Contact Another User

[+ibycus]

I hope that I am not off-topic in saying this.

 

If some of you are concerned that by not allowing others to see your email address makes it hard to email them back, maybe there is a way that gc.com can make it easy to reply to these people immediately, rather than go through hoops. There should be an easy way to do this, but then I don't know a whole lot about these things.

The problem is that this would require Groundspeak to handle the e-mail, which opens a whole other whack of privacy issues, and spaming issues and and and. Really, I'd suggest finding a service that will allow you to forward e-mail to an existing account and then use that as your "reply to" address (or your business address which you've already mentioned).

 

The way e-mail works, unless geocaching.com wants to start providing e-mail accounts to people (which for *many* reasons they do not) there is no way for them to hide your e-mail address but make it 'easy' to reply back (for some value of 'easy')

[+Ambrosia]

I hope that I am not off-topic in saying this.

 

If some of you are concerned that by not allowing others to see your email address makes it hard to email them back, maybe there is a way that gc.com can make it easy to reply to these people immediately, rather than go through hoops.  There should be an easy way to do this, but then I don't know a whole lot about these things. 

The problem is that this would require Groundspeak to handle the e-mail, which opens a whole other whack of privacy issues, and spaming issues and and and. Really, I'd suggest finding a service that will allow you to forward e-mail to an existing account and then use that as your "reply to" address (or your business address which you've already mentioned).

 

The way e-mail works, unless geocaching.com wants to start providing e-mail accounts to people (which for *many* reasons they do not) there is no way for them to hide your e-mail address but make it 'easy' to reply back (for some value of 'easy')

I did not know that.

[+ibycus]

Really, I am a somewhat private person, and maybe I'm just scared of monsters under my bed. But I have a hard time knowing that there is a database out there where everything I say is saved forever, and anyone can look up everything I said. I know that it is out there, but do you really know what is going to happen in the future, and what kind of scenario will occur that could make you look back in time and say," I wish now that I had never posted my coordinates in that forum"? Really, you can't.

 

I most likely will never be in a major car accident. But I still choose to wear my seatbelt. I would hate for that one time to happen, and then look back and say, "I wish that I had made the choice to wear that seatbelt, but now it is too late."

 

I choose to be safe, rather than sorry. I do not have anything to hide, but I do not trust the unknown public, and that is just a sad state that we live in nowadays.

I think the point I, and others are trying to make is that the information is already out there to be gathered if people so choose.

 

So, I may not know your real name, and you may not know mine (actually I don't generally like posting my real name in open forums, and I can't give you a rational reason why I don't, it's relatively easy for someone to track down anyways), but if someone did want to make you a target for anything, then they will be able to do so.

 

For the record, I have a relatively reliable method I could use to track down who you are, but I choose not to use it, as you have expressed concerns over your privacy (if you'd like proof, with your permission, I'll try, but its a pain in the butt to do anyways, and I really don't care who you are...).

 

If its the general database that you're concerned about, then what makes you trust Groundspeak with your e-mail address in the first place? Who's to say Jeremy isn't trying to take over the world?

 

In a case where anyone with any real power is involved (corrupt government etc), I imagine these records could be obtained, heck I imagine Groundspeak even has your home coordinates on file (or did you fudge those, and point to your neighbour's place?). Then again, if its some kind of distorted future that you're concerned about, aren't things like your credit card purchases etc going to be much more of a liability than your geocaching activities?

 

Its all a matter of perspective.

[+Ambrosia]

If its the general database that you're concerned about, then what makes you trust Groundspeak with your e-mail address in the first place? Who's to say Jeremy isn't trying to take over the world?

 

Oh, but he is.

 

But then, I'm secretly his second in command, so it doesn't really bother me all that much.

[+Stunod]

I hope that I am not off-topic in saying this.

 

If some of you are concerned that by not allowing others to see your email address makes it hard to email them back, maybe there is a way that gc.com can make it easy to reply to these people immediately, rather than go through hoops.  There should be an easy way to do this, but then I don't know a whole lot about these things. 

