login to see coordinates

[+cachew nut]

I'd like to see the coordinates hidden until you login to the site. I've had a couple of my caches plundered, and it's possible it was done by someone who isn't the typical geocacher. Having to login to see the coordinates my make these trolls feel like a part of the game and the vandalism may stop. Besides, why let some non-participator see where your cache is? If I'm going to have my cache plundered, it may as well be by someone who has logged in. I understand about "member only" caches, this would be a little different.

[+Tedoca]

While it may not entirely prevent plundering, the extra steps involved in creating an account and logging in before one can see the coordinates could help some and just might encourage more folks to participate in the full geocaching experience.

 

Regards,

Tedoca

 

[iryshe]

It may filter out some of the riff raff, but it won't work too well, since any shmoe can create a throwaway hotmail account and see the coordinates anyway.

 

Although I get a lot of flak from member only caches, it seemed like the ultimate (best solution) for just these issues.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+cachew nut]

It might not work well, but it may be better than nothing. Any schmoe can mess with the cache right now. It may even prevent you from any liabilities if something stupid should ever happen. Throw away hotmail accounts could still be traced to someone.

[+ClayJar]

It seems to me that if you want to make a cache with coordinates that can only be viewed by logging in, you can make it members only. This is precisely one of the reasons mocaches were added. As far as *removing* functionality from geocaching.com to please a few people (even though the "problem" is legitimate), that's just not going to go over well.

 

For example, I quite often browse the cache pages without logging in. The first things I look for on a new cache are 1) the stars and 2) the coordinates. I would be *quite* unhappy if my ability to use geocaching.com were abridged as you suggest.

 

Basically, it seems to me like you need to think hard and come to a decision: Do you want to try to protect your cache by reserving it for logged-in members, or do you want to risk it being plundered but have it available to everyone? It's probably not an easy decision to make, but it's the decision you have.

 

On my caches, I've decided to risk being burned by putting them out in the open. I consider that risk just a part of caching. If I ever get to the point where I feel the need to obscure the coordinates, I'll probably make a mocache, but I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it.

[+cachew nut]

I don't really quite understand how logging in would abridge any of abilities to geocache. You log in to get to the discussion forum and that isn't so difficult. Once logged in you would be able to do everything you do now.

 

It was only a suggestion, however I personally have decided not to place any more caches as long as it's so easy for an outsider to get the coordinates. That will be my solution to my problem.

 

As far as members only caches go, while I'm not opposed to giving something back to the game, what's to stop a member from plundering a cache as well?

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on June 05, 2002 at 09:44 AM.]

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cachew nut:

I don't really quite understand how logging in would abridge any of abilities to geocache. You log in to get to the discussion forum and that isn't so difficult. Once logged in you would be able to do everything you do now.

---

Actually, that's not a good example. I *don't* log in to get to the discussion forums most of the time. If I'm on my personal PC, I'm logged in, but on *all* the other PCs I read the forums from, I read them without logging in.

 

Obviously, if I feel I have something I need to post, I log in (just like I log in whenever I'm posting to a cache page), but if I'm just checking up on threads, there's absolutely no point to logging in, so I don't. I would venture to say there are many people like me. (Incidentally, IIRC, you *do* have to be logged in to get to the "Geocaching.com Discussion" forum here, but all the other ones are world readable.)

quote:

---

It was only a suggestion, however I personally have decided not to place any more caches as long as it's so easy for an outsider to get the coordinates. That will be my solution to my problem.

---

It is up to you whether you place caches or not, but I am sorry you feel the need to hide. While I am not clairvoyant, I cannot see any possible way to allow geocaching to continue in the spirit of geocaching and still prevent outsiders from getting the info. If you're not up to the risks of living in an uncertain world, there's nothing any of us can really do. (Well, you could put out a cache and e-mail the coordinates and description to only a very select few trusted cachers to hunt, but that's not a good solution, except for special "birthday present"-style caches.)

quote:

---

As far as members only caches go, while I'm not opposed to giving something back to the game, what's to stop a member from plundering a cache as well?

---

*ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!*

 

In fact, there's nothing to stop Joe "Devil's Uncle" Cacherobber from paying the $30 for a charter membership. Joe could theoretically be a valid member, in seemingly good standing, even, and still plunder your cache. In fact, Joe could have a thing against you because you called him a "super-doofus" in second grade in front of the teacher he had a crush on... he may be trying to make you pay for that trauma by plundering your caches.

