Jump to content

Suggestion For Stopping...


darwinmay

Recommended Posts

I'm sure I'll get criticized, ridiculed, and otherwise flamed for this, but:

 

How about, to keep people from logging false finds, the site spits out a random alphanumeric code (preferably no longer than 4 or 5 letters) at the time of cache approval. Only the owner of the cache recieves the code, and marks it on the can somewhere. When the finder logs the cache online, there is a field they enter the code in.

 

Would this work?

 

Is it feasible?

 

Has it been suggested before?

 

BlueNinja

Link to comment

I don't submit my caches for approval until after they have been placed.

 

Often when I leave the house, I don't know whether I will place a cache or not . . .

 

If someone wants to cheat by logging one of my caches without visiting it . . . well, that is their problem. Although if/when I reconcile the logbook with the online logs, I will delete fake logs.

Link to comment
Well, I was thinking this would be nice for remote caches (when they're submitted, or the owner can request a number) so the owner doesn't have to check the logbook to confirm finds.

All you need to do is write something on the cache container yourself and then you can say in the cache description "to claim this cache email me and tell what is written is on underside of the cache's lid"

 

I am about to place 4 micros which are too small to put a log inside, but contain parts of the co-ordinates to a mistery cache, they are all different colours and to claim the cache the finder will have to email me the colour of the cache they have visited...... makes it simpler that way :(

Link to comment

It seems pretty clear from various discussions in these forums that not everyone agrees on what a 'false find' is. Also (and this is just a guess, I have no data to back this up), I'm pretty sure that despite how much we discuss it here in the forums, most people who use GC.com to track and log their finds wouldn't really think of 'false finds' as a serious enough issue to justify such a significant and fundamental change to the way caches are placed and logged.

 

In any case, it doesn't seem practical to think that the 200,000+ existing caches could be retrofitted with a code as you have suggested.

Link to comment
Well, I was thinking this would be nice for remote caches (when they're submitted, or the owner can request a number) so the owner doesn't have to check the logbook to confirm finds.

All you need to do is write something on the cache container yourself and then you can say in the cache description "to claim this cache email me and tell what is written is on underside of the cache's lid"

 

I am about to place 4 micros which are too small to put a log inside, but contain parts of the co-ordinates to a mistery cache, they are all different colours and to claim the cache the finder will have to email me the colour of the cache they have visited...... makes it simpler that way :(

Those can't be listed, btw. Check the cache listing guidelines regarding codeword caches. Sounds like you could string the micros into a nice multicache, though.

Link to comment

Would this work?

In terms of reducing FTF and/or log 'fraud' maybe, but theres not really a reward for those things so I don't see the point.

Also, you could have problems with newbs and mr.forgetful being unable to log things correctly since they didn't put down the number.

 

Is it feasible?

Maybe, but does this mean I have to submit my caches before placing so I have this special number?? If possiable I'd persoanlly to not complicate that....

 

Has it been suggested before?

yea I think so, but thats ok. Oh, and I think another listing site, uses this 'secret' for some caches, or maybe it just for the FTF finders. Not exacty sure, but if the idea interests you perhaps you could pop over there and ask for feedback from an inplace system?

Link to comment
Well, I was thinking this would be nice for remote caches (when they're submitted, or the owner can request a number) so the owner doesn't have to check the logbook to confirm finds.

All you need to do is write something on the cache container yourself and then you can say in the cache description "to claim this cache email me and tell what is written is on underside of the cache's lid"

 

I am about to place 4 micros which are too small to put a log inside, but contain parts of the co-ordinates to a mistery cache, they are all different colours and to claim the cache the finder will have to email me the colour of the cache they have visited...... makes it simpler that way :(

Check out nanocaches on the forums for very small caches with logs. We have tons of them in the Silicon Valley area. The log can fit baout 24 names.

Link to comment
...

Would this work?

 

Is it feasible?...

There are two problems with this idea.

 

First, it creates a bigger challenge for cache owners. An owner would have to visit all of their caches to place the code inside. He would have to do more maintenance visits because people would constantly be reporting that the code was not found. Also, He would have to keep track of all the codes for his caches. (This would be a challenge for those of is with cluttered lives and those with hundreds of caches.)

 

Second, it creates more work for cache finders. Whether you go find one on teh way home or 50 while driving from A to B, it would be a hassle to keep the numbers straight. I realize that there are software options, but haven't you ever hit a cache on the way home and then logged it online from memory?

