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

login to see coordinates

Recommended Posts

Of course, if it were implemented there wouldn’t be data to prove if it worked or not either. There wouldn’t be data that could support whether it had a negative or positive impact on the activity as a whole. None of the issues discussed here will ever be proven by conclusive data. It’s all just opinions. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

[

What part of * in addition to his original one post on the subject * are you having trouble understanding? You are new here with 5 posts and no hidden caches and no finds, so I'll just chalk it up to newbieness. A good idea would be to read through the whole thread before responding with your revelation of old news. Welcome to geocaching icon_smile.gif


 

You are so funny. What part didn't I understand? I don't know. What part of Jeremy's hint that your idea sucks didn't you understand, and how long will it take you to figure that out? icon_smile.gif It's been over a month already. Thanks for the welcome.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

[

What part of * in addition to his original one post on the subject * are you having trouble understanding? You are new here with 5 posts and no hidden caches and no finds, so I'll just chalk it up to newbieness. A good idea would be to read through the whole thread before responding with your revelation of old news. Welcome to geocaching icon_smile.gif


 

You are so funny. What part didn't I understand? I don't know. What part of Jeremy's hint that your idea sucks didn't you understand, and how long will it take you to figure that out? icon_smile.gif It's been over a month already. Thanks for the welcome.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

The whole topic is old news. I agree that it seems Jeremy dismissed the idea back in May.


 

I just received emails from Jeremy. He has been away so that explains the delay. Thanks Jeremy for getting back to me. It looks like after a second thought, this will now become an option for charter members. Hurray for the squeeky wheels. In his own words:

 

quote:

Re: register to view coordinates? I like it but I would prefer adding it as a subscriber feature (charter member) for folks who would rather do it.

 

Yah. It'll happen. I just need to finish these 200

emails, then get the

eBook format finished then...

 


 

Thanks to everyone for their input in this thread and in the voting threads as well! Glad to see this was resolved democratically. icon_smile.gif

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on July 03, 2002 at 09:29 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

The whole topic is old news. I agree that it seems Jeremy dismissed the idea back in May.


 

I just received emails from Jeremy. He has been away so that explains the delay. Thanks Jeremy for getting back to me. It looks like after a second thought, this will now become an option for charter members. Hurray for the squeeky wheels. In his own words:

 

quote:

Re: register to view coordinates? I like it but I would prefer adding it as a subscriber feature (charter member) for folks who would rather do it.

 

Yah. It'll happen. I just need to finish these 200

emails, then get the

eBook format finished then...

 


 

Thanks to everyone for their input in this thread and in the voting threads as well! Glad to see this was resolved democratically. icon_smile.gif

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on July 03, 2002 at 09:29 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats:

Precisely, thanks Z...

Thus my closing, if you're going to hide co-ordinates, an Idea I approve of...you need also to give the option of hiding each of the "fields".

Myself, I'd openly expose the title and the short description...If you wanna know more, type in a half dozen characters.


 

You will get your wish. According to an email from Jeremy:

 

quote:

All location related options will be removed.


Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how long after the first "hidden coordinate" cache is listed before someone intentionally places a cache with "unhidden" coordinates five feet away?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I wonder how long after the first "hidden coordinate" cache is listed before someone intentionally places a cache with "unhidden" coordinates five feet away?


 

Probably as soon as someone intentionally places a cache with unhidden coordinates next to another with unhidden coordinates five feet away.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Probably as soon as someone intentionally places a cache with unhidden coordinates next to another with unhidden coordinates five feet away.


Right. So the next day, then? And will the "unhidden" variety be a tiny microcache of level 5 difficulty to ensure it is not the one found?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Right. So the next day, then? And will the "unhidden" variety be a tiny microcache of level 5 difficulty to ensure it is not the one found?


 

I don't know, you tell me. It's your idea. I have no reason to place a cache right next to another one. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

I don't know, you tell me. It's your idea. I have no reason to place a cache right next to another one. Do you?


 

Nope. I'm also not obsessed with keeping the "casual visitor" to the site or registered member (who may be using a public computer and would rather not log in) from seeing the coordinates of my caches.

 

You've argued and lobbied long and hard for your idea. Fine. And now you have an idea of precisely how simple it would be to render "hidden coordinates" ineffective.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on July 05, 2002 at 05:06 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

And now you have an idea of precisely how simple it would be to render "hidden coordinates" ineffective.