 

Anyway, now that we've explained what we all already know, let me quote the original post with which this thread was begun: "If I'm going to have my cache plundered, it may as well be by someone who has logged in." Should I take it that now you have decided that you have changed your mind and now want a way of making your caches plunder-proof? If that is indeed what you are now seeking, we can just end the thread here, because we all know (painfully, some of us) that there simply is no way of doing that and retaining the spirit of geocaching.

[+RAD Dad]

I don't see why on earth there would be any oposition to requiring a little bit of hoop jumping to get co-ordinates. I mean really, if a person isn't willing to create a free account, give a valid email address, and log in to play, then frankly, they don't need to be playing, as if they are opposed to such simple rules of conduct, they probably won't think twice about violating other rules of conduct, such as leaving something if you take something, logging a find, not stealing the whole cache, not taking a dump in the cache, and so on. People who are so opposed to following a few rules, and taking a few simple steps to participate in a game make me worried, I mean who are these people that are so self-absorbed or paranoid that they are unwilling to play by some simple rules or log into a site to play? Really, is this game so desperate for players that we want to keep it as open as possible.....like a home with no door on it, so that any trash can make it's way in and stink up the place with nothing to hinder it. Sure, the lack of a door makes it easier for those of us who are wanting to enter for legit purposes to enter and play, but a simple door....not even a locked door....will keep out most of the riff raff who have no legitimate business...sure there will always be the bold who will try the handle and enter to do thier nasty business anyway, but many of the nar-do-wells won't, so while a simple door won't eliminate problems, it will reduce them. And a lock will further reduce problems, but also won't completely eliminate them, but it will further reduce them. So the question is, do you want it to be EASY for slimeballs to mess up our game, or do you want to put at least a small obstical in their path, and reduce the number of jerks? I mean really, if it only reduced plundered caches by 1/3 wouldn't that be worth it? I know if my cache were one of the 1/3 not plundered, I'd be grateful. I'm not saying we should put a lock on the door, plus a deadbolt and stick a chair under the door handle and post a rotweiler behind the chair, frightening off even legit prospective players, just put a simple stinking door up. Require people to at least be logged in with a valid account. It's simple, it's not terribly invasive, and it may cut down on at least some of the wrong doers.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAD Dad:

I mean really, if it only reduced plundered caches by 1/3 wouldn't that be worth it?

---

Absolutely, it would indeed be worth it. I am not convinced at all it would reduce plunders by even 1%. You are making an assumption, and the rest of us are making a different assumption. By your values, it is worth it, but by ours, it is not. If you can find a way to justify your assumption, minds will change, but the burden of proof is on you. (Why? Inertia. "If it ain't broke..." and all.)

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAD Dad:

I mean really, if it only reduced plundered caches by 1/3 wouldn't that be worth it?

---

quote:

---

Absolutely, it would indeed be worth it. I am not convinced at all it would reduce plunders by even 1%. You are making an assumption, and the rest of us are making a different assumption. By your values, it is worth it, but by ours, it is not. If you can find a way to justify your assumption, minds will change, but the burden of proof is on you. (Why? Inertia. "If it ain't broke..." and all.)

---

 

Actually you are assuming it won't reduce plunders and you can't prove it. Results are the way to prove it. IT IS BROKE. If it is broke, then it needs fixing. IT IS BROKE, er actually IT IS BROKEN. IT IS BROKEN AND IT NEEDS FIXING.

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

I initially felt strongly that coordinates should only be visible after an account is established. Now I'm not so sure that would matter. Here's my reasoning...

 

It seems that the caches that get plundered are generally easy to get to, and easy to find once you are at the site. The people that plunder the cache found it because it is obvious and uncovered, not by taking their GPS and searching for it. There are way too many caches that are just thrown in a stump next to a popular trail. I feel we need to educate people to put some time into their cache by selecting a site that reduces the likelihood of someone stumbling across it. A cache that requires a reasonable hike (foot access only) and is hidden from view is less likely to be plundered.

 

I suppose there are some geocachers who may feel the need to ruin it for others by plundering or taking caches, but the vast majority of missing caches don't disappear because the person is using a GPS.

