Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cachew nut

login to see coordinates

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

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


 

You think, therefore you are.

The present system is broken and needs to be fixed. It could work better, it's just a matter of doing something about it. You should strive for perfection even if it is never attained. I hope your outlook on other things in life isn't to just settle for what you have now.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

The present system is broken and needs to be fixed.


 

In your humble opinion.

 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

It could work better, it's just a matter of doing something about it.


 

I suppose it could work better, but it's not my system. Precisely how can you "do something about it" if the site owner doesn't happen to agree that your issue is urgent ... or even worthy of consideration?

 

quote:
I hope your outlook on other things in life isn't to just settle for what you have now.

 

This is a game ... a leisure time activity ... while I derive much enjoyment from geocaching, it doesn't rank too highly on my list of priorities in life. I am perfectly content with the game as it is. So sue me. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

The present system is broken and needs to be fixed.


 

In your humble opinion.

 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

It could work better, it's just a matter of doing something about it.


 

I suppose it could work better, but it's not my system. Precisely how can you "do something about it" if the site owner doesn't happen to agree that your issue is urgent ... or even worthy of consideration?

 

quote:
I hope your outlook on other things in life isn't to just settle for what you have now.

 

This is a game ... a leisure time activity ... while I derive much enjoyment from geocaching, it doesn't rank too highly on my list of priorities in life. I am perfectly content with the game as it is. So sue me. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BruceS:

 

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.


If someone is too paranoid to sign up for an account, then they can't place (or at least submit a cache page for) ANY caches. How is scaring those people off going to decrease the number of caches placed? (Maybe it'll only effect the number of unlogged finds on the existing caches.)

 

On the other hand, if people are more comfortable about placing caches that only "serious" caches can get the coordinates to, maybe they'll place MORE caches...for all of us to find. icon_smile.gif

 

I still think allowing the cache owners the option of whether or not to hide their coordinates from unregistered users is the best solution for everyone. Then there will still be some caches out there for people to "try out" the sport on, and decide whether to register...but people who aren't comfortable with it won't have to display them unless the user is logged in.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BruceS:

 

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.


If someone is too paranoid to sign up for an account, then they can't place (or at least submit a cache page for) ANY caches. How is scaring those people off going to decrease the number of caches placed? (Maybe it'll only effect the number of unlogged finds on the existing caches.)

 

On the other hand, if people are more comfortable about placing caches that only "serious" caches can get the coordinates to, maybe they'll place MORE caches...for all of us to find. icon_smile.gif

 

I still think allowing the cache owners the option of whether or not to hide their coordinates from unregistered users is the best solution for everyone. Then there will still be some caches out there for people to "try out" the sport on, and decide whether to register...but people who aren't comfortable with it won't have to display them unless the user is logged in.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Precisely how can you "do something about it" if the site owner doesn't happen to agree that your issue is urgent ... or even worthy of consideration?


 

If enough people express an interest in having a Hide/Display option when placing caches, perhaps Jeremy will decide that its worthy of consideration.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I am perfectly content with the game as it is.


 

Things change. Ever have your email address harvested by a bot on usenet so that you can receive tons of spam in your mailbox? If not, that's good since you are probably posting anonymously.

 

How hard do you think it would be for someone to start a site called geotrashing.com and harvest all of your waypoints? Think anyone would want to play? After all, if they are not protected they must be fair game.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If someone is too paranoid to sign up for an account, then they can't place (or at least submit a cache page for) ANY caches. How is scaring those people off going to decrease the number of caches placed? (Maybe it'll only effect the number of unlogged finds on the existing caches.)


 

It's self-evident. Each person "scared off" is a potential cache placer lost.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

It's self-evident. Each person "scared off" is a potential cache placer lost.


 

Not really since most caches are usually placed after the user found about 10 already. I'd say the average time before a new user places a cache is about a month. Frankly, there are lots of cachers who never place a cache, maybe they are "scared off" by the threat of having it plundered.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Things change. Ever have your email address harvested by a bot on usenet so that you can receive tons of spam in your mailbox? If not, that's good since you are probably posting anonymously.


 

Que? Has this happened to you through this site? Yes, things do change. I've been around this site long enough to have witnessed many changes; some good, some not as good, in my opinion. Many of the worst ideas have been offered by newcomers trying to change a good game to fit their personal agenda.

 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

How hard do you think it would be for someone to start a site called geotrashing.com and harvest all of your waypoints? Think anyone would want to play? After all, if they are not protected they must be fair game.