 

Rendering "hidden coordinates" ineffective could only be done by a registered visitor, since only the registered visitor could place a cache. If a registered player wanted to do this, it would be the same as if a charter member did the same to a "member's only" cache.

 

If a registered user wanted to wreck the game, then there probably is no way to stop them, unless of course, we lobby against the site allowing caches to be placed in close proximity to other caches. While I did lobby long and hard for my idea, I'm not so sure I would like to do it all again for the "close proximity" idea. I think it's probably best to wait and see what effect "hidden coordinates" has. It's like taking "baby steps" to improve the game. It would be nice to take a "giant leap" and solve everyone's problems, but as you pointed out, with each improvement there will always be a way to defeat it's goal.

 

However, in this example, the assumption is that it would be a registered user that would want to wreck the game, not the unregistered lurker. If it's going to fail, it will fail because of a registered user and not because of the unregistered lurker, which is pretty much the whole idea behind "hidden coordinates".

 

Since the option of "hidden coordinates" will only be available for use by charter members, it really won't be that different from "member's only" caches, with the exception that you won't need a charter membership to see the description of the cache. It just might spark enough interest and curiosity to get more people to join, just like "member's only" caches sparked enough interest in me to make me become a charter member.

 

All in all, it adds functionality and value, and if a registered user decides to wreak havoc with the option, then he is essentially lowering himself to the level of the unregistered cache plunderer.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

However, in this example, the assumption is that it would be a registered user that would want to wreck the game, not the unregistered lurker. If it's going to fail, it will fail because of a registered user and not because of the unregistered lurker, which is pretty much the whole idea behind "hidden coordinates".


 

Yes, well we appear to have a different take on this. Your presumption has been that "unregistered lurkers" have been the source of most problems. I think that's probably not true.

 

Requiring registration and log in to view cache coordinates won't change things. (Would it have stopped, for example, the "Ulmer Incident?" I doubt it.) Someone logs in, prints the page, and then waits a day, week, or a month, etc., before wreaking their havoc, and the cache owner, and even the sysop, won't be able to point a finger at anyone with any degree of certainty. Therefore, in my opinion, the "feature" is of dubious value.

 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Since the option of "hidden coordinates" will only be available for use by charter members, it really won't be that different from "member's only" caches, with the exception that you won't need a charter membership to see the description of the cache.


 

Is that accurate? Will you receive an audit trail of who looked at your page and downloaded the coordinates? Where was that mentioned or promised? Also, I thought the discussion centered on hiding "coordinates." In the quoted paragraph, you mention viewing "cache descriptions."

 

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

All in all, it adds functionality and value, and if a registered user decides to wreak havoc with the option, then he is essentially lowering himself to the level of the unregistered cache plunderer.


 

We've come full circle again. If the "feature" can be so easily circumvented, then it is of dubious value. But what of the registered cache plunderer ... God forbid, who might also be a Charter Member?

 

We've said nothing new here, so I'll just wait to see if/when Jeremy implements this new feature, and I will watch with interest to learn how effective it becomes.

 

But if it is implemented, I won't use the feature, and I'll "ignore" (another feature that has never been realized) any caches that do use it.

 

"There are plenty of good fish in the sea."

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on July 05, 2002 at 01:21 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:

Since the option of "hidden coordinates" will only be available for use by charter members, it really won't be that different from "member's only" caches, with the exception that you won't need a charter membership to see the description of the cache.


quote:

Is that accurate? Will you receive an audit trail of who looked at your page and downloaded the coordinates? Where was that mentioned or promised? Also, I thought the discussion centered on hiding "coordinates." In the quoted paragraph, you mention viewing "cache descriptions."


 

You are losing me about the audit trail part, you might mean something that is available on member only caches, which I don't know about since I don't use them, yet icon_smile.gif It's my understanding that it will be a feature that just toggles the visibility on or off, from the page where you edit your caches.

However, if the pages will appear the same, except without coordinates, then yes, I would assume that everything else will be the same, including the cache descriptions.

 

quote:

We've come full circle again. If the "feature" can be so easily circumvented, then it is of dubious value. But what of the registered cache plunderer ... God forbid, who might also be a Charter Member?


 

Sure, and members only caches can be easily circumvented as well, but the choice is there. This is only assuming that a registered user would want to circumvent the feature. I get the feeling that most won't while I get the the feeling that you would like to see it happen icon_smile.gif if only to be able to say that you were right all along. As far as registered cache plunderers go, you can check back to one of my original postings on the subject, I had said that if my caches are to be plundered, then I would prefer it happen by a registered user. Perhaps I may even get my wish.