The problem is that this would require Groundspeak to handle the e-mail, which opens a whole other whack of privacy issues, and spaming issues and and and. Really, I'd suggest finding a service that will allow you to forward e-mail to an existing account and then use that as your "reply to" address (or your business address which you've already mentioned).

 

The way e-mail works, unless geocaching.com wants to start providing e-mail accounts to people (which for *many* reasons they do not) there is no way for them to hide your e-mail address but make it 'easy' to reply back (for some value of 'easy')

A simple solution would be to include a link to the EMAIL A USER page in addition to the link to the senders profile.

[+Ambrosia]

I hope that I am not off-topic in saying this.

 

If some of you are concerned that by not allowing others to see your email address makes it hard to email them back, maybe there is a way that gc.com can make it easy to reply to these people immediately, rather than go through hoops.  There should be an easy way to do this, but then I don't know a whole lot about these things. 

The problem is that this would require Groundspeak to handle the e-mail, which opens a whole other whack of privacy issues, and spaming issues and and and. Really, I'd suggest finding a service that will allow you to forward e-mail to an existing account and then use that as your "reply to" address (or your business address which you've already mentioned).

 

The way e-mail works, unless geocaching.com wants to start providing e-mail accounts to people (which for *many* reasons they do not) there is no way for them to hide your e-mail address but make it 'easy' to reply back (for some value of 'easy')

A simple solution would be to include a link to the EMAIL A USER page in addition to the link to the senders profile.

Aaaaahhhh...

[+Ambrosia]

When you recieve an email from a user, doesn't it already provide you with a link to their profile page, which has a link to email them? That's not so difficult. Just a coupla clicks.

[+Miragee]

True . . . but, as I mentioned, on my slow (25K) connection, that takes a lot more time than being able to click "Reply" within the email program.

 

And, if they didn't include their email address, I sort of have to assume they didn't want to get a reply . . .

[+Ambrosia]

True . . . but, as I mentioned, on my slow (25K) connection, that takes a lot more time than being able to click "Reply" within the email program.

 

And, if they didn't include their email address, I sort of have to assume they didn't want to get a reply . . .

Then you assumed wrong.

 

And the little extra time should be worth it to protect someone's right to privacy.

[+Team Perks]

When you recieve an email from a user, doesn't it already provide you with a link to their profile page, which has a link to email them? That's not so difficult. Just a coupla clicks.

Yeah, but I'm usually on GC.com when I'm busy doing other things, like work. Sometimes a couple of clicks can make the difference in answering the question "Do I really want to bother responding?"

[+ibycus]

A simple solution would be to include a link to the EMAIL A USER page in addition to the link to the senders profile.

I don't know about you, but I'm a little paranoid about clicking links I see in e-mails, even if they seem to come from a valid source...

[+Ambrosia]

A simple solution would be to include a link to the EMAIL A USER page in addition to the link to the senders profile.

I don't know about you, but I'm a little paranoid about clicking links I see in e-mails, even if they seem to come from a valid source...

[+ibycus]

Then you assumed wrong.

 

And the little extra time should be worth it to protect someone's right to privacy.

Of course we're getting a bit off topic here (the original topic was what the default should be, not what people should set it to), but if you're contacting me, do you really *have* a right to privacy? Personally I'd be a little tempted to say that no you don't (I know that's a bit controvertial, but I *think* its how I feel, except maybe in some extreme circumstances).

 

(hey I just remembered, i think I have an e-mail that is still waiting for my reply after about a week and a half that the user decided to hide their e-mail on me...)

[+Ambrosia]

Then you assumed wrong. 

 

And the little extra time should be worth it to protect someone's right to privacy.   

Of course we're getting a bit off topic here (the original topic was what the default should be, not what people should set it to), but if you're contacting me, do you really *have* a right to privacy? Personally I'd be a little tempted to say that no you don't (I know that's a bit controvertial, but I *think* its how I feel, except maybe in some extreme circumstances).

