Found It password

1.7k · July 20, 2008

How about allowing us the ability to include a Found It password when we submit our caches?

We write a case sensitive password on our log book.

Cacher writs down the password.

Cacher logs found it and gets prompted for the password.

If its correct they get the found it, if its incorrect they get prompted for the password after three fails they get "Tried To Claim."

5.3k · July 20, 2008

If it requires a codeword, it can't be listed as a Traditional.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache. Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.

You could list it as a Mystery Cache.

Mystery Caches

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

4.1k · July 20, 2008

The automatic recognition of a code typed into a special input box provided by GC.com on the cache pages would be a step in the right direction. This would eliminate non-finders logs altogether. I vote yes on this one.

Shirley~

1.7k · July 20, 2008

If it requires a codeword, it can't be listed as a Traditional.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache. Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.

You could list it as a Mystery Cache.

Mystery Caches

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

Read what you quoted.

"A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache." <--- would contain a log book.

"Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook" <--- you would not be sending the owner this type of codeword, it would be part of the automated logging a found it process and as mentioned would prevent armchair loggers.

If a person writes in my log I'll let them have creds. If they just see it then hellz no! But with the current system a traditional cache I have planed as a 1/5 (0/5 if the system will let me) could get claimed by people that decide just because they see it they can claim it because the don't want go to it. Then I will feel obligated to go to it more than normal cache maintenance (monthly in my book) dictates.

I would hate to disclude people that hate mystery caches but love 5 star terrain.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Vater_Araignee

11.3k · July 20, 2008

You have the option of Deleting the log of anyone you think didn't actually get to the cache. Or you could list it on that other site. :rolleyes: Many of those caches employ "Confirmation Codes."

I'm not interested in having "Found it Passwords" on GC.com.

1.7k · July 20, 2008

You have the option of Deleting the log of anyone you think didn't actually get to the cache. Or you could list it on that other site. Many of those caches employ "Confirmation Codes."

I'm not interested in having "Found it Passwords" on GC.com.

If a person writes in my log I'll let them have creds. If they just see it then hellz no! But with the current system a traditional cache I have planed as a 1/5 (0/5 if the system will let me) could get claimed by people that decide just because they see it they can claim it because the don't want go to it. Then I will feel obligated to go to it more than normal cache maintenance (monthly in my book) dictates.

I would hate to disclude people that hate mystery caches but love 5 star terrain.

I would also hate to not list it because I had to do bi-weekly log deletions.

3.3k · July 20, 2008

Confirmation codes would end up being shared around by the same people who would log a find online when they didn't actually find the cache.

5.3k · July 20, 2008

Yeah, and re-read all of what I quoted.

Caches that require the geocacher to do something beyond finding the container and signing the logbook generally do not qualify as traditional caches.

List it as Mystery.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

July 20, 2008

If a person can live with themselves after logging a find on a cache that they didn't find that's their problem.

I couldn't. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Simple!!!

1.7k · July 20, 2008

Confirmation codes would end up being shared around by the same people who would log a find online when they didn't actually find the cache.

And that would be why the system should let the placer pick the code and change it. That way every time they do cache maintenance they can change the code.

I'm also saying make it an option for the placer, not a requirement.

Lets say there is a cache on a rock face and you are at the base but can see it and it is a 300' climb.

You make the climb and sign. then you get back down and overhear a group of people say that they can see it but they are not going to it and they are going to log it anyway.

Under the current system they are publicly downgrading your accomplishment. Now I know people will counter with a "personal" statement but then why bother logging a found it at all?

I also hope that if somebody did find themselves in that situation they would call them out as being liars.

9.2k · July 20, 2008

How about allowing us the ability to include a Found It password when we submit our caches?

We write a case sensitive password on our log book.

Cacher writs down the password.

Cacher logs found it and gets prompted for the password.

If its correct they get the found it, if its incorrect they get prompted for the password after three fails they get "Tried To Claim."

Oh, yes, and by all means, make it case sensitive. It's so easy to tell "l" and "I" and "1" apart, not to mention "0" and "O", especially when it's hand-written.

All this would do it make a hassle for honest people. Cheater would just look up the code on the code website that would inevitably be created for just this purpose.

1.7k · July 20, 2008

How about allowing us the ability to include a Found It password when we submit our caches?

We write a case sensitive password on our log book.

Cacher writs down the password.

Cacher logs found it and gets prompted for the password.