[+RAD Dad]

Well at least in my area, and with my caches that were plundered, I know for a fact that it is not the case. My caches are not easy to find at all, they are well covered, ask anyone who has searched for one, and almost every one of them has had at least one or two failures to find, because they are well hidden. One cache that was stolen completely was very well hidden and only available to who ever had my travel bug, which also was stolen. No one has yet to explain how a simple step of creating an account and logging on before you view co-ordinates is an unreasonable burdon.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

It may filter out some of the riff raff, but it won't work too well, since any shmoe can create a throwaway hotmail account and see the coordinates anyway.

---

 

Even filtering out SOME of the riff raff seems worth it to me. Some vandals are willing to go to quite a bit of trouble to wreak their havoc...but others will look elsewhere if relatively small obstacles are placed in their path. If one of the understood "should's" in geocaching is logging our finds online, then it seems reasonable to me that a person should be required to have an account in order to see the coordinates.

 

Show the whole cache description...just block the coordinates until the user is logged in.

 

quote:

---

Although I get a lot of flak from member only caches, it seemed like the ultimate (best solution) for just these issues.

---

 

Same thing here. I think the MOC's should show up on the "nearest caches" listings, with the cache descriptions available to all logged in users...and only have the COORDINATES blocked to non-subscribers.

 

Perhaps the 'teaser' factor would encourage more people to subscribe.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

I initially felt strongly that coordinates should only be visible after an account is established. Now I'm not so sure that would matter. Here's my reasoning...

 

It seems that the caches that get plundered are generally easy to get to, and easy to find once you are at the site. The people that plunder the cache found it because it is obvious and uncovered, not by taking their GPS and searching for it. There are way too many caches that are just thrown in a stump next to a popular trail. I feel we need to educate people to put some time into their cache by selecting a site that reduces the likelihood of someone stumbling across it. A cache that requires a reasonable hike (foot access only) and is hidden from view is less likely to be plundered.

 

I suppose there are some geocachers who may feel the need to ruin it for others by plundering or taking caches, but the vast majority of missing caches don't disappear because the person is using a GPS.

---

 

While one of my plundered caches was relatively easy to get to, it was not in a place where someone would stumble upon it. My other stolen cache was definately a target because you had to wade through 300 yards of knee deep water to get to it.

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on May 29, 2002 at 12:41 PM.]

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT

It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches. Maybe there's someone in Rad Dad's area (which has quite a few caches) that enjoys taking them. Maybe someone has a personal axe to grind.

 

In any case requiring registration is not a bad idea. Using the Member's Only function seems like a better alternative. (I currently "protect" some of my caches this way.)

 

[This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on May 29, 2002 at 12:56 PM.]

[+cachew nut]

Before I get accused of complaining without a membership card, I've just subscribed with my charter membership. However, while I've paid my dues, I'm hesitant to be the first in my area to start using member only caches. Maybe now as a paying member (who knows the secret sign ), my comments may carry more weight. I'll have to see what privileges membership brings.

[+cachew nut]

Before I get accused of complaining without a membership card, I've just subscribed with my charter membership. However, while I've paid my dues, I'm hesitant to be the first in my area to start using member only caches. Maybe now as a paying member (who knows the secret sign ), my comments may carry more weight. I'll have to see what privileges membership brings.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT

It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches.

---

 

I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it?

 

But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentaged of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct.

 

P.S. I initiated a poll to see what the general consensus is.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT

It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches.

---

 

I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it?

 

But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentaged of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them? Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct.

 

P.S. I initiated a poll to see what the general consensus is.

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

Could there be a feature added to allow individual geocachers to decide whether they want the coordinates and map of their cache available to the world, or only registered users?

This choice could be a checkbox on the submission form. Any thoughts on this?

[+Wander Lost]

Caches will get plundered! It's a part of the game that we have no control over. There is no way to stop it. We can put up all the walls we want but if someone's life is so screwed up that plundering caches is the best use of their time they will find a way around those walls.

 

The only thing we can do is keep playing. Fix, replace or archive a plundered cache. If you are worried about plundering, make your next cache better. Hide it better, make it harder to get to and harder to plunder. Make it a mocache or a limited time cache.

 

...and that's all I have to say about that.

 

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people??

[+ClayJar]

Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum.

 

• Only showing the coordinates to people who login will save at least a few caches from being plundered, therefore we should implement it, but...

• ROT13-ing all the cache pages will save at least a few caches from being plundered, therefore we should ROT13 all cache pages, but...

• Translating the cache pages into Japanese will save even more caches from being plundered, therefore we should definitely translate all cache pages into Japanese, but...

• Closing Geocaching.com will save far, far more caches from being plundered, therefore we should absolutely close Geocaching.com!

Making a change to Geocaching.com cannot be based solely on the fact that it may prevent some caches from being plundered.

 

I am not disputing the fact that some caches likely would be saved by requiring people to login before they could view the coordinates. What I am saying is that there must be a better justification for removing functionality than that.

 

The balance between convenience and safety is a precarious one at best. Move a little too far toward convenience, and any pretense at safety may be lost; move a little too far toward safety, and the convenience on which some rely is destroyed. With Geocaching.com, the balance has always been slightly in favor of convenience, and many of us have become comfortable with that state, and yet, in order to accomodate those who would like to trade a modicum of convenience for at least a small additional amount of safety, the "members-only cache" (or "mocache") was created.

 

When the mocaches appeared, there was considerable outcry from a number of people on the forums who felt as if the status quo of free, open, unfettered use of Geocaching.com was abridged. It is my opinion that the alleged abridgement was vastly exaggerated by those opposed to mocaches, and I come to that opinion by virtue of the fact that only those caches specifically designated as mocaches by their owners were unavailable for public consumption outside the confines of membership. This is acceptable because it has always been the perogative of the owner to remove his or her cache from public consumption at his or her option.

 

What has been proposed here is the universal abridgement of the ability of the anonymous public to participate in geocaching using Geocaching.com. This differs from the mocache debate in that it is a request for a universal reduction in functionality instead of providing additional functionality, albeit to a smaller cross section of the geocaching population.

 

On the other hand, I would not be opposed to OUTSID4EVR's suggestion in his post of May 29, 2002 12:57 PM. By allowing cache owners to decide, you are providing a net increase in functionality, rather than the net decrease that a universal coordinate block would cause. I am not saying that I am in favor of this particular piece of possible additional functionality, but if it were implemented as an option, I would not at this time be opposed to it, rather, I leave it in the capable hands of the administrators, who I know are reading our discussions here quite thoroughly.

[+Trailtek]

I dont see requiring log in as helping much, if at all. If someone is willing to procure a GPS, and then hunt down your cache for the purpose of damaging/pilfering it, would they even slow at the thought of having to log on their bogus account?

 

I log in, I check the coordinates of every cache in my area, and usually enter them into my GPS (now just give me some time off please!). Making log in mandatory to see coordinates will not really affect me personally, but my opinion is that its not much of a deterant.

[+Trailtek]

I dont see requiring log in as helping much, if at all. If someone is willing to procure a GPS, and then hunt down your cache for the purpose of damaging/pilfering it, would they even slow at the thought of having to log on their bogus account?

 

I log in, I check the coordinates of every cache in my area, and usually enter them into my GPS (now just give me some time off please!). Making log in mandatory to see coordinates will not really affect me personally, but my opinion is that its not much of a deterant.

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

_Making a change to Geocaching.com _cannot_ be based solely on the fact that it may prevent some caches from being plundered.

---

 

Ok, then try this for size. We are living in a state of heightened awareness, code yellow. Some vandal starts out pilfering a few caches but soon gets bored and wants to cause some damage to humans instead of to just caches.

 

We live in different times then when we were kids. Sooner or later it's bound to happen. Surely I'm not the only one who ever considered that something bad could happen. Now, let's pretend something bad does happen, I'm sure you can figure out what bad is, if you can't then let me know and I'll come up with some scenarios.

 

Ok something bad happens. There's a lawsuit against the owner of geocaching.com The judge says something like: Do you realize that by your own admission that it might keep some of the riff-raff out, you were capable of possibly preventing a tragedy and by your inaction to do so makes you as guilty as if you had done it yourself?

 

Naturally, a good lawyer should be able to exonerate his client, but after all of the bad press, and perhaps a 60 minutes interview with the parents of a wounded child who was just enjoying the sport, all of the positive aspects of the sport will pale in comparison.

 

There are parks and forest preserves that currently do not allow geocaches, and any attempt to persuade them to do otherwise will fall upon deaf ears.

 

Not to mention the investigation and no record of the users of this site, it will probably get shut down for aiding terrorists.

 

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't be so worried about my plundered caches. And just because you feel unaffected because none of your caches have been plundered, I assume you like to hunt them as well as placing them.

 

I really can't see what your complaint would be about logging in, besides the time it takes to type in your name and password. If that's a hassle then you can just click the remember me button (requires cookies) and you would not notice any difference at all.

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

What has been proposed here is the universal abridgement of the ability of the anonymous public to participate in geocaching using Geocaching.com.

---

 

Unless your first name is Clay and your last name is Jar, how is your ability to participate anonymously abridged?

[+BruceS]

I think requiring a person to log in to see coordinates may have a negative impact on new people that may just want to "try out" geocaching. Some people are not going to register for something they do not know much about just to play for the first time no matter how easy it is to register. Those whose intent is plundering will not hesitate to do so.

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BruceS:

I think requiring a person to log in to see coordinates may have a negative impact on new people that may just want to "try out" geocaching. Some people are not going to register for something they do not know much about just to play for the first time no matter how easy it is to register. Those whose intent is plundering will not hesitate to do so.

---

 

Those intent on "trying it out" will already have made an equipment investment and will not hesitate to register where it requires no investment except for information. They can remain anonymous for all practical purposes. Only the ones with something to hide will not register.

[+Crusso]

Again, Make it an available choice for cache hiders & end of subject.

[+Crusso]

Again, Make it an available choice for cache hiders & end of subject.

[+BruceS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Those intent on "trying it out" will already have made an equipment investment and will not hesitate to register where it requires no investment except for information. They can remain anonymous for all practical purposes. Only the ones with something to hide will not register.

---

 

Not all people buy a gps with the intent to go geocaching... GPS's are bought for other purposes and then used for geocaching thus no new equipment investment is made. I agree a person can remain anonymous however there are those that will not register prior to trying it out. (for that matter there are those that don't log finds on line because they don't want to register but that is another topic)

 

Most plundered caches are not found by people out using gps but by people that stumble upon them. I know there are exceptions to this but again as I stated above if someone is intent on plundering caches they will register anonymously and plunder, thus nothing is gained.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum. [...]

---

Whew, I'm glad you included a link to the definition of that, as it was way above my slow-as-molasses head.

 

Your logic trail that eventually lead to "why don't we change all the posts to Japanese or even close down the site, in order to 'save more caches from being plundered'?" (to paraphrase) isn't completely sound. For, obviously, those things would also inconvience a LARGE MAJORITY of cachers. Either measure would likely (or certainly, in the second case) cause death to the site.

 

Requiring a log-in to see the coordinates would definitely inconvenience the trolls who never intend to log any of their finds online...and it will most likely discourage a few people from trying out the sport for the first time. But would it cause a measurable inconvenience to the majority of current cachers? (That is why I posted the poll...to find out whether the majority of respondants feel the inconvenience would be worth the benefit [if there even IS a benefit, that is] of not having it so convenient for anyone/everyone to view cache coordinates without ANY accountability/traceability).

 

The balance between convenience and safety isn't the only reason I was thinking it would be good to require a log-in. I think it would also increase the caches-found to caches-LOGGED ratio. (I'm betting some people don't log their finds online because they are paranoid about registering..and others are just too lazy to register, since there's 'nothing in it' for them.)

 

I believe that, in the spirit of 'giving back', we should ALL log our finds online. (And yes, I know that, even if registration was required to view coordinates, some people STILL wouldn't bother to log their finds. But even so, I'm still betting the percentages would increase.)

 

-Zuck

 

P.S. By the way, what's ROT13?

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

Okay, here I go with an attempt at reductio ad adsurdum. [...]

---

Whew, I'm glad you included a link to the definition of that, as it was way above my slow-as-molasses head.

 

Your logic trail that eventually lead to "why don't we change all the posts to Japanese or even close down the site, in order to 'save more caches from being plundered'?" (to paraphrase) isn't completely sound. For, obviously, those things would also inconvience a LARGE MAJORITY of cachers. Either measure would likely (or certainly, in the second case) cause death to the site.

 

Requiring a log-in to see the coordinates would definitely inconvenience the trolls who never intend to log any of their finds online...and it will most likely discourage a few people from trying out the sport for the first time. But would it cause a measurable inconvenience to the majority of current cachers? (That is why I posted the poll...to find out whether the majority of respondants feel the inconvenience would be worth the benefit [if there even IS a benefit, that is] of not having it so convenient for anyone/everyone to view cache coordinates without ANY accountability/traceability).

