Is This A New Trend?

[+Algonquin Bound]

This started off as part of my post on a recent cache, but it seemed more appropriate to the forums.

 

What is with this new trend of e-mailing a word to show that I found a cache? I have been out of touch for much of the past year, so I'm wondering if this is a hot new trend I hadn't heard of. Just saw something similar in Florida on a fairly complex multi-cache, where one has to guess to find many answers, to find a micro, with co-ordinates inside, for part of the final small cache. You must still find several other answers, using guesswork again, to calculate the other part of the final cache. Then, having done all that work, you still must e-mail a code-word from the cache within 24 hours, or your log is deleted.

 

So... is this a new trend, or just my bad luck. I have seen code words used for other reasons... in fact, I used them on my Bruce Almighty series. In puzzle caches, I get the reasoning, but on something like this, I don't see the point. The first cache I mentioned above, was put out without a log-book, so maybe the owner did that deliberatley, thinking the e-mail would serve as such, but log-books are required by GC.Com. Or has that changed, too?

[+Cache-tech]

This started off as part of my post on a recent cache, but it seemed more appropriate to the forums.

 

What is with this new trend of e-mailing a word to show that I found a cache? I have been out of touch for much of the past year, so I'm wondering if this is a hot new trend I hadn't heard of. Just saw something similar in Florida on a fairly complex multi-cache, where one has to guess to find many answers, to find a micro, with co-ordinates inside, for part of the final small cache. You must still find several other answers, using guesswork again, to calculate the other part of the final cache. Then, having done all that work, you still must e-mail a code-word from the cache within 24 hours, or your log is deleted.

 

So... is this a new trend, or just my bad luck. I have seen code words used for other reasons... in fact, I used them on my Bruce Almighty series. In puzzle caches, I get the reasoning, but on something like this, I don't see the point. The first cache I mentioned above, was put out without a log-book, so maybe the owner did that deliberatley, thinking the e-mail would serve as such, but log-books are required by GC.Com. Or has that changed, too?

This has not changed, I missed it when I listed the cache.

[+Algonquin Bound]

That answers the log-book part. Thanks cache-tech. Glad to hear that was not a change I had missed. So the only real question is regarding this e-mailing of a code-word. As I said, there were some uses of this in the past, but they were usually for very specific reasons.

 

The question is then, is there a trend toward requiring code-words, or have I just happened to hit a couple of unusual caches in a short time?

Edited March 8, 2006 by Algonquin Bound

[+yumitori]

 

The question is then, is there a trend toward requiring code-words, or have I just happened to hit a couple of unusual caches in a short time?

 

 

I hope it's not a trend; I certainly don't like the ones I come across now and then since they complicate what should be a straight-forward process. If there's any doubt of my presence at the cache the owner can check the logbook. All a codeword does is show that I got the answer somewhere. If you're the sort of person to doubt my honesty in the first place, you're likely to convince yourself that I cheated somehow in obtaining the codeword.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Can't see the point in this extra step

 

The good thing is that the owner is really verifying that the person actually did find the cache, but why? If someone wants to pad their numbers, they are just cheating themselves.

 

This idea makes sense in the old Virtual (RIP) Caches, but honestly when the owner stops playing or changes email addresses.... it becomes just a waste of time. Then of course there is the finder that ends up waiting for approval to log the find... and never getting it.

 

The other problem is that many people don't want to give out their email address to just anyone... I know I don't and I know many people that guard their email addresses.

 

For a change, I'm agreeing with one of my 'not naming names' Geo-Pals by saying... I believe in the honesty of people when they log a find.

 

When I find that cache, I will probably send a message through their profile instead of an email...

 

The Blue Quasar

[+jeff-trex]

I found a cache like that one in Las Vegas it was near the Luxor hotel.

 

the cache was so small that the container would not hold a logsheet, you had to e-mail to the owner the letter found inside.

[+yumitori]

I found a cache like that one in Las Vegas it was near the Luxor hotel.

 

the cache was so small that the container would not hold a logsheet, you had to e-mail to the owner the letter found inside.

 

That might be an older one. They don't list those anymore because people abused the idea. ('I threw a tennis shoe in a bush; e-mail me the brand to claim a find.' No, I'm not making this up.) And containers folks used to think were too small regularly have logbooks these days. I remember coming across an ancient (in geocaching terms) magnetic keybox that the owner thought couldn't hold a log because it was 'too small', so they had another system for verifying a find. Hands up; who here has signed a log in a magnetic key box? I think the idea of what is 'too small' gets revised as owners become more innovative.

 

I suppose a really small container could still hold the coordinates to a log elsewhere, if the goal is to show off how small one can get with their nanocaches. Otherwise you are essentially creating a way to get around the restriction on virtual caches, intentionally or not.

[+northernpenguin]

I'm not a big fan of the "email me the code to prove you were there" method. Sure it theoretically implies the cacher actually completed the cache, but it doesn't.

 

We've all seen those darn near impossible caches that suddenly get 50 people visit it in one day after it sits unsolved for a month. People talk, and some people will simply tell others the 'code' that needs to be emailed.

 

I'm a fan of the way things are on gc.com..... you sign the log (or did your friend []) and the owner verifies the log entries on the next maintenance visit. If the owner want's to be anal about proving the cache has been visited, that's their best method without sitting there and watching the cache day and night.

 

I do find it annoying, when I have to wait three days for somebody to email me back an 'ok' on a cache that I visited - messes up my geocaching mileage calculations.

 

The one exception to this is when the emailing of that information has some relevance to the cache being placed (like Keith Watson's NTS cache). If it has a reason (other than proving I was there) then I can see some 'fun' in it, not just someone that has forgotten this is a game. I also like the concept of making the person submit a digital camera photo of themselves at the cache site -- this can be fun to do and allows an 'instant' post after finding a cache that's pretty hard to fake (well, for Photoshop novices anyway).