If its correct they get the found it, if its incorrect they get prompted for the password after three fails they get "Tried To Claim."

Oh, yes, and by all means, make it case sensitive. It's so easy to tell "l" and "I" and "1" apart, not to mention "0" and "O", especially when it's hand-written.

All this would do it make a hassle for honest people. Cheater would just look up the code on the code website that would inevitably be created for just this purpose.

then make it numeric.

I'm sorry if I hand write my letters and numbers so that they are distinct or better yet correct so that there is no confusion and there by automatically assume others would. I should not have done that But...

Did you really need to post that argument with snarky sarcasm?

It comes off as being your only reason to disregard the entire concept.

Now that we agree it should be made so that legibility factors in, whats your next reason?

7.9k · July 20, 2008

Confirmation codes would end up being shared around by the same people who would log a find online when they didn't actually find the cache.

And that would be why the system should let the placer pick the code and change it. That way every time they do cache maintenance they can change the code.

I'm also saying make it an option for the placer, not a requirement.

Lets say there is a cache on a rock face and you are at the base but can see it and it is a 300' climb.

You make the climb and sign. then you get back down and overhear a group of people say that they can see it but they are not going to it and they are going to log it anyway.

Under the current system they are publicly downgrading your accomplishment. Now I know people will counter with a "personal" statement but then why bother logging a found it at all?

I also hope that if somebody did find themselves in that situation they would call them out as being liars.

Regular changes in the code would slow down the code sharers (at least the ones from last week/month).

Sounds like a good opportunity for me to recoup a few $$ for gas money! :sad:

If the owner wants to reconcile the logbook with the online logs, the liars will be flushed out soon enough.

If a group visits the cache and one of them is a climber, and lowers the container for all to sign (or look at the code), there is nothing the owner can do. I know of at least one similar case, where I AM CERTAIN one of the loggers could never have visited the cache site (via rappel). Doesn't lessen my accomplishment in the least. It DOES lessen my respect for those involved, however.

3.8k · July 20, 2008

I have a hard enough time remembering what TB's I left and picked up and where. I would for sure loose about half my log codes and be really frustrated. Also what about those who log caches months after they find them? I had dinner with a cacher last night who still hasn't logged some caches from February. How do you account for the fact that the code might be changed between the time you find it and when you log it.

9.2k · July 20, 2008

How about allowing us the ability to include a Found It password when we submit our caches?

We write a case sensitive password on our log book.

Cacher writs down the password.

Cacher logs found it and gets prompted for the password.

If its correct they get the found it, if its incorrect they get prompted for the password after three fails they get "Tried To Claim."

Oh, yes, and by all means, make it case sensitive. It's so easy to tell "l" and "I" and "1" apart, not to mention "0" and "O", especially when it's hand-written.

All this would do it make a hassle for honest people. Cheater would just look up the code on the code website that would inevitably be created for just this purpose.

then make it numeric.

I'm sorry if I hand write my letters and numbers so that they are distinct or better yet correct so that there is no confusion and there by automatically assume others would. I should not have done that But...

Did you really need to post that argument with snarky sarcasm?

It comes off as being your only reason to disregard the entire concept.

Now that we agree it should be made so that legibility factors in, whats your next reason?

The reason I pointed out the obvious was to show how much (or little) thought was put into this idea. People are free to come to their own conclusion as to how much thought that was.

You ignored my second reason. There's actually a term for what you're proposing: "Security Theater". Go to any airport screening line to see it in action.

Besides, there's nothing preventing you now from using a ALR to do this. But, of course, that's asking you to do as much extra work as the cache finder. And expect to have a lot less people looking for your cache, due to the hassle factor.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Prime Suspect

3.1k · July 20, 2008

Wherigo cartridges have the capability of supplying a user unique unlock code. Although the preferred method is to upload the completed cartridge, developers have the ability to display a unique unlock code to the player for entering into the site.

For my Wherigo caches, I put a logging requirement of completing the cartridge as proof the player actually did the whole cache.

So, if you really want to do this, make your caches Wherigo and the technology is already there for you.

1.7k · July 20, 2008

I have a hard enough time remembering what TB's I left and picked up and where. I would for sure loose about half my log codes and be really frustrated. Also what about those who log caches months after they find them? I had dinner with a cacher last night who still hasn't logged some caches from February. How do you account for the fact that the code might be changed between the time you find it and when you log it.

