Tomorrow's update

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

We are working on the initial features involved in this request. After pressing the "Report new listing" button on the Report a Cache page, the system will check to see if another cache is near the coordinates for the new listing. If so, it will warn the user that the cache is too close to an existing cache.

CAPTCHA will be implemented for cache submission to reduce automated attempts at finding the final coords to nearby multis/mysteries. The feature will also include a link to search nearby geocaches using the coordinates provided. The user can still submit the cache listing after they see the warning.

 

This, to me, is great news. It will save the reviewers ALOT of time.

I think it will be a disaster. Ever hear of the game battleships? Be a lot of people playing battleships to "solve" mystery caches. They can CAPTCHA 'til the cows come home, some folks are very patient. I will archive my mystery caches if this is implemented.

 

Really? I think the people smart enough to use this as a technique, can probably solve most puzzles.

Keystone can tell you about a game of battle ships folks in his review area were playing until he published the cache they were moving around to X out the squares.

 

I watch people from out of town coming in and finding the puzzle cache and a bunch of other near by, so I know about where the puzzle cache is. One person found a earthcache and said, they did another cache nearby and yep, it was a very hard puzzle. I might try to place a cache near there and see if i am right.

 

This is giving me lots of great ideas!

 

Seriously, though, there are ways they can avoid battleshipping, with a bit of programming. Limiting the number of checks a person can make/week, for starters. And making sure they are actually following through and publishing caches with some obvious effort made. The reviewers are still going to see the cache pages and could probably tell if it's a real cache or not.

Maybe increase the distance from nearest cache/physical placement?

Make it if there's cache/placement within .25mile, or .5mile, you need to contact a reviewer to check your cache is OK to place?

 

I like that idea. Instead of a "There is a cahce too close" make it "There may be a cache too close". The reviewers have the final check.

[+Doctroid]

I think it will be a disaster. Ever hear of the game battleships? Be a lot of people playing battleships to "solve" mystery caches. They can CAPTCHA 'til the cows come home, some folks are very patient. I will archive my mystery caches if this is implemented.

 

And will you archive your mystery caches if Groundspeak gives cachers a way to contact one another? Because, you know, if cachers could communicate with each other, they could cheat on mystery caches that way, too. God forbid Groundspeak should set up forums or something.

 

[+Zop]

Challenges will be added back in to our find count.

 

PLEASE.. Not that...

[+Zop]

This is the list Don J put together:

• Working maps, especially with previewing PQs
• More criteria options added to PQs, particularly "owned by" and "found by".
• Favorites added to PQ criteria.
• Favorite points added to GPX files.
• Personal notes added to GPX files.
• Ability to delete photos with deleting the entire log.
• Ability to add text to the auto generated message that is sent when we delete another player's log.
• Change text from "Needs Archive" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".
• Ability to ignore all of a users caches.
• Return the users location to the forum sidebar for users that have provided it in their profiles, (lost in the forum upgrade)
• Ability to add corrected coordinates to puzzle cache page and have those coordinates included in the GPX file.
• Notification for when photos are added to your cache page.
• Notification for when logs are edited on your cache page.
• Notification for "Needs Archived" and "Note" logs, (Actually part of the May '11 update, but it didn't work)
• New hiders are presented with a simple quiz to verify they have at least glanced at the guidelines.
• Add a Nano size.

 

All of this sounds pretty good! Let's hope nothing else gets broken in the process.

Curious though, the notice banner about the update is no longer being displayed.

[+webscouter.]

We are working on the initial features involved in this request. After pressing the "Report new listing" button on the Report a Cache page, the system will check to see if another cache is near the coordinates for the new listing. If so, it will warn the user that the cache is too close to an existing cache.

CAPTCHA will be implemented for cache submission to reduce automated attempts at finding the final coords to nearby multis/mysteries. The feature will also include a link to search nearby geocaches using the coordinates provided. The user can still submit the cache listing after they see the warning.

 

This, to me, is great news. It will save the reviewers ALOT of time.

if they do this i'll archive my puzzles and request they be locked. no unawarded prizes will be awarded.

 

This puzzles me. Why does someone have to use your method to solve the puzzle. Even a battleship approach is a solution. We encourage people to think outside the box but don't allow them to use different approaches? Outside of having someone else bring them to the cache shouldn't any method of solution be allowable?

[+SwineFlew]

We are working on the initial features involved in this request. After pressing the "Report new listing" button on the Report a Cache page, the system will check to see if another cache is near the coordinates for the new listing. If so, it will warn the user that the cache is too close to an existing cache.

CAPTCHA will be implemented for cache submission to reduce automated attempts at finding the final coords to nearby multis/mysteries. The feature will also include a link to search nearby geocaches using the coordinates provided. The user can still submit the cache listing after they see the warning.

 

This, to me, is great news. It will save the reviewers ALOT of time.

if they do this i'll archive my puzzles and request they be locked. no unawarded prizes will be awarded.

 

That will be ALR's. Once someone found your cache, you cant deny anyone a found log even they solved the puzzle by different mean.

[+fizzymagic]

Seriously, though, there are ways they can avoid battleshipping, with a bit of programming. Limiting the number of checks a person can make/week, for starters. And making sure they are actually following through and publishing caches with some obvious effort made. The reviewers are still going to see the cache pages and could probably tell if it's a real cache or not.

 

Reviewers do not have caches put into their queues until the cache is made active, so your last point does not work. The first is problematic, as well, since publication of many tens of caches per week is not unusual. The limitation on the number of tries per week would have to be much lower than that level.

 

In other words, no, there are not effective ways to reduce battleshipping automatically.

[+Doctroid]

Seriously, though, there are ways they can avoid battleshipping, with a bit of programming. Limiting the number of checks a person can make/week, for starters. And making sure they are actually following through and publishing caches with some obvious effort made. The reviewers are still going to see the cache pages and could probably tell if it's a real cache or not.

 

Reviewers do not have caches put into their queues until the cache is made active, so your last point does not work. The first is problematic, as well, since publication of many tens of caches per week is not unusual.

 

Maybe it should be.

 

 

[+Gan Dalf]

Seriously, though, there are ways they can avoid battleshipping, with a bit of programming. Limiting the number of checks a person can make/week, for starters. And making sure they are actually following through and publishing caches with some obvious effort made. The reviewers are still going to see the cache pages and could probably tell if it's a real cache or not.

 

Reviewers do not have caches put into their queues until the cache is made active, so your last point does not work. The first is problematic, as well, since publication of many tens of caches per week is not unusual. The limitation on the number of tries per week would have to be much lower than that level.

 

In other words, no, there are not effective ways to reduce battleshipping automatically.

 

People can battleship with geocheckers already anyway. It doesn't sound like the system is set up to say where a cache is, only that one is too close...

[+fizzymagic]

In other words, no, there are not effective ways to reduce battleshipping automatically.

 

People can battleship with geocheckers already anyway. It doesn't sound like the system is set up to say where a cache is, only that one is too close...

 

I do not think that word means what you think it means. You seem to be under the impression that it is harder to find the coordinates of a cache given only the "too near" information compared to exact coordinate matching.

 

Your impression is wrong. It is much, much easier to determine the coordinates of a cache from the "too close" information than from a coordinate checker. I won't divulge the algorithm here, but it works with, on average, 7 tries.

Edited October 6, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+M 5]

Seriously, though, there are ways they can avoid battleshipping, with a bit of programming. Limiting the number of checks a person can make/week, for starters. And making sure they are actually following through and publishing caches with some obvious effort made. The reviewers are still going to see the cache pages and could probably tell if it's a real cache or not.

 

Reviewers do not have caches put into their queues until the cache is made active, so your last point does not work. The first is problematic, as well, since publication of many tens of caches per week is not unusual. The limitation on the number of tries per week would have to be much lower than that level.

 

In other words, no, there are not effective ways to reduce battleshipping automatically.

 

People can battleship with geocheckers already anyway. It doesn't sound like the system is set up to say where a cache is, only that one is too close...

 

You need to think that through a little better. VERY different

[+dfx]

I guess the update wasn't postponed after all...

[+CanadianRockies]

Looks like the update is in progress...even with the banner missing.