 

quote:

But if it is implemented, I won't use the feature, and I'll "ignore" (another feature that has never been realized) any caches that do use it.


 

I will most likely use it on some if not all of my caches. Some day I may not use it at all. The nice part is that I will have a choice, and so will you. I once thought that I would not persue Members only caches, but as it turned out, I eventually did and was glad, since it was a real fun cache. I agree that it would be nice to have an "ignore" feature. Maybe no one will use the hidden option in your area since you don't have the same problem there.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:

Since the option of "hidden coordinates" will only be available for use by charter members, it really won't be that different from "member's only" caches, with the exception that you won't need a charter membership to see the description of the cache.


quote:

Is that accurate? Will you receive an audit trail of who looked at your page and downloaded the coordinates? Where was that mentioned or promised? Also, I thought the discussion centered on hiding "coordinates." In the quoted paragraph, you mention viewing "cache descriptions."


 

You are losing me about the audit trail part, you might mean something that is available on member only caches, which I don't know about since I don't use them, yet icon_smile.gif It's my understanding that it will be a feature that just toggles the visibility on or off, from the page where you edit your caches.

However, if the pages will appear the same, except without coordinates, then yes, I would assume that everything else will be the same, including the cache descriptions.

 

quote:

We've come full circle again. If the "feature" can be so easily circumvented, then it is of dubious value. But what of the registered cache plunderer ... God forbid, who might also be a Charter Member?


 

Sure, and members only caches can be easily circumvented as well, but the choice is there. This is only assuming that a registered user would want to circumvent the feature. I get the feeling that most won't while I get the the feeling that you would like to see it happen icon_smile.gif if only to be able to say that you were right all along. As far as registered cache plunderers go, you can check back to one of my original postings on the subject, I had said that if my caches are to be plundered, then I would prefer it happen by a registered user. Perhaps I may even get my wish.

 

quote:

But if it is implemented, I won't use the feature, and I'll "ignore" (another feature that has never been realized) any caches that do use it.


 

I will most likely use it on some if not all of my caches. Some day I may not use it at all. The nice part is that I will have a choice, and so will you. I once thought that I would not persue Members only caches, but as it turned out, I eventually did and was glad, since it was a real fun cache. I agree that it would be nice to have an "ignore" feature. Maybe no one will use the hidden option in your area since you don't have the same problem there.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

... while I get the the feeling that you would like to see it happen icon_smile.gif if only to be able to say that you were right all along.


 

Hardly. I'm just trying to be pragmatic, if not slightly cynical, about the matter. It will happen.

 

From the accounts of several of the better local caches that were plundered, I have no doubt that those who plunder do so with great determination, and any added challenge will only make that specific cache more attractive to them and increase their determination.

 

That's really sad, but I think anyone who has had their caches targeted repeatedly would readily agree.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

... while I get the the feeling that you would like to see it happen icon_smile.gif if only to be able to say that you were right all along.


 

Hardly. I'm just trying to be pragmatic, if not slightly cynical, about the matter. It will happen.

 

From the accounts of several of the better local caches that were plundered, I have no doubt that those who plunder do so with great determination, and any added challenge will only make that specific cache more attractive to them and increase their determination.

 

That's really sad, but I think anyone who has had their caches targeted repeatedly would readily agree.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

I just received emails from Jeremy. It looks like after a second thought, this will now become an option for charter members.


 

Woo hoo! That's wonderful news. icon_biggrin.gif Thanks, cachew nut, for not letting this topic die. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

I just received emails from Jeremy. It looks like after a second thought, this will now become an option for charter members.


 

Woo hoo! That's wonderful news. icon_biggrin.gif Thanks, cachew nut, for not letting this topic die. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I wonder how long after the first "hidden coordinate" cache is listed before someone intentionally places a cache with "unhidden" coordinates five feet away?


 

I would hope that we are part of a community who treats each other with respect. If someone deliberately sabotages another's wish to not have unregistered users looking for their cache, then that speaks poorly of the community of geocachers as a whole. icon_confused.gif I don't see that kind of thing happening where I live. If it does, it'll probably be the end of my placing any new caches.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

If the "feature" can be so easily circumvented, then it is of dubious value. But what of the registered cache plunderer ... God forbid, who might also be a Charter Member?


 

Almost EVERY feature here can be easily circumvented. By your logic, if this is a reason NOT to have a feature...then we might as well shut the site down, because people COULD be malicious.