 

And they call the people who don't wish to register paranoid! Other sites exist. Check into them. See how few, if any, finds are logged to their caches, most of which are duplicate listings of caches first placed here and were posted to those sites by the same individuals who posted them here.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

It's self-evident. Each person "scared off" is a potential cache placer lost.


 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Not really since most caches are usually placed after the user found about 10 already. I'd say the average time before a new user places a cache is about a month. Frankly, there are lots of cachers who never place a cache, maybe they are "scared off" by the threat of having it plundered.


 

You're kidding, right? One can't reach ten finds if they don't stick around for that first find.

Share this post


Link to post

You've missed the point. I was talking about email harvesters on usenet, not here. When I meant another site, I meant one that would encourage trashing your caches, hence the name geotrashing.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

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.


Here's how they relate:

 

If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online.

 

If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.)

 

If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one.

 

(The "nothing of substance" portion of my statement that you left off was my admission that while the two ARE related, obviously there's still room for some people to register to FIND caches, but to still refuse to give back by logging their finds. So the relationship isn't one to one.)

 

On the other hand, as other people have mentioned, there are some people who want to "try out" geocaching before registering, and once they decide they like it, go on to register. If we require registration to view the coordinates, some will go ahead and register (where they otherwise would have waited)...not really a big impact. Others will NOT try it out (who otherwise would have later become registered geocachers), and they would count toward the "lost cachers" as a result of the change.

 

Again, any guesses as to how large that number is, would be just that, a guess. But in my opinion, our first duty is to the CURRENT cachers and supporters of the site, not to the "potential" ones. (The change wouldn't limit ANYONE from participating if they choose to...so it isn't an elitist or discriminatory measure.)

 

On the other hand, if current players feel more comfortable about placing caches (even if that perception is just in their head), and more caches get placed as a result...then everyone has more caches to look for...including the potential new players.

 

If we give cache places a choice of whether to restrict their coordinates or not, it seems that both sides could be satisfied...and everyone benefits.

 

quote:
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.

 

If you think the two compare, that's your prerogative. Obviously we have different perspectives. That's what makes discussion interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

How many people changed from using MapBlast maps to MapQuest maps when MapBlast started requiring registration? My guess is that most people using Geocaching.com made the switch. Why??? Because they did not want to register with MapBlast.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

You're kidding, right? One can't reach ten finds if they don't stick around for that first find.


 

What data have you collected that shows new users not sticking around for that first find? Can you post the contents of your spreadsheet here?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BruceS:

How many people changed from using MapBlast maps to MapQuest maps when MapBlast started requiring registration? My guess it that most people using Geocaching.com made the switch. Why??? Because they did not want to register with MapBlast.


 

Do you have data to support this or is this just a guess?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

But in my opinion, our first duty is to the CURRENT cachers and supporters of the site, not to the "potential" ones.


 

Bingo. It's not like there is a shortage of players. This game is growing extremely fast. Who knows? Maybe someday they'll be turning people away.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

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.


 

You might try reading some of the previous posts, to see where your point has already been responded to. But to save you that effort, how about if I recap for you? (Or at least share my take on it...you might want to still review the points made by others...there were some good ones.)

 

In your "point" you propose to compare the "significant number" of potential participates who will be scared away by having to register...to the "minimal number" of caches being saved from plundering.

 

Let's see...who was recently suggesting to whom that they should get some statistics? How about teaching by example?

 

Besides, if you read my previous posts, you would see that it's not just the "actual" reduction in plundered caches that matters, but also the "perception" of security that would ease some people's minds enough to place more caches that actually counts.

 

As for a certain number of the bullies (errr...excuse me, those with maleficent

intent) who will still sign up for phony accounts so they can go out and plunder caches...of course there will be some. (I will never cease to be amazed at the efforts people put into doing mean things that they don't get any benefit in other than the 'pleasure' of knowing they hurt someone. icon_frown.gif Imagine how much better place this world would be if they put those efforts into doing something productive. But that's a topic for a whole different place.)

 

You may have missed it, but I never implied that this change would solve all of this site's problems...but that it would be a "step in the right direction". If we refused to make any change that isn't a "perfect" solution, then we'd get nowhere...and the game would stagnate and die.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

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.


 

You might try reading some of the previous posts, to see where your point has already been responded to. But to save you that effort, how about if I recap for you? (Or at least share my take on it...you might want to still review the points made by others...there were some good ones.)