 

(hey I just remembered, i think I have an e-mail that is still waiting for my reply after about a week and a half that the user decided to hide their e-mail on me...)

I guess that I'll just have to remember that if I ever email you, that you may never email back. I just hope that other gc.com members do not feel the way that you do.

 

Back onto the topic, I think that this derail can be over now.

[+Mopar]

Then you assumed wrong. 

 

And the little extra time should be worth it to protect someone's right to privacy.   

Of course we're getting a bit off topic here (the original topic was what the default should be, not what people should set it to), but if you're contacting me, do you really *have* a right to privacy? Personally I'd be a little tempted to say that no you don't (I know that's a bit controvertial, but I *think* its how I feel, except maybe in some extreme circumstances).

 

(hey I just remembered, i think I have an e-mail that is still waiting for my reply after about a week and a half that the user decided to hide their e-mail on me...)

I guess that I'll just have to remember that if I ever email you, that you may never email back. I just hope that other gc.com members do not feel the way that you do.

 

Back onto the topic, I think that this derail can be over now.

Is it actually off topic?

I think how users react to receiving emails with no return address is directly related to the discussion of what the default setting should be.

 

While I don't specifically make it a point to ignore emails where there is no reply, I admit more then once I have replied to one without realizing there was no real reply address. Only after the email bounced back did I notice it.

Almost every time that has happened, I have *not* bothered to take the time to go find the person's profile, click the email link, then cut/paste edit and reformat the bounced email.

I think MOST users are OK with not inconveniencing the person they are trying to contact, and have no problems sending a reply address.

A default setting should default to the setting that works best for the greatest number of users.

[+Ambrosia]

Then you assumed wrong. 

 

And the little extra time should be worth it to protect someone's right to privacy.   

Of course we're getting a bit off topic here (the original topic was what the default should be, not what people should set it to), but if you're contacting me, do you really *have* a right to privacy? Personally I'd be a little tempted to say that no you don't (I know that's a bit controvertial, but I *think* its how I feel, except maybe in some extreme circumstances).

 

(hey I just remembered, i think I have an e-mail that is still waiting for my reply after about a week and a half that the user decided to hide their e-mail on me...)

I guess that I'll just have to remember that if I ever email you, that you may never email back. I just hope that other gc.com members do not feel the way that you do.

 

Back onto the topic, I think that this derail can be over now.

Is it actually off topic?

I think how users react to receiving emails with no return address is directly related to the discussion of what the default setting should be.

 

While I don't specifically make it a point to ignore emails where there is no reply, I admit more then once I have replied to one without realizing there was no real reply address. Only after the email bounced back did I notice it.

Almost every time that has happened, I have *not* bothered to take the time to go find the person's profile, click the email link, then cut/paste edit and reformat the bounced email.

I think MOST users are OK with not inconveniencing the person they are trying to contact, and have no problems sending a reply address.

A default setting should default to the setting that works best for the greatest number of users.

I'm not sure if it was exactly off topic, but I was worried since HC was getting frustrated earlier.

[+mini cacher]

I guess you only want everyone to have it your way.... so let's crap all over anyone that disagrees.  Nice!

Yeah, my way. Someone finally figured out that I'm the secret evil puppet-master pulling all the strings at Groundspeak, making them program the site the way I want it. dadgum, now that you exposed me, El Diablo is gonna wanna put me on the cover of Today's Cacher.

"your way" was not meant to imply that this is what you requested and Jeremy complied. It was meant to say the way that you want it to be.. which is the way it is now. I think you may have known that but perhaps decided to distract people with a joke.

 

Would it muddy this thread too much if I mention that on WM.com, it defaults to not sending your email address?

if by "muddy" you mean "create a moment of clarity in".. then yes.

 

For the record, I think if you are emailing me, it's reasonable to expect you to give me an email address to reply back to.

 

The fact that you already have an opportunity to opt out of giving me that email address is consistent with their privacy policy.

Oh, but technically, I am not emailing you... Groundspeak is.. because you have chosen to keep your email private. So it is not unreasonable that you return to the site and use the contact form to provide me with the same level of privacy that you enjoy.