[+thebruce0]

This update is to fix the bug with the banner disappearing.

Edited October 6, 2011 by thebruce0

[Pup Patrol]

Looks like the update is in progress...even with the banner missing.

 

Yeah, no banner, just a very straight-forward message:

 

Geocaching.com is temporarily down for maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience that this might cause.

 

Guess I'll need to wait a while before logging yesterday's geocaching adventures.

[+CanadianRockies]

Looks like the update is in progress...even with the banner missing.

 

Yeah, no banner, just a very straight-forward message:

Geocaching.com is temporarily down for maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience that this might cause.

It might cause less inconvenience if the banner remained on the website pages until the site went down. Just saying.

[knowschad]

This update is to fix the bug with the banner disappearing.

 

>rimshot!<

[knowschad]

The release notes have been posted. Looks like mostly a rather benign as far as updates that will affect most of us.

 

I think a lot of you will appreciate this one, though:

 

Added a new setting to account settings that turns off avatar display on cache pages

[The_Hypnotoad]

C:geo will become an approved app.

I'd like to know more about this, I can't find any info. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places?

[+niraD]

C:geo will become an approved app.

I'd like to know more about this, I can't find any info. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places?

Personally, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. When I looked into this a few weeks ago, it looked like the consensus among the c:geo developers was to continue scraping the site, rather than switching to the approved Geocaching Live API. But perhaps they'll change their minds. Or perhaps someone will fork the c:geo code and create a separate version that uses the API. It wouldn't be the first open-source project that happened to.

[+niraD]

In other words, no, there are not effective ways to reduce battleshipping automatically.

I think the problem is that attempts to minimize battleshipping focus on limiting automated abuse (e.g., CAPTCHA) or on limiting the number of tries per person. I suggested a location-based approach to minimize battleshipping in the thread on the feedback site. I think it would be effective.

 

Basically, the system would remember every guess for a week/fortnight/month/whatever. Future guesses would conflict with remembered guesses, in addition to conflicting with physical stages of published caches. This system would make it much harder to change the coordinates and guess again, because any guess closer than 528ft/161m to the original guess is going to fail automatically.

[jholly]

C:geo will become an approved app.

I'd like to know more about this, I can't find any info. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places?

That was a bit of sarcasm. C:geo is a terms of use breaking app that scraps the site. I doubt that it will ever become an approved application. It is a difficult thing for GC.com to deal with. I suspect that most of the users are totally and completely unaware of how the app works and how it violates the TOU. Do you send users that fit the profile of a c:geo user a cease and desist letter when they are unaware of what they are doing? Do you lock their account if they don't? Or lock the account and send the letter? That will probably really upset a bunch of users. Not sure what, if anything they can do. Really the only way to fight the app is to deal with the developers only. But since it is now opensource the toothpaste is out of the tube.

[+kwcahart]

I'm really confused, how do you format a blank log??

[knowschad]

I'm really confused, how do you format a blank log??

Blank logs should always be right-justified. It makes searching them much faster.

[+thebruce0]

...and marqueed. and flashing. in bold red.

[jholly]

With large bold letters that say BLANK LOG

[jholly]

Lil Devil's VIP List will be implemented instead of the crippled version we now have.

 

Yeah, I have it mostly back in working order. Let's see what tomorrow's update has to offer then I'll put the finishing touches on it.

Well today's changes did do stuff to the log page. So you going to be putting the finishing touches on the VIP list?

[+niraD]

I'm really confused, how do you format a blank log??

The easiest way would be to replace it with random text, like:

 

Didn't understand the description or the hint. Found it anyway.

 

I found it quickly. Thanks for bringing me here.

 

This one took me a while. Thanks for the hunt.

 

I thought I wouldn't find this one, but then I did. TFTC!

 

Wow. I thought I checked there. But I checked again and there it was.

 

And so on. Automatic logs like this would be much better than blank logs or one-word logs.

[+B+L]

That was a bit of sarcasm. C:geo is a terms of use breaking app that scraps the site. I doubt that it will ever become an approved application.

The current situation is at an impasse, but that does not mean it will remain that way, or that GS has an

antipathy for c:geo. There are some impediments in the way GS chose to implement a "public" API that

need to be resolved. The per application API key is preventing open source apps like c:geo from

making use of the API.