I don't know, maby it is because I hold myself to a higher standard in mantaining my caches all you would have to do is say Hey I had the old code "xxxxx" but logged it to late. Then I look you up in the log and say the current code is "XxXxXx" you have 7 day before I change it again.

The reason I pointed out the obvious was to show how much (or little) thought was put into this idea. People are free to come to their own conclusion as to how much thought that was.

You ignored my second reason. There's actually a term for what you're proposing: "Security Theater". Go to any airport screening line to see it in action.

Besides, there's nothing preventing you now from using a ALR to do this. But, of course, that's asking you to do as much extra work as the cache finder. And expect to have a lot less people looking for your cache, due to the hassle factor.

First I'm sorry that the way I write prevented me from seeing what you perceive to be the obvious flaw of case sensitivity, but once again it does not negate the concept.

Second I didn't ignore your second argument because I had previously addressed it. By the way, even if it does little to address a problem little is still better than nothing.

Third (showing some ignorance on my part) ALR?

My whole issue is I'm not a "set it and forget it" person so fake logs can and will take time from my maintaining, placing or finding caches. I just want a little protection for a TRADITIONAL cache without making it premium members only or put it on TC though I don't totally trust their claim.

And I'm not saying premium members don't cheat, I just think that a smaller percentage would.

Why pay to cheat? So you can get really caught by finding every cache in the world?

Tequila,

I have no experience with Wherigo Caches the closest one is 70 miles away and I am not Wherigo enabled. Then to top it all off a Wherigo cache is in zero sense a traditional cache.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But ya know I'm wrong every one else is right, rules are set in stone, immutable.

I'll just check the cache more often (more than the monthly that I would do any way) and delete every found it that doesn't have a legible signature in the log to prove it.

5.3k · July 21, 2008

ALR means Additional Logging Requirements.

Traditional caches are not supposed to have ALRs according to the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

So, you can do it, but not as a Traditional Cache.

3.3k · July 21, 2008

I don't think anyone has said you are wrong, rather we have been trying to point out what we see as flaws in your idea. It may be a great idea and the wave of the future but it is clear that there would be a fair number of details that would need to be addressed in order for your idea to work for the general caching community.

Have you already experienced a problem with false logs on your cache? To the best of my knowledge I have never had someone claim a false find on any of my caches in over four years (I only have a few hides). To me this isn't a big problem so I would not endorse spending development resources for it.

And even if someone claimed a false find on one of my caches I would not let it be a big deal to me.

My advice to you is to spend more time enjoying your new hobby/game and less time worrying about trying to figure out ways to prevent evil cachers from logging a false find on your cache.

July 21, 2008

And even if someone claimed a false find on one of my caches I would not let it be a big deal to me.

Exactly what I was thinking, life is too short to waste any time worrying about how others play the game.

1.7k · July 21, 2008

So, you can do it, but not as a Traditional Cache.

Exactly, email me the code word. What I am saying is "If you can just add the code word when logging a find it should be able to maintain a traditional cache listing." Simply put a cache that is at X coords is not a mystery or a puzzle. Now if I where to put 10 caches in the field of error and require a code from the correct one and I didn't let anyone know then you have a mystery or if I put "Not what you are looking for" in 9 then you have a puzzle.

I don't think anyone has said you are wrong, rather we have been trying to point out what we see as flaws in your idea. It may be a great idea and the wave of the future but it is clear that there would be a fair number of details that would need to be addressed in order for your idea to work for the general caching community.

Have you already experienced a problem with false logs on your cache? To the best of my knowledge I have never had someone claim a false find on any of my caches in over four years (I only have a few hides). To me this isn't a big problem so I would not endorse spending development resources for it.

And even if someone claimed a false find on one of my caches I would not let it be a big deal to me.

My advice to you is to spend more time enjoying your new hobby/game and less time worrying about trying to figure out ways to prevent evil cachers from logging a false find on your cache.

Rather then people telling me I'm wrong (every time somebody says do this or that), clearly spell out exactly what is wrong with the concept its self. So far every time somebody has done that I have been able to rectify or expand upon the concept.

Basically we have:

numeric codes only to prevent poor penmanship from interfering with code legibility.

the ability to change the code to stop or slow down code sharing.

the ability to let slow loggers log their finds.

Tell me what is wrong with it so I can find a solution or be convince it is a bad idea.