 

A default setting should default to the setting that works best for the greatest number of users.

not always. a lot of times the default setting is the safest setting. This way the user has to make the effort to change the default to the less safe and can no longer place the blame anywhere but himself. Its the same reason that most forms that require you to "acknowledge" you've read the aggreement before you click through default to unchecked and force you to chose to check it. How many of us have forgetten to check those boxes when editing a cache page? It seems it would work best for EVERYONE if they defaulted to checked... but they are not.

 

Would it make anyone happier if the profile setting defaulted to "include the email" so only those that don't want it would have to uncheck it?

 

And I suppose none of you have ever been messaged via this forum... no way to reply but return to the forum... most of them do it that way.

 

But since the OP has made his point, I see no reason to for me to continue this.

[+Prime Suspect]

Sheeesh! If you really can't remember to uncheck the box, here's a greasemonkey script to let you set both of the email page checkbox default values to whatever you want: gc_mail_paranoid.user.js

[+mini cacher]

Now that's what I like to see. Someone with an understanding of the problem and has a solution that works for everybody (that uses FireFox). But it won't install for me. I'll keep trying as I'm not too familiar with how the greasemonkey works all that much. Thanks.

 

got it. this one worked differently than I remember the other one working.

 

How many of us have forgetten to check those boxes when editing a cache page?

I've already expanded on the idea to solve this problem as well. Edited August 23, 2005 by mini cacher

[+Tharagleb]

When I reply to people's email, I use a business address.  And as I said before, I think that we have used up all of our allowed email addresses.

 

But I'm still curious...what is gmail?  I've never heard of it.

Can I ask you what may seem like a bit of a personal question?

 

Just who exactly are you trying to hide from? Who, that you are e-mailing, *don't* you want to have your e-mail address? It might help me understand your point of view.

Yeah, basically if you email me and your return email address is FAKE then it is spam. I would think Groundspeak should FORCE you to give a good return address. If you don't want email from ME then don't send me your email!

[+ibycus]

I guess that I'll just have to remember that if I ever email you, that you may never email back. I just hope that other gc.com members do not feel the way that you do.

 

Back onto the topic, I think that this derail can be over now.

Just to clarify, I didn't intentionally ignore the message. It's just I received it while on a bit of a flakey connection, (my wireless card is dying at the moment), and I couldn't reach the user's profile page right then and there. Now the e-mail is burried amidst the 872 other messages in my inbox (most of which aren't spam, and are relatively recent)

[+Prime Suspect]

When I reply to people's email, I use a business address.  And as I said before, I think that we have used up all of our allowed email addresses.

 

But I'm still curious...what is gmail?  I've never heard of it.

Can I ask you what may seem like a bit of a personal question?

 

Just who exactly are you trying to hide from? Who, that you are e-mailing, *don't* you want to have your e-mail address? It might help me understand your point of view.

Yeah, basically if you email me and your return email address is FAKE then it is spam. I would think Groundspeak should FORCE you to give a good return address. If you don't want email from ME then don't send me your email!

It's kind of hard* to use a fake email address, since you have to use the confirmation code to activate your account, and that code it emailed to you. Same goes when you change you email address.

 

(*But not impossible )

[+Tharagleb]

When I reply to people's email, I use a business address.  And as I said before, I think that we have used up all of our allowed email addresses.

 

But I'm still curious...what is gmail?  I've never heard of it.

Can I ask you what may seem like a bit of a personal question?

 

Just who exactly are you trying to hide from? Who, that you are e-mailing, *don't* you want to have your e-mail address? It might help me understand your point of view.

Yeah, basically if you email me and your return email address is FAKE then it is spam. I would think Groundspeak should FORCE you to give a good return address. If you don't want email from ME then don't send me your email!

It's kind of hard* to use a fake email address, since you have to use the confirmation code to activate your account, and that code it emailed to you. Same goes when you change you email address.

 

(*But not impossible )

The return address is noreply@gc.com that is fake.