 

Why mess with the current level of convenience to fix a problem that already has a solution. If you think someone logged a bogus find, shlep out to your cache and check the book.

Link to comment

it's great that you're thinking of ways to help the sport/hobby you enjoy, but the same mentality that brings us the sharing of TB numbers would eventually bring us the sharing of cache code numbers.

 

i picture people handing out code sheets at event caches, right next to the display of TB's available for "grab-logging."

Link to comment

I own 80+ hides. The only "false finds" on any of them have involved newbie errors - loggin a "found it" with a long log about not finding it! and logging a found it when finding stages one and two of a three part mult,i & simply logging the wrong cache. I just don't see enough of a problem to justify more logging requirements. I don't doubt that there are true cheating logs, but their impact on the game is negligable.

Link to comment

Kind of how locks only keep out honest folks, I think it would only hinder "honest" cachers who already log only true finds. I have read in other threads that there are a few sites with answers to most of the puzzle caches and I would not be surprised if there are some logging travel bugs without actually having them in hand. So, trading cache numbers would soon follow.

Link to comment

The basic mechanism for checking whether someone has visited a cache is the entry in the log book. This mechanism has some flaws, but not as many flaws as the codeword mechanism. So if the cache owner cares about this issue, then s/he can compare the log from the cache to the logs at the website. This is part of cache maintenance. So if someone sets a cache where this is not feasible, then it is a sign that the cache is in violation of the guidelines.

 

Most of the time when I sign a log I see who has been there before me and how recently; I also many times read the previous logs in my PDA. It is VERY rare that I see a discrepancy. The most common discrepancy is where I see a smiley face but the log says something like "Couldn't find it" (i.e. a logging error, not an act of dishonesty). My impression is that the vast majority of logs at the web site are not bogus. So I would not support the codeword concept just to deal with a rare, hypothetical occurrence.

 

I have found that the vast majority, possibly all, geocachers that I have come across are honest regrading their logging efforts.

Link to comment
it's great that you're thinking of ways to help the sport/hobby you enjoy, but the same mentality that brings us the sharing of TB numbers would eventually bring us the sharing of cache code numbers.

 

i picture people handing out code sheets at event caches, right next to the display of TB's available for "grab-logging."

I mentioned this way back in another dicussion about this very same issue.

 

Looks TB's and coins proved my point.

 

The only way such a verification system could work is something the finder has to take and is hard to falsify.

 

Oh, wait, hasn't letterboxing been doing something very simple like that for a long, long time? The swaping of stamp images is a good solution. Prood in your journal thatyou visited the box and proof in the box that you visited it. A simple double check! Neat!

 

Additionally, it allows the creative to put out really outstanding pieces of work.

Link to comment

personally I don't think that phony find logs are a big problem in our area. While I am sure that if someone really wanted to get away with some false logs they could. Some log owners do check and delete logs they believe to be false. we don't keep that close of track on our caches. Unless we notice something odd about the log that might give it away.

 

Never caught anyone yet... even though there is one that I am looking into right now but have not looked at the written log yet.

 

But to answer your question I like your idea. It is not bulet proof. Nothing to stop people from sharing the secret password/codewords for each cache. but it would add another layer to reduce phoney logs. Not sure if I really want to have to keep track of the codes to log ever caching I do.

Link to comment
I'm pretty sure that despite how much we discuss it here in the forums, most people who use GC.com to track and log their finds wouldn't really think of 'false finds' as a serious enough issue to justify such a significant and fundamental change to the way caches are placed and logged.

I agree completely. I can't imagine that the "false find" problem is all that big.

Link to comment

False finds for caches also seem rare in our area. I have heard of caching "teams" all taking credit for a find individually even when one member was not present/didn't sign.

 

As a cache owner, I don't want to spend all that much time catching these folks.

 

The problem is more common with coins -- why? Custom Icons on your stat page.

If you find -- let's say a Colorado coin, you get a cool little Colorado icon on your profile -- ooooo!

 

The only way to get this icon is to find the coin OR falsely log it by getting someone to give you the number and/or seeing the number on a website etc.

 

There are 200,000+ ways to get a smiley-face icon. There are only about 1000 of each icon giving coin available -- most in collections. Sooooo..... if you want the little coin icon, you may be tempted to "virtually" log it. (or "false" log it -- depending on how harsh you feel the activity is).

 

Same reason Jeeps are more commonly "virtually" logged -- it's the icon. I'm surprized the existing APE caches don't get logged falsely much more. If all coins had the same icon this would happen less. Folks just like shiney objects like icons.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...