Don't tell me just do this or just do that when this and that don't offer a solution. A cache place in plane site from 1 star terrain but warrants 5 stars to get to is neither a mystery nor a puzzle. It is just a cache that can be falsely logged causing extra work for a dedicated cache owner. I will do the extra work but would prefer to avoid it. And further I would like to avoid false deletions.

See the conundrum?

I know for a fact that some people do not sign logs with their Geocaching.com user name and it is not fair to penalize them. If however in the cache attributes there is a code word icon and they pick up the log book and see "LOG CODE 985" and neglect to take it down so have to start jumping through hoops to claim it, then it is fair to keep them from logging 'till hoops they jump through.

7.9k · July 21, 2008

Simply put a cache that is at X coords is not a mystery or a puzzle.

Simply put, the guidelines now state that any cache with Additional Logging Requirements shall be listed as a Mystery cache. Retrieving and entering a code to log the cache is an Additional Logging Requirement. This was instituted due to the increasing tendency for cachers to 'load and go' without reading the cache page..a sad situation, but not part of this discussion.

Rather then people telling me I'm wrong (every time somebody says do this or that), clearly spell out exactly what is wrong with the concept its self. So far every time somebody has done that I have been able to rectify or expand upon the concept.

Basically we have:

numeric codes only to prevent poor penmanship from interfering with code legibility.

the ability to change the code to stop or slow down code sharing.

the ability to let slow loggers log their finds.

Tell me what is wrong with it so I can find a solution or be convince it is a bad idea.

Don't tell me just do this or just do that when this and that don't offer a solution. A cache place in plane site from 1 star terrain but warrants 5 stars to get to is neither a mystery nor a puzzle. It is just a cache that can be falsely logged causing extra work for a dedicated cache owner. I will do the extra work but would prefer to avoid it. And further I would like to avoid false deletions.

See the conundrum?

I know for a fact that some people do not sign logs with their Geocaching.com user name and it is not fair to penalize them. If however in the cache attributes there is a code word icon and they pick up the log book and see "LOG CODE 985" and neglect to take it down so have to start jumping through hoops to claim it, then it is fair to keep them from logging 'till hoops they jump through.

Any cache can be falsely logged, one needn't see it to do so. Your cache will not be unique in this regard.

IF you in fact do go to the cache regularly (weekly, monthly, quarterly?) and change the code to prevent code sharing, why not just take a picture of the log and reconcile the names with the online logs? If someone signs the physical log using a different name, just EMail them and ask what they wrote down...how hard is that?

Given that you (the owner) will need to re-visit the cache regularly to change the code, I don't see how having the code system will save you any effort? Perhaps you could clarify this for all of us?

I do see, however, that the implementation of your concept would take a certain amount of effort on the part of the site developers (a little, a lot? I don't know how much.), and I daresay that after a few months of changing the code (although there were no visitors, and no false log attempts) you would stop bothering.

EDIT to correct speling.

Edited July 21, 2008 by AZcachemeister

1.7k · July 21, 2008

stepping back for a wile, I have to figure out what is wrong with my communication skills.

Obviously they are allowing for too much deviation from the point and I grow weary of arguing general semantics.

I will ask one question. If I require a person to use their Geocaching.com user name to claim a log, does that make it a mystery cache?

I know the answer according to a statement I previously made I just want to see if somebody else will confirm it.

3.3k · July 21, 2008

So, you can do it, but not as a Traditional Cache.

Exactly, email me the code word. What I am saying is "If you can just add the code word when logging a find it should be able to maintain a traditional cache listing." Simply put a cache that is at X coords is not a mystery or a puzzle. Now if I where to put 10 caches in the field of error and require a code from the correct one and I didn't let anyone know then you have a mystery or if I put "Not what you are looking for" in 9 then you have a puzzle.

I don't think anyone has said you are wrong, rather we have been trying to point out what we see as flaws in your idea. It may be a great idea and the wave of the future but it is clear that there would be a fair number of details that would need to be addressed in order for your idea to work for the general caching community.

Have you already experienced a problem with false logs on your cache? To the best of my knowledge I have never had someone claim a false find on any of my caches in over four years (I only have a few hides). To me this isn't a big problem so I would not endorse spending development resources for it.

And even if someone claimed a false find on one of my caches I would not let it be a big deal to me.

My advice to you is to spend more time enjoying your new hobby/game and less time worrying about trying to figure out ways to prevent evil cachers from logging a false find on your cache.