 

The balance between convenience and safety isn't the only reason I was thinking it would be good to require a log-in. I think it would also increase the caches-found to caches-LOGGED ratio. (I'm betting some people don't log their finds online because they are paranoid about registering..and others are just too lazy to register, since there's 'nothing in it' for them.)

 

I believe that, in the spirit of 'giving back', we should ALL log our finds online. (And yes, I know that, even if registration was required to view coordinates, some people STILL wouldn't bother to log their finds. But even so, I'm still betting the percentages would increase.)

 

-Zuck

 

P.S. By the way, what's ROT13?

[Team Dragon]

quote:

---

Make it an available choice for cache hiders & end of subject.

---

 

I fail to see how this is different from a MO cache. It seems this whole discussion is about creating a MO feature on non-MO caches. Want to hide the coords until the user is logged in? Use a MO.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

P.S. By the way, what's ROT13?

---

 

ROT13 is geek-speak for the A<->N, B<->O, C<->P cipher we all know and love from having done so many of them in total desperation while picking off ticks with one hand, killing mosquitos with the other hand, and holding the GPS with the third hand.

 

In other words, it's the encryption system we use for hints and encrypted logs.

 

[+RAD Dad]

It is different from a members only cache in that to find a MOC, you must be a PAYING MEMBER,not simply a registered member. Again, I ask, what is the huge objection to requiring being logged in and having a valid email address registered with this site? I rarely have to log in, as I use cookies, and logging in when I do have to takes me no more than a dozen keystrokes, so it's not taking a terrible burdon on my fingers, my times, or my bandwidth. It is not a large obstical, and it won't prevent all problems, but it does excercise some control and restraint on a game that could be easily abused by those who count on anonymity to carry out thier nefarious deeds. After all, the troublemakers are often time paranoid as well, as they have a lot of cause to be paranoid since they are on the wrong side of good conduct so often, so they tend not to do anything that tracks who they are or where they are logging on.

 

Just give me two reasons NOT to require only registered and logged in players to be able to view cache locations. For that matter, to be able to contribute to the forums, as well.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

[Team Dragon]

quote:

---

Just give me two reasons NOT to require only registered and logged in players to be able to view cache locations. For that matter, to be able to contribute to the forums, as well.

---

 

I'll give you the only one you need. It will prevent some people from participating in the sport. I wouldn't have signed up for an account if I needed to do so to view the coords. There are plenty of people now who play the game but don't log via the web site. They shouldn't be forced to either. The only reason I can see for restricting coords are to prevent someone from learning the location because they will do something dastardly to the cache. There will be a few areas where caches without coords will be prolific, just

 

Don't alienate people, who may eventually get an account, from playing. The person who has the second highest find list in AZ first did not want an account here. After a while he decided to get one. Many areas need more caches, not less. If someone doesn't want a public cache, they can make it MO.

 

The same argument goes for adding the option. Some areas will have more coord-less caches than others. If someone new hits the web site and sees that the nearest cache they can access without creating an account is 50 miles away, they may not play. Don't run off potential new players.

[+Team Hoijong]

I found about geocaching just a few months ago and I was reading some cache pages and came to Cache pages in Thaland where i'm living...

 

i just got my GPS and entered the coordinats into my GPS unit and the GPS told me it was 117 Km away from here.. At this point i wasn't a member..

 

I found it fasinating that i was so close to a hidden Cache..

 

after reading more cache pages i became a member and started caching

[Zuckerruebensirup]

I agree whole-heartedly with the posts above which suggest that we make it an option for the cache owner when submitting the cache. There would be sure to be some caches out there that people who aren't ready to register could look for...and it would pacify those of us who aren't comfortable with trolls looking for our caches with no intent on logging.

 

Plus, polls in a forum like this, which only represent a sampling of the large user base (and represent nobody who's NOT registered), are by definition skewed. If cache owners had the option, the choices they make on each cache would be the real votes...and those statistics wouldn't lie.

 

(Of course, the non-registered users would still be unrepresented in that case. But part of choosing not to register is giving up your right to have a say, isn't it?)

_________________

 

New poll submitted (and in the right Topic area this time).

 

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 06:45 AM.]

[Zuckerruebensirup]

I agree whole-heartedly with the posts above which suggest that we make it an option for the cache owner when submitting the cache. There would be sure to be some caches out there that people who aren't ready to register could look for...and it would pacify those of us who aren't comfortable with trolls looking for our caches with no intent on logging.

 

Plus, polls in a forum like this, which only represent a sampling of the large user base (and represent nobody who's NOT registered), are by definition skewed. If cache owners had the option, the choices they make on each cache would be the real votes...and those statistics wouldn't lie.

 

(Of course, the non-registered users would still be unrepresented in that case. But part of choosing not to register is giving up your right to have a say, isn't it?)

_________________

 

New poll submitted (and in the right Topic area this time).

 

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 30, 2002 at 06:45 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it?

---

 

No. Any login requirement to view full cache descriptions (meaning: coordinates included) would probably turn off or scare away a significant number of potential participants. How many people would you deem it "acceptable" to turn off to the sport in an attempt to save a minimal number of caches from being plundered?

 

Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentaged of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them?

---

 

That's really stretching it, since the two procedures are not interdependent. You want to guarantee people log to the page? Then require that a user logs a find or couldn't find to the last cache page downloaded before being permitted to download another. Throw out your bulk downloads, folks.

 

I think the present system works about as well as any system could.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

ROT13 is [...] the encryption system we use for hints and encrypted logs.

---

 

Ah! Thanks!

 

(Then really, encrypting all the logs this way wouldn't make the coordinates any less accessible to the general public...unless we added a line in the log that said, "Add three hundred twenty seven to the latitude minutes above, and five degrees to the longitude to calculate the REAL coordinates to the cache." Kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just think of the havoc THAT would wreak on the people who do mass downloads, and never read the cache pages.)

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

ROT13 is [...] the encryption system we use for hints and encrypted logs.

---

 

Ah! Thanks!

 

(Then really, encrypting all the logs this way wouldn't make the coordinates any less accessible to the general public...unless we added a line in the log that said, "Add three hundred twenty seven to the latitude minutes above, and five degrees to the longitude to calculate the REAL coordinates to the cache." Kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just think of the havoc THAT would wreak on the people who do mass downloads, and never read the cache pages.)

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will.

---

Malfeasance? Ooh, big words! (At least ClayJar includes a convenient link for those of us with a less well-rounded vocabulary.) And actually, I think that particular word usually pertains to public officials. But it sounds fancier than "to be mean". (I know I was impressed with it, and I'm sure others will be, too.)

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentage of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

That's really stretching it, since the two procedures are not interdependent.

---

Hmm...I guess you accidentally left off the "Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct." immediately following the excerpt you quoted?

quote:

---

You want to guarantee people log to the page? Then __require__ that a user logs a find or couldn't find to the last cache page downloaded __before__ being permitted to download another. Throw out your bulk downloads, folks.

---

There ARE no guarantees (not even with death and taxes...though the probability is high enough on those that it's safe to consider it a practical guarantee)...but that's a whole other discussion.

 

Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go up, even if only slightly?

 

As for the suggestion you made above (which I'm assuming does NOT represent your own opinion, but was shared just for 'demonstration' purposes)...it would obviously inconvenience a large majority of the current cachers (since many like to seek multiple caches in a day)...so I hardly think it qualifies as a comparison to the suggestion of having to log in before viewing cache coordinates. (Now...if I were suggesting that we had to re-login for EVERY separate cache page looked at...I could see how your example might be valid.)

 

quote:

---

I think the present system works about as well as any system could.

---

Now there's a relevant statement. Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks for sharing it. (I hope you also put your vote in on the poll.)

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will.

---

Malfeasance? Ooh, big words! (At least ClayJar includes a convenient link for those of us with a less well-rounded vocabulary.) And actually, I think that particular word usually pertains to public officials. But it sounds fancier than "to be mean". (I know I was impressed with it, and I'm sure others will be, too.)

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

But even more than plundered caches, I'm thinking it would increase the percentage of LOGGED finds. If you have to sign up for an account to find the caches, then why not go the extra step to log them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

That's really stretching it, since the two procedures are not interdependent.

---

Hmm...I guess you accidentally left off the "Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct." immediately following the excerpt you quoted?

quote:

---

You want to guarantee people log to the page? Then __require__ that a user logs a find or couldn't find to the last cache page downloaded __before__ being permitted to download another. Throw out your bulk downloads, folks.

---

There ARE no guarantees (not even with death and taxes...though the probability is high enough on those that it's safe to consider it a practical guarantee)...but that's a whole other discussion.

 

Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go up, even if only slightly?

 

As for the suggestion you made above (which I'm assuming does NOT represent your own opinion, but was shared just for 'demonstration' purposes)...it would obviously inconvenience a large majority of the current cachers (since many like to seek multiple caches in a day)...so I hardly think it qualifies as a comparison to the suggestion of having to log in before viewing cache coordinates. (Now...if I were suggesting that we had to re-login for EVERY separate cache page looked at...I could see how your example might be valid.)

 

quote:

---

I think the present system works about as well as any system could.

---

Now there's a relevant statement. Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks for sharing it. (I hope you also put your vote in on the poll.)

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Dragon:

 

Many areas need more caches, not less.

---

 

Exactly, by doing something to prevent plundered caches there will be more, not less.

 

I don't believe that people won't register. If geocaching interests them they will most likely visit the site. They will type in their zipcode and see what's available. They will click the cache page, see the description, they will see the map, and at that point if they want to try to search for it, they will login.

 

If they don't register then they probably didn't really want to play anyway.

 

It's kind of like an Ebay account, you can see the auctions but if you want to bid, you register. I dare anyone to tell me Ebay is going to go away because people aren't registering.

[+BruceS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Exactly, by doing something to prevent plundered caches there will be more, not less.

 

---

 

Doing something that might prevent a new person from becoming involved in geocaching will mean less caches not more. If they don't become involved by trying it out they will not placing any new caches either.

[+RAD Dad]

I really don't get it at all. What is it about starting a FREE account that would hinder ANYONE except the MOST PARANOID from joining in the game? I registered BEFORE I did a search. I have been to many many many websites which are free, but do require starting an account before you can use most of the features. Net trolls are everywhere, and many web masters have discovered that simple free and automated registration cuts down on the trolls dramaticly, as well as making it easier to keep repeat offenders out.

 

Saying it would keep people from playing has less creedance to it than saying it would reduce plundered caches. Anyone who wants to play isn't going to be stopped by a simple requirement that they start a free account.

 

Frankly as the popularity of this sport increases, if the admins don't take pro-active steps to have some controls over it, abuse will rise, and the sport will be threatened for all of us.

 

I have been online now for almost 10 years, and signing up for free accounts to use sites is nothing new, and it doesn't hinder things at all. A Christian Guitar website I visit often has far more traffic and active boards than does Geocaching, they offer downloads of lyrics and chords to various songs, as well as other stuff, but before you can download anything or participate in the forums you must first fill out a free account form. This site is well maintained, with vigillant web masters to keep it working smoothly, and keep the trolls down. It has continued to grow to such a point that they can't pay for the bandwidth with pop-up ads alone (and man do they have a lot of pop-up ads) so they began offering a premium membership, much like this place has, which had a few extra goodies for paying members, such as being able to surf the site without the pop-up ads, and access to a couple other special features. Practices such as these are not unusual at all at the more popular websites that are interactive.

 

If pro-active steps aren't taking to reduce the impact of trolls, by the time re-active steps are finally taken, many will have already been turned off to this site due to the negative impact of trolls.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

 

[This message was edited by RAD Dad on May 30, 2002 at 08:41 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Hmm...I guess you accidentally left off the "_Sure, there'll be some who won't...but again, at least it's directionally correct._" _immediately following_ the excerpt you quoted?

---

 

I didn't leave off anything of substance. The two processes are not interdependent ... they do not corelate. To corelate one with the other is kind of silly.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go up, even if only slightly?

---

 

I neither agree nor disagree; your assumption is not based upon any data. If you had asked "Do you disagree that the percentages of sought vs. logged caches would go down, even if only slightly," my response would be the same. Present some data supporting your assumption.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

As for the suggestion you made above ... it would obviously inconvenience a large majority of the current cachers ...

---

 

Hey, you're the one attempting to tie two unrelated issues together. I just thought I'd offer you a solution as ludicrous as your premise.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 30, 2002 at 11:19 AM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

I agree that the reduction in plundering would be minimal...but still, if it saves even 5 caches per year, wouldn't it be worth it?

---

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:

 

No. Any login requirement to view full cache descriptions (meaning: coordinates included) would probably turn off or scare away a significant number of potential participants. How many people would you deem it "acceptable" to turn off to the sport in an attempt to save a minimal number of caches from being plundered?

 

Those who intend to act with malfeasance will create their phony accounts, get any information they want, and plunder at will.

---

 

Now that you've had the time to look up the word, you might try responding to the actual point.