 

In your "point" you propose to compare the "significant number" of potential participates who will be scared away by having to register...to the "minimal number" of caches being saved from plundering.

 

Let's see...who was recently suggesting to whom that they should get some statistics? How about teaching by example?

 

Besides, if you read my previous posts, you would see that it's not just the "actual" reduction in plundered caches that matters, but also the "perception" of security that would ease some people's minds enough to place more caches that actually counts.

 

As for a certain number of the bullies (errr...excuse me, those with maleficent

intent) who will still sign up for phony accounts so they can go out and plunder caches...of course there will be some. (I will never cease to be amazed at the efforts people put into doing mean things that they don't get any benefit in other than the 'pleasure' of knowing they hurt someone. icon_frown.gif Imagine how much better place this world would be if they put those efforts into doing something productive. But that's a topic for a whole different place.)

 

You may have missed it, but I never implied that this change would solve all of this site's problems...but that it would be a "step in the right direction". If we refused to make any change that isn't a "perfect" solution, then we'd get nowhere...and the game would stagnate and die.

Share this post


Link to post

What I'm seeing here is something I see far too often. There is a perceived problem, and of course something must be done. It doesn't seem to matter that what's being done won't actually have any effect on solving the problem. But at least we're doing something, right? We all saw countless numbers of completely useless, pointless, and ineffective "security measures" being enacted after 9/11. At the Texas State Fair (the largest in the US), they actually searched people for ordinary pocket knives. It's TEXAS! All the men carry pocket knives. It's a requirement! Did the State Fair officials think someone was going to take hostages on the Tilt-A-Whirl? Sheesh.

 

I see the same mentality at work here. The fact is, all you need to get an account is an email address. It's simple to get a throwaway address through Hotmail or other providers, Anyone who wants to go to the trouble of seeking out caches, just to steal or vandalize them, isn't going to be deterred for a second by having to generate a throwaway address. Just ask the people who's caches were screwed with by the Geocache Replacement Team several months back. Having to register didn't deter them.

 

What it will deter is the geocacher who's traveling in another city, and wants to look up some local caches, but doesn't want to enter his password into a public PC at the Cyber Cafe.

 

The fact is that the vast majority of plundered caches occur because of people who either happen upon the cache, or happen to see cache hunters in the act. Hiding cache locations from unregistered views will do nothing to solve that problem. Nor will it do anything to prevent those who wish to seek out caches to vandalize.

 

PS_sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Just ask the people who's caches were screwed with by the Geocache Replacement Team several months back. Having to register didn't deter them.


Ah, a voice of reason.

======================

I'm sorry that some of the caches in our area (and others) have been plundered. I currently am on a mission to replace one of my plundered caches as well.

 

Face it, plundering will happen. Making the coordinates accessable only to registered viewers will not deter any malicious cacher. If they'll plunk down $100 for a GPS to go spoil someone else's idea of a good time, they'll most certainly go and find the coordinates through the afore mentioned process (fake accounts, blah, blah, blah).

 

I personally don't think that the few caches that have been plundered in the Chicago area were due to individuals specifically targeting caches, using their GPSRs to go out and find a cache and plunder it. That just sounds like too much effort for a miscreant. More likely, it was a ranger or someone from the general public who stumbled across a cache and took or destroyed it. We're not the only people in the woods.

 

You want people to not plunder your caches? Make them harder to find - by both the general public and Geocachers. Of the two caches I've had plundered, the boxes probably could have been hidden better. Am I making my caches harder to find? You bet.

 

Don't want people to see your coordinates? That's what Jeremy set up the MO Caches FOR! People asked for a way to track who had looked at the cache pages so they could see if it was the same person plundering the caches.

 

Bottom line: When proposing a sweeping change like this (and it would be major) you have to consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. My vote is that it would be more detrimental than beneficial.

 

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head. Read the rest of the story.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online.

 

If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.)

 

If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one.


icon_eek.gif*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION! icon_eek.gif

 

Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around. We are coming from two diametrically opposed lines of logic. I believe that it may be far closer to impossible to come to a consensus on this one than we realize.

 

In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.

 

The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for not making the requested change.

 

Unfortunately, or perhaps even misfortunately, I see no way of convincing either camp to change their mind to the opposing viewpoint. Those that would consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a troll are not likely to decide to further aid that troll, and those who consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a wanted yet somewhat dysfunctional member of the community are not likely to suddenly decide to cut off the very people who need to learn how to become an active part of the community.

 

There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.

 

The other possibility, and the one that is more likely to remain the case unless this thread starts being more of a summit and less of a debate, is for Jeremy and the staff of Geocaching.com to declare by fiat what the coordinate visibility will be. Not everyone will be happy with the results, but the fact that the issue can be decided is a Good Thing. (Hey, even the Linux kernel has its Benevolent Dictator.)

 

Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If anonymous person "A" refuses to register to the site because he is paranoid that Big Brother will be looking over his shoulder, then he obviously CAN'T log any of his finds online.

 

If the site requires log-on to VIEW the cache coordinates (and person "A" is still too paranoid) then he won't be looking for and finding any caches. (Or "not many" I should say...perhaps he could triangulate, or use parking coordinates and/or clues to look for a few...but he would be seeking significantly fewer caches, anyway.)

 

If this is only true for ONE troll...and he would currently only have ever looked for (and found) ONE cache, than is ONE cache currently found but not logged. If that same would-be troll now is looking for ZERO caches (and there's still zero logs from him), then the percentage just increased. And while any guess as to exactly how many similar trolls would be turned away would be just a guess, I think it's safe to say that it would be more than one.


icon_eek.gif*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION! icon_eek.gif

 

Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around. We are coming from two diametrically opposed lines of logic. I believe that it may be far closer to impossible to come to a consensus on this one than we realize.

 

In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.

 

The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play. In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for not making the requested change.

 

Unfortunately, or perhaps even misfortunately, I see no way of convincing either camp to change their mind to the opposing viewpoint. Those that would consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a troll are not likely to decide to further aid that troll, and those who consider a cacher who doesn't log online to be a wanted yet somewhat dysfunctional member of the community are not likely to suddenly decide to cut off the very people who need to learn how to become an active part of the community.

 

There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them, and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off. Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.

 

The other possibility, and the one that is more likely to remain the case unless this thread starts being more of a summit and less of a debate, is for Jeremy and the staff of Geocaching.com to declare by fiat what the coordinate visibility will be. Not everyone will be happy with the results, but the fact that the issue can be decided is a Good Thing. (Hey, even the Linux kernel has its Benevolent Dictator.)

 

Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

You've missed the point. I was talking about email harvesters on usenet, not here.


 

Yes, I noticed how relevant it was to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.


 

People seem to keep overlooking my other points. The perception of security will ease some people's minds...and make them feel more comfortable about placing caches. Also, not ALL of the previous trolls (ok, ok...let's call them 'non-registerees') will go away and be 'lost' to the community...some will take the 30 extra seconds and register. (Obviously, there's no way to measure how many of either of those there will be. On the other hand, there's no way of measuring how many (if any at all) additional caches any current users will place due to their new sense of comfort, either. It's all guesswork.

 

quote:
The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play.

 

{Quick interjection here:} Registration is FREE. It doesn't restrict ANYONE who wants to play. (It can also be done fairly anonymously.)

 

quote:
In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for _not_ making the requested change.

 

Believe it or not, I can actually relate with this side of the debate. (Which is why I especially like the suggestion of allowing each cache placer the option of choosing whether their coordinates will be restricted.) The reason I posted my poll on this subject was to get a feel for the consensus of the group. I appreciate opposing opinions. They help me see a wider perspective...they help me grow...they force me to re-evaluate my own stand...and sometimes even cause me to change my mind.

 

What I DON'T appreciate is the condescending tone that a certain poster often uses in many of his responses. I know I need to learn to not let his attitude (or my perception of it, at least) get to me...but I feel that ignoring the remarks, rather than countering them, will by omission imply that I agree with them. That goes against my grain. I'm of the opinion that those kinds of people need to get a taste of their own medicine every now and again.

 

I apologize to everyone else who has to sit and listen to the bantering back and forth...and welcome you to e-mail me with a "Look...just let it go, ok? You're being as annoying as he is, for crying out loud!" kind of note...and if anyone does, I'll shut up, and let it go. (Or perhaps send my responses through e-mail instead of posting them here...so not everyone has to endure them.)

 

quote:
There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them,

Not true! (at least not in MY case, anyway)...If you want to feed them with YOUR caches, I don't have a problem with that at all. But I'd like to have the choice for my own caches. Also, I like the idea that there will still be visible coordinates out there for those who want to "try it out" before committing. (They just won't have to be MY caches. icon_wink.gif It's already been established what a self-centered person I am, afterall. I've got a reputation to keep up, you know. icon_wink.gif)

 

quote:
and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off.
Part of the community isn't cut off from anything that they don't CHOOSE to be cut off from. And no one would be completely cut off...even if they were unwilling to register. (Not unless ALL cache hiders opted for the "hide coordinates" choice, that is...which would seem pretty silly after all this arguing against allowing them to be hidden.)

 

quote:
Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.

And a very GOOD one, in my opinion. (Interestingly, though...of the two polls I posted, a higher percentage of people seem to be for restricting the coordinates across the board than in giving the option to each cache owner.)

 

quote:
Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie? icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

In the quote above, Zuckerruebensirup brings up a theoretical case of a person, whom he refers to as a troll, who would have searched for a cache but not logged it online. With the requested change being discussed here, that person would not have searched for the cache at all, and therefore the percentage of finds logged online would theoretically increase. Zuckerruebensirup considers this a good thing and uses it as a justification of making the requested change.


 

People seem to keep overlooking my other points. The perception of security will ease some people's minds...and make them feel more comfortable about placing caches. Also, not ALL of the previous trolls (ok, ok...let's call them 'non-registerees') will go away and be 'lost' to the community...some will take the 30 extra seconds and register. (Obviously, there's no way to measure how many of either of those there will be. On the other hand, there's no way of measuring how many (if any at all) additional caches any current users will place due to their new sense of comfort, either. It's all guesswork.

 

quote:
The opposing ideology, on the other hand, holds that the goal of geocaching is to provide an open experience for any and all who would like to play.

 

{Quick interjection here:} Registration is FREE. It doesn't restrict ANYONE who wants to play. (It can also be done fairly anonymously.)

 

quote:
In that view, the case of someone searching for a cache but not logging it online is a loss to the community, as their experiences are not shared with the rest of us. However, if they were to be prevented from even searching, not only would the community lose the benefit of their logs, but now they also would lose the benefit of the community. This would be a very bad thing, and is considered adequate justification for _not_ making the requested change.

 

Believe it or not, I can actually relate with this side of the debate. (Which is why I especially like the suggestion of allowing each cache placer the option of choosing whether their coordinates will be restricted.) The reason I posted my poll on this subject was to get a feel for the consensus of the group. I appreciate opposing opinions. They help me see a wider perspective...they help me grow...they force me to re-evaluate my own stand...and sometimes even cause me to change my mind.

 

What I DON'T appreciate is the condescending tone that a certain poster often uses in many of his responses. I know I need to learn to not let his attitude (or my perception of it, at least) get to me...but I feel that ignoring the remarks, rather than countering them, will by omission imply that I agree with them. That goes against my grain. I'm of the opinion that those kinds of people need to get a taste of their own medicine every now and again.

 

I apologize to everyone else who has to sit and listen to the bantering back and forth...and welcome you to e-mail me with a "Look...just let it go, ok? You're being as annoying as he is, for crying out loud!" kind of note...and if anyone does, I'll shut up, and let it go. (Or perhaps send my responses through e-mail instead of posting them here...so not everyone has to endure them.)

 

quote:
There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone. Those that consider non-loggers trolls will not like the fact that Geocaching.com is still feeding them,

Not true! (at least not in MY case, anyway)...If you want to feed them with YOUR caches, I don't have a problem with that at all. But I'd like to have the choice for my own caches. Also, I like the idea that there will still be visible coordinates out there for those who want to "try it out" before committing. (They just won't have to be MY caches. icon_wink.gif It's already been established what a self-centered person I am, afterall. I've got a reputation to keep up, you know. icon_wink.gif)

 

quote:
and those who consider Geocaching.com an open community for the benefit of even its dysfunctional members will not like the fact that part of the community is now cut off.
Part of the community isn't cut off from anything that they don't CHOOSE to be cut off from. And no one would be completely cut off...even if they were unwilling to register. (Not unless ALL cache hiders opted for the "hide coordinates" choice, that is...which would seem pretty silly after all this arguing against allowing them to be hidden.)

 

quote:
Still, if any consensus can be reached, this is likely the only viable option.

And a very GOOD one, in my opinion. (Interestingly, though...of the two polls I posted, a higher percentage of people seem to be for restricting the coordinates across the board than in giving the option to each cache owner.)

 

quote:
Anyway, can we of both persuasions just put the pies down and sit back down at the table now? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie? icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie? icon_wink.gif


Yipee! Ice cream! icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Or how about just some ice cream to go with the pie? icon_wink.gif


Yipee! Ice cream! icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

... Again, any guesses as to how large that number is, would be just that, a guess. But in my opinion, our first duty is to the CURRENT cachers and supporters of the site, not to the "potential" ones. ...


 

That's really very, very funny. So those CURRENTLY REGISTERED cachers and SUPPORTERS OF THE SITE (not to mention plunderers) who regularly find (or plunder) caches but choose not to log them to the website would continue on as usual; no change in their non-logging (or plundering) habits ...

 

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If we give cache places a choice of whether to restrict their coordinates or not, it seems that both sides could be satisfied...and everyone benefits.


 

I would really like to see that: "Hey dead tree, do you want your coordinates published or restricted?" icon_wink.gif

 

I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered. Jeremy voiced his opinion on the subject: He stated that he believed it "Wouldn't Work (Well.)"

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

... Again, any guesses as to how large that number is, would be just that, a guess. But in my opinion, our first duty is to the CURRENT cachers and supporters of the site, not to the "potential" ones. ...


 

That's really very, very funny. So those CURRENTLY REGISTERED cachers and SUPPORTERS OF THE SITE (not to mention plunderers) who regularly find (or plunder) caches but choose not to log them to the website would continue on as usual; no change in their non-logging (or plundering) habits ...

 

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If we give cache places a choice of whether to restrict their coordinates or not, it seems that both sides could be satisfied...and everyone benefits.


 

I would really like to see that: "Hey dead tree, do you want your coordinates published or restricted?" icon_wink.gif

 

I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered. Jeremy voiced his opinion on the subject: He stated that he believed it "Wouldn't Work (Well.)"

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone.

 

Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position."

 

Incidentally, there is no standoff. "We" are only the inmates.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on May 30, 2002 at 07:40 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Jeremy voiced his opinion on the subject: He stated that he believed it "_Wouldn't Work (Well.)_"


 

While Jeremy is probably the utmost authority on geocaching, it is still only his opinion. He admitted it might keep some riff raff out. I say that would be an improvement. While his decision will be the final one, I don't believe his opinion should be, after all, as CFO he does have an interest in how it all shakes out.

 

While I have become a charter member and support the sport, when renewal comes up I will vote with my wallet based on what I feel I am getting out of being a member.

 

Those of you who are too lazy to check the receive cookies box are only going to understand if and when your own caches get plundered, but by then you will have made your bed, so that's how you will lie.

 

I've already posted what I needed to say, you can scroll to my comments if you missed them. So now I'll just follow the thread and watch the vote, unless of course you want to drag me back in, which is OK too.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

icon_eek.gif __*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION!__ icon_eek.gif

 

Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around.

 

-------snipped for brevity------


 

A nice post with some sensibility. All good points as well. I for one will settle for the middle ground of having the option to hide my coordinates while the trolls go for the caches of those who do not. Sounds ok to me. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

icon_eek.gif __*PAUSE THE DISCUSSION!__ icon_eek.gif

 

Okay, now that I have your attention, time for a little step-back-and-look-around.

 

-------snipped for brevity------


 

A nice post with some sensibility. All good points as well. I for one will settle for the middle ground of having the option to hide my coordinates while the trolls go for the caches of those who do not. Sounds ok to me. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Define "our"


Actually, I think my error was in the "duty" part, rather than the "our": Our primary concern should be for the current cachers, rather than the potential ones. Really, we have no duty at all (apparently not even in registering to the site, or logging our finds)...except to give feedback to the administrators as to how we feel about the site.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If we give cache places a choice ...


I meant to say, "cache placers" rather than cache places. Many apologies for the typo. (I'm sure you never make any. icon_rolleyes.gif)

 

And if you geniunely misunderstood my meaning, and weren't just taking advantage of an opportunity to be sarcastic, then I apologize for confusing you.

 

quote:
I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered.

 

Some of us don't want to restrict our caches from the general geocaching.com population, but only from the non-registrees. (Personally, I think a large majority of plundering is from accidental finds, not from deliberate searches with GPSr's. MY main motivation is to thin out some of the trolling. "If you want to play, then sign up. If you don't want to sign up, then go play somewhere else.")

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Define "our"


Actually, I think my error was in the "duty" part, rather than the "our": Our primary concern should be for the current cachers, rather than the potential ones. Really, we have no duty at all (apparently not even in registering to the site, or logging our finds)...except to give feedback to the administrators as to how we feel about the site.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If we give cache places a choice ...


I meant to say, "cache placers" rather than cache places. Many apologies for the typo. (I'm sure you never make any. icon_rolleyes.gif)

 

And if you geniunely misunderstood my meaning, and weren't just taking advantage of an opportunity to be sarcastic, then I apologize for confusing you.

 

quote:
I say "Let them place MOCs" or refrain from placing caches if they are that paranoid that their cache might be plundered.

 

Some of us don't want to restrict our caches from the general geocaching.com population, but only from the non-registrees. (Personally, I think a large majority of plundering is from accidental finds, not from deliberate searches with GPSr's. MY main motivation is to thin out some of the trolling. "If you want to play, then sign up. If you don't want to sign up, then go play somewhere else.")

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position."

 

Incidentally, there is no standoff. "We" are only the inmates.


Actually, although I hate to jump in the line of fire, Z. was *not* the one who originally posted the middle ground quote you included; rather, it was I.

 

If you don't believe there is any middle ground, though, I can do nothing more than request that you refrain from this discussion for the duration. You can offer no constructive input. Of course, if you want to keep posting, I'll definitely read your posts, as will others, but if you are saying from the top that there is no way you will concede anything, then it is a waste of both your time and ours to argue the same position ad nauseum.

 

The point here is to have a discussion and to try to come to a consensus as to what we as the Geocaching.com community would like to happen with Geocaching.com. Of course, our discussions are only to aid Jeremy in making decisions, as the decisions are his to make; still, there have been many times when discussions on these forums have assisted in the continued development of Geocaching.com.

 

If you do not wish to participate in discussing alternatives and merely with to make your position known (that position being that you think this is a bad idea any way you slice it), then I congratulate you on having made your position known. If, on the other hand, you would like to consider alternatives -- even ones which involve compromises -- we'd be happy to hear your ideas. There's no need to turn this into yet another Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, or whatever-else political debate. Those get nowhere and only serve to incite bad feelings among the participants.

 

I for one do not believe that blocking the coordinates from non-logged-in viewers will do half a diddly in keeping caches from being plundered, and yet, I am willing to listen to those people who believe the converse in the hopes that we may be able to come to a reasonable compromise that can become a consensus, even if it is something that is not completely what I personally care for.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone.


 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position."


 

I don't about missing words, but you did mis-assign the quote. It wasn't me that said it, it was ClayJar.

 

But to agree with his point, how is it NOT middle ground? SOME caches would have coordinates revealed to all, and OTHERS would have them restricted. That is somewhere in between showing ALL coordinates to everyone, or restrictring ALL coordinates from non-registrees.

 

I'm confused as to why you are so against allowing cache placers to have a choice in how their own cache information is shared. icon_confused.gif

 

Perhaps a "middle ground" that you could live with (and so could I), is allowing Paying Members the option of placing "Description open to all, but coordinates to registered users only" caches. (DOTABCTRUO caches? icon_wink.gif) A "pay to receive enhanced control over your cache information" policy. Works for me! Maybe it would encourage more people to sign up for memberships...then everybody (even Jeremy) could gain. (Well, everyone except for the anti-registrees, that is...poor misunderstood souls that they are.)

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

There are only two ways I see of ending this standoff. One possibility is that we decide that the middle ground of allowing the cache owners to make the decision about coordinate visibility. This is not going to please everyone.


 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Hmm ... there must be a word missing there, but that is not now, nor ever was "the middle ground." That would be called "acquiesing to one polarized position."


 

I don't about missing words, but you did mis-assign the quote. It wasn't me that said it, it was ClayJar.

 

But to agree with his point, how is it NOT middle ground? SOME caches would have coordinates revealed to all, and OTHERS would have them restricted. That is somewhere in between showing ALL coordinates to everyone, or restrictring ALL coordinates from non-registrees.

 

I'm confused as to why you are so against allowing cache placers to have a choice in how their own cache information is shared. icon_confused.gif

 

Perhaps a "middle ground" that you could live with (and so could I), is allowing Paying Members the option of placing "Description open to all, but coordinates to registered users only" caches. (DOTABCTRUO caches? icon_wink.gif) A "pay to receive enhanced control over your cache information" policy. Works for me! Maybe it would encourage more people to sign up for memberships...then everybody (even Jeremy) could gain. (Well, everyone except for the anti-registrees, that is...poor misunderstood souls that they are.)