Rather then people telling me I'm wrong (every time somebody says do this or that), clearly spell out exactly what is wrong with the concept its self. So far every time somebody has done that I have been able to rectify or expand upon the concept.

Basically we have:

numeric codes only to prevent poor penmanship from interfering with code legibility.

the ability to change the code to stop or slow down code sharing.

the ability to let slow loggers log their finds.

Tell me what is wrong with it so I can find a solution or be convince it is a bad idea.

Don't tell me just do this or just do that when this and that don't offer a solution. A cache place in plane site from 1 star terrain but warrants 5 stars to get to is neither a mystery nor a puzzle. It is just a cache that can be falsely logged causing extra work for a dedicated cache owner. I will do the extra work but would prefer to avoid it. And further I would like to avoid false deletions.

See the conundrum?

I know for a fact that some people do not sign logs with their Geocaching.com user name and it is not fair to penalize them. If however in the cache attributes there is a code word icon and they pick up the log book and see "LOG CODE 985" and neglect to take it down so have to start jumping through hoops to claim it, then it is fair to keep them from logging 'till hoops they jump through.

You are attempting to create a need for a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. Answer my questions with some factual evidence rather than piling on more blather. There is no conundrum. There is no problem. You are creating a problem in your own mind for a situation that is rare and that you will likely never experience.

An asteroid may hit my house some day. Should I develop a system of emergency procedures to cope with the aftermath? Why should I since I will likely be vaporized when the asteroid hits?

By all means develop and create your hides with a variety of security measures to ensure that no rogue cachers can log them without physically signing the log books and making notes regarding all prior finders even if the elements have rendered those notes illegible. Just don't try to impose those measures on the rest of the geocaching community.

8k · July 21, 2008

I hate when the puritans want to make a change to website because they can't stand the current honor system. The feel they have to make sure that people who log online actually found their cache and want Geocaching.com to implement systems to make this easier - by changing the definition of a find from what the puritans currently claim is the standard. Now, instead of having cachers sign the log to claim a find you would like some owners to say you have not found my cache unless you enter the password. As Motorcycle_Mama points out, if you do this you would have to list the cache as a mystery type so that a finder would know there are requirements beyond signing the log. Otherwise cachers will find your cache, sign the log, and forget to look for the code.

And what about the inherent problems with a code. Where are putting the code. In the log book? Log books sometimes go missing. Or maybe the log book gets wet and the code becomes unreadable. Or the person forgets the code or writes down the wrong code. In response to the warning that people will share the code, you suggest that the cache owner can change it when they do maintenance. Some people get behind on their logging. What happens if you change the code before they logged their find. I suppose they could contact you to get the new code but what recourse would they have if you didn't respond.

The find count is not a score. There is no competition. It is silly to have anything more than current honor system for geocaching. If you are concerned that people are logging your cache falsely you are free to delete their logs. You can check the log books to see if they have signed and you are even free to implement your own code word verification so long as you list your cache as a mystery type. But I don't think there is a compelling reason for Geocaching.com to implement this feature.

7.2k · July 21, 2008

I've long thought on the issue of online verification, on how to make it as foolproof as possible, reduce cheating, automated, etc. I've not come up with a good way that is feasible.

Considering the easiest method of verification is alphanumeric. How do you control who has access to that code? How do you deal with late loggers or back loggers? How do you deal with loggers with valid codes but no signature in the logbook?

The best a codeword can accomplish is preventing folks from casual cheating or logging the wrong cache. Stopping a determined cheater, especially one working in conjunction with others, would be impossible to stop. IMHO, it's not worth the effort.

Beyond the alphanumeric, the next best would be a picture of the cache holding either the cache or some unique object found in the cache. Locationlesses used to require something similar, usually a picture of the required object or view, and your GPS. Here's an automated way to cheat. (Not really, but a tongue-in-cheek poke at someone who did do something similar by photoshopping pictures and submitting them as valid visits. Here's a thread on the subject.)

Some folks will simply balk at having their faces photographed. Period.

And not everyone has a digital camera.

So, alphanumeric: Out.

Pictures: Out.

How about a "biometeric" evaluation of GPS tracks of the hunt? Pretty interesting. No two tracks are the same. No two tracks would be valid for different logs. But, what about a couple who log separately and have only one GPS between them? One track could be slightly altered enough to pass the automated test. Change the times, push each track point off a little...

Tracks: Out.

Found It password

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment