would be in jeopardy of dying off anytime soon. quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: Also, why overwhelm the system with (potentially) thousands of usernames and passwords assigned to people who may never return to the site? My thought was that they would automatically get wiped out after 6 months (or some nominal time frame) of not having logged in. The site already tracks when our last visit was, that part is already in place. quote:Originally posted by kenny&lisa: I did not register until I tried the game. I feel that one should not become a member unless they like it, and are able to give it a try. Yeah, I thought about that side of it. But do you think you WOULDN'T have signed up, and given the game a chance if you'd have had to register first? quote:Originally posted by kenny&lisa: If they must login, the work and cost for the site admin/owner would become greater. They would have to weed out the people that signed up and never returned. Besides the initial programming, do you think it would cause them more work or cost? (Jeremy? What do you think?) quote:Originally posted by kenny&lisa: Unless the system is set to clear out the members that haven't signed in in 180 days? Yes, that's along the lines of what I was thinking. quote:Originally posted by kenny&lisa: This could open a whole host of rules in itself. Good point. And with more rules comes more controversy and arguing. But I'm betting a workable solution could be reached. quote:Originally posted by kenny&lisa: The ability to poke about the site freely is an asset to the site. I agree it has its merits, but some disadvantages. Interestingly, the poll votes at this point are almost dead even at 11 for, and 10 against. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR: Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches. I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it? But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentaged of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct. P.S. I initiated a poll to see what the general consensus is.

quote:Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR: Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches. I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it? But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentaged of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct. P.S. I initiated a poll to see what the general consensus is.

I don't like the idea of any surfer on the world wide web being able to see the coordinates to the caches I place. (But at the same time, I don't want to have to make them Members Only caches.) I'd like to see a feature put in place so that until a person logs in, they would be able to read all the information about a cache, except for the actual coordinates. If one of the "shoulds" in geocaching is logging our finds on the cache pages, then it doesn't seem like much of an imposition to require people to log in before viewing/downloading the actual coordinates. They'd still get the 'teaser' information to pique their interest in the sport...but before playing, they should at least be serious enough to sign up for a free account. (Yes, the clever folks could still triangulate, based on distances from centers of zip codes, etc...but I'm guessing that would only be a handful of people.) What do you think? Should log-in be required to view coordinates? Please share your thoughts as to why or why not below.

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):It may filter out some of the riff raff, but it won't work too well, since any shmoe can create a throwaway hotmail account and see the coordinates anyway. Even filtering out SOME of the riff raff seems worth it to me. Some vandals are willing to go to quite a bit of trouble to wreak their havoc...but others will look elsewhere if relatively small obstacles are placed in their path. If one of the understood "should's" in geocaching is logging our finds online, then it seems reasonable to me that a person should be required to have an account in order to see the coordinates. Show the whole cache description...just block the coordinates until the user is logged in. quote:Although I get a lot of flak from member only caches, it seemed like the ultimate (best solution) for just these issues. Same thing here. I think the MOC's should show up on the "nearest caches" listings, with the cache descriptions available to all logged in users...and only have the COORDINATES blocked to non-subscribers. Perhaps the 'teaser' factor would encourage more people to subscribe. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

quote:Originally posted by GoldKey: It costs $60,000 just to apply for a specialty plate in Florida At least you get a refund if they don't approve it. If they DO approve it, do you get a royalty off the plates that people order? ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"