[jholly]

That was a bit of sarcasm. C:geo is a terms of use breaking app that scraps the site. I doubt that it will ever become an approved application.

The current situation is at an impasse, but that does not mean it will remain that way, or that GS has an

antipathy for c:geo. There are some impediments in the way GS chose to implement a "public" API that

need to be resolved. The per application API key is preventing open source apps like c:geo from

making use of the API.

The original author of c:geo was offered the use of the API. Since some of the features were premium member only he decided to stop the development and place it in opensource. I am sure that if some developer wishes to fork the source, contact GS.com about a license key GS will accommodate the developer. As for a public API, they are still saying that is the goal, but they need to proceed slowly so the resources and infrastructure is in place to handle the load. They are still tweaking and improving the API's to make them as efficient as possible so more load can be handled with the same resource.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

That was a bit of sarcasm. C:geo is a terms of use breaking app that scraps the site. I doubt that it will ever become an approved application.

The current situation is at an impasse, but that does not mean it will remain that way, or that GS has an

antipathy for c:geo. There are some impediments in the way GS chose to implement a "public" API that

need to be resolved. The per application API key is preventing open source apps like c:geo from

making use of the API.

The original author of c:geo was offered the use of the API. Since some of the features were premium member only he decided to stop the development and place it in opensource. I am sure that if some developer wishes to fork the source, contact GS.com about a license key GS will accommodate the developer.

 

I downloaded and took a look at the source code for c:geo awhile back and it's a bit more complicated than that. What I had heard (and verified by looking at the source code) was that GS deemed in a prohibited application because it was retrieving geocache data and essentially spoofing the http header so that it appeared that the data was being requested by a standard browser, instead of an application, and specifically the c:geo application. What I heard was that the original author was asked not to spoof the header and he refused. The requirement of associating an API key with a request to the API essentially would identify the application. if GS found itnecessary, they could throttle the bandwidth on the requests from that application, or implement access control to requests from that application (effectively preventing access to PMO caches from someone using the application but was not a PM.

[jholly]

As a side note, the site that likes squirrels has an api that is public, but they do require a key for the access by the application. I suspect that load is not a major factor for them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

At least they did something about that horrible whirling dervish to read past logs on a cache page. That was incredibly annoying!

[+B+L]

That was a bit of sarcasm. C:geo is a terms of use breaking app that scraps the site. I doubt that it will ever become an approved application.

The current situation is at an impasse, but that does not mean it will remain that way, or that GS has an

antipathy for c:geo. There are some impediments in the way GS chose to implement a "public" API that

need to be resolved. The per application API key is preventing open source apps like c:geo from

making use of the API.

The original author of c:geo was offered the use of the API. Since some of the features were premium member only he decided to stop the development and place it in opensource. I am sure that if some developer wishes to fork the source, contact GS.com about a license key GS will accommodate the developer. As for a public API, they are still saying that is the goal, but they need to proceed slowly so the resources and infrastructure is in place to handle the load. They are still tweaking and improving the API's to make them as efficient as possible so more load can be handled with the same resource.

The per application key has nothing to do with efficiency and there is nothing public about the so-called public api.

 

The developer of c:geo was apparently given a key, but the original c:geo project is now defunct, and the original c:geo is not what I am talking about. The maintainers of the current c:geo project have had discussions with GS. The use of a per app key and the restrictions GS has placed on the use of the keys, is not an ideal situation from either side's perspective. GS wants assurances that the key will not be shared inappropriately and the c:geo people want an API that meets their needs (as well as an actual public api).

 

GS needs to rethink the terms of use on their API, otherwise they closing the door on open source projects. Forking the project does not solve the problem unless every developer on the project forks the code and is issued their own app key for their personal version of the c:geo, which among other things, makes collaborating pretty ungainly.

 

As for the squirrelly site, I'd bet a bag of nuts that that you are comparing acorns to walnuts and they are actually using per developer keys.

 

 

 

[jholly]

As for the squirrelly site, I'd bet a bag of nuts that that you are comparing acorns to walnuts and they are actually using per developer keys.

Could be, I haven't looked at it for a while.

[knowschad]

As a side note, the site that likes squirrels

That explains a lot about some of its regulars!!

[AZcachemeister]

• Archived Challenges may now be viewed and completed, but not accepted. Comments are also available

 

WHEW! That's a MAGOR relief, I was getting worried that I wouldn't be able to complete those archived challenges!

 

WHAT THE FRELL!?!

[+power69]

We are working on the initial features involved in this request. After pressing the "Report new listing" button on the Report a Cache page, the system will check to see if another cache is near the coordinates for the new listing. If so, it will warn the user that the cache is too close to an existing cache.

CAPTCHA will be implemented for cache submission to reduce automated attempts at finding the final coords to nearby multis/mysteries. The feature will also include a link to search nearby geocaches using the coordinates provided. The user can still submit the cache listing after they see the warning.

 

This, to me, is great news. It will save the reviewers ALOT of time.

if they do this i'll archive my puzzles and request they be locked. no unawarded prizes will be awarded.

 

This puzzles me. Why does someone have to use your method to solve the puzzle. Even a battleship approach is a solution. We encourage people to think outside the box but don't allow them to use different approaches? Outside of having someone else bring them to the cache shouldn't any method of solution be allowable?

because i didn't spend 4 months putting puzzles together only to have them solved via backdoor methods.

I view battleshipping the same i view phone a friends ITS CHEATING.

some of my puzzles have nice prizes and those are reward for solving a tough puzzle. why reward a keyboard monkey who sat for hours battleshipping on the website? I WON'T!

[+Frank Broughton]

This is the list Don J put together:

• Working maps, especially with previewing PQs
• More criteria options added to PQs, particularly "owned by" and "found by".
• Favorites added to PQ criteria.
• Favorite points added to GPX files.
• Personal notes added to GPX files.
• Ability to delete photos with deleting the entire log.
• Ability to add text to the auto generated message that is sent when we delete another player's log.
• Change text from "Needs Archive" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".
• Ability to ignore all of a users caches.
• Return the users location to the forum sidebar for users that have provided it in their profiles, (lost in the forum upgrade)
• Ability to add corrected coordinates to puzzle cache page and have those coordinates included in the GPX file.
• Notification for when photos are added to your cache page.
• Notification for when logs are edited on your cache page.
• Notification for "Needs Archived" and "Note" logs, (Actually part of the May '11 update, but it didn't work)
• New hiders are presented with a simple quiz to verify they have at least glanced at the guidelines.
• Add a Nano size.

 

Excellent list! No reason they should not work on this list as a priority...

[+Chrysalides]

I'm really confused, how do you format a blank log??

The easiest way would be to replace it with random text, like:

 

Didn't understand the description or the hint. Found it anyway.

 

I found it quickly. Thanks for bringing me here.

 

This one took me a while. Thanks for the hunt.

 

I thought I wouldn't find this one, but then I did. TFTC!

 

Wow. I thought I checked there. But I checked again and there it was.

 

And so on. Automatic logs like this would be much better than blank logs or one-word logs.

Cool! Next project, random log text generator in GreaseMonkey!

 

 

(no, I wouldn't actually do it. Not going to promote laziness)

[+Chrysalides]

because i didn't spend 4 months putting puzzles together only to have them solved via backdoor methods.

I view battleshipping the same i view phone a friends ITS CHEATING.

some of my puzzles have nice prizes and those are reward for solving a tough puzzle. why reward a keyboard monkey who sat for hours battleshipping on the website? I WON'T!

How do you stop someone phoning a friend, or tagging along for the find? You can't. You're not rewarding someone who has no better use of their time by leaving it available. You're punishing others who would enjoy a good puzzle by removing it.

 

Still, your cache, your choice. I'm merely sharing my opinion on this.

[+Frank Broughton]

Yes, these updates are pretty goods ones. TPTB please consider your priorities and consider matching them to us, your users! (Just getting this back on point!)

[+cheech gang]

From the title of this post it looks like there will be an update tomorrow! Cool!

[Keystone]

Because tomorrow was yesterday, I'm closing this thread today.