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I personally don't think that the few caches that have been plundered in the Chicago area were due to individuals specifically targeting caches, using their GPSRs to go out and find a cache and plunder it. That just sounds like too much effort for a http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=miscreant. More likely, it was a ranger or someone from the general public who stumbled across a cache and took or destroyed it. We're not the only people in the woods.


 

Ok, I've got to reply here. Respectfully, out of the five than were plundered just recently, you only visited one. That's four you have not seen, so to just make an assumption that it was stumbled across is pretty bold. You don't know firsthand how well they were hidden, unless of course you did not log them. Like I said before, wading several hundred yards through knee deep water isn't exactly "stumbling".

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Posted by ClayJar on May 30, 2002 03:30 PM:

 

Actually, although I hate to jump in the line of fire, Z. was *not* the one who originally posted the middle ground quote you included; rather, it was I.


 

Oops, there I go again...not checking the updates before I hit that SEND button.

 

- Zuck

 

"Not exactly the quickest typist in the world...but maybe the longest winded."

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

"-------snipped for brevity------"


 

Hey...brevity is against my religion. icon_eek.gif

 

How about let's get on a religious debate next? This current banter is starting to get old. Pretty soon I'll have to resort to my dictionary to dig up some long, impressive-sounding words, just to keep things interesting. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

"-------snipped for brevity------"


 

Hey...brevity is against my religion. icon_eek.gif

 

How about let's get on a religious debate next? This current banter is starting to get old. Pretty soon I'll have to resort to my dictionary to dig up some long, impressive-sounding words, just to keep things interesting. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Just ask the people who's caches were screwed with by the Geocache Replacement Team several months back. Having to register didn't deter them.

 


 

Can anyone point me to any discussion about this? This was most likely before my time

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

While Jeremy is probably the utmost authority on geocaching, it is still only his opinion. He admitted it might keep some riff raff out.


 

We need a definition for riff raff. Someone should start a poll.

Share this post


Link to post

I promised myself I'd keep my mouth shut, but...

 

I must say that I really like the idea of keeping the coordinates hidden until you agree to a few items, one of which is "give the site a valid email address" and we'll show you the coordinates. Equal trade. You want to talk here (in the forums) you have to do it. Why not on the site. Sure, throw-away/fake email addresses are easy, but at least there is a trail. Would we ever really follow that trail? Probably not.

 

Will it stop the plundering? Nope. But it might make a dent in it. A dent here, a dent there, and maybe (just maybe) it could have an effect. Hey, the police can't stop all crime, but that doesn't stop them from trying to make a dent.

 

On the other hand...

 

If you don't want your coordinates published there are already several ways around it. MOC's are one way. Puzzles are another. With the caches I have designed the published coordinates are virtually useless until you solve the puzzle. Will a plunderer take the time and effort to solve the puzzles? I doubt it. They want easy targets, and their actions indicate that they are not very bright. So get creative with the coordinates.

 

Will having to register drive some potential players away? Sure, but so what? I am convinced that after reading the online logs they will want to join in the fun. I did (and paid $150 for a GPS to do it).

 

Fortunately cache plundering isn't a big deal here (yet), but I have to admit that I am hesitant to place my caches. I've put a lot of effort into them, the finders will have to put a lot of effort into finding them, and I want to reward them with nice prizes. But I don't want those prizes plundered. If I am hesitant to place caches then I am sure that others may also be hesitant. THAT could be the death of the sport. Overall, I think that plundering will cause more harm than registration.

 

So, am I "for" or "against"? I haven't decided.

 

[This message was edited by geospotter on May 31, 2002 at 11:38 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

 

We need a definition for riff raff. Someone should start a poll.


 

According to Webster's New World Dictionary:

see RIFLE (to rob) & RAFFLE

1. those people regarded as of no consequence or merit; rabble 2. [Dial.] trash

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

According to Webster's New World Dictionary:

see RIFLE (to rob) & RAFFLE

1. those people regarded as of no consequence or merit; rabble 2. [Dial.] trash


 

I think Webster's definition doesn't work for the way "riff raff" was used in this topic. If the people referred to as "riff raff" plunder caches they are of consequence. This topic being one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...