 

Personally, though, I would prefer to give it our best shot...and give people the benefit of the doubt to be respectful of each other's wishes and property...and then, if enough of us prove ourselves unable to do so, make changes to try to discourage the disrepectful behavior. At the very least, this new feature will make a good number of geoacachers happier (just to know that Jeremy is listening to, and responding to our requests). That in itself should be worth something.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I wonder how long after the first "hidden coordinate" cache is listed before someone intentionally places a cache with "unhidden" coordinates five feet away?


 

I would hope that we are part of a community who treats each other with respect. If someone deliberately sabotages another's wish to not have unregistered users looking for their cache, then that speaks poorly of the community of geocachers as a whole. icon_confused.gif I don't see that kind of thing happening where I live. If it does, it'll probably be the end of my placing any new caches.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

If the "feature" can be so easily circumvented, then it is of dubious value. But what of the registered cache plunderer ... God forbid, who might also be a Charter Member?


 

Almost EVERY feature here can be easily circumvented. By your logic, if this is a reason NOT to have a feature...then we might as well shut the site down, because people COULD be malicious.

 

Personally, though, I would prefer to give it our best shot...and give people the benefit of the doubt to be respectful of each other's wishes and property...and then, if enough of us prove ourselves unable to do so, make changes to try to discourage the disrepectful behavior. At the very least, this new feature will make a good number of geoacachers happier (just to know that Jeremy is listening to, and responding to our requests). That in itself should be worth something.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

If it does, it'll probably be the end of my placing any new caches.


 

Same here. I'll just resort to finding them and not placing anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Same here. I'll just resort to finding them and not placing anymore.


Exactly. If the consensus is that our only focus should be "What's in it for me?" rather than also trying to give something back to those who are kind enough to place caches for our enjoyment, then I too can play that game. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

Same here. I'll just resort to finding them and not placing anymore.


Exactly. If the consensus is that our only focus should be "What's in it for me?" rather than also trying to give something back to those who are kind enough to place caches for our enjoyment, then I too can play that game. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

With this new feature, would the cache show up on a proximity search? The MO caches do. Remember that other people may unintentionally place a cache 5 feet from an existing cache if they can't see them in close proximity.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

Almost EVERY feature here can be easily circumvented.


 

You are absolutely right. And because most people haven't done bad things to other people's caches, there is obviously no need to hide coordinates. There has been no persuasive argument presented that any cache has been plundered by any so called "unregistered lurker." None. Zero. Zip.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

At the very least, this new feature will make a good number of geoacachers happier (just to know that Jeremy is listening to, and responding to our requests). That in itself should be worth something.


 

I thought Jeremy's original "no" was a response to the request, and only a couple of people weren't happy with it. Few people voiced any support for this idea, and I don't like the idea that a fundamental change would be made to the site solely because someone was a "squeeky wheel." Fundamental changes should provide quantifiable benefits to all users, not just the one or two who squeek the loudest and lobby the hardest.

 

If anyone had offered any convincing evidence that caches were being plundered by "unregistered lurkers," I would line up in support of your idea. That has not been the case.

 

If anyone had shown how a required login would protect a cache, I would line up in support of your idea. That has not been the case.

 

Who needs smoke and mirrors? Too many users would be inconvenienced.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

With this new feature, would the cache show up on a proximity search? The MO caches do. Remember that other people may _unintentionally_ place a cache 5 feet from an existing cache if they can't see them in close proximity.


 

Struggling with this one, before we go and place a cache, we LOGIN, take a look at what's where, then go and place a cache.

As soon as you LOGIN all the info is available.

It's only to be hidden when trolls who have no username/password are skulking about, or for some reason, legitimate users don't LOGIN.

 

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

I thought Jeremy's original "no" was a response to the request, and only a couple of people weren't happy with it. Few people voiced any support for this idea


 

See poll results...

 

poll results

 

OK, only 60ish responded, but a 2 to 1 margin in favor of the idea, not what I'd call "few", but your idea of "few" may be different.

 

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

If anyone had shown how a required login would protect a cache, I would line up in support of your idea. That has not been the case.


That's why it's an idea, you can't prove any idea without trying it...give it a try, all you have to do is LOGIN...is that so tough, I use 6 different computers on a given day to access the web, I login every time I come to the site, it makes the my cache page work, where is the easiest place to find new caches near to us...otherwise you have to use the search page instead of a single click, takes about 2.5 seconds to LOGIN.

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

;) Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats:

 

It's only to be hidden when trolls who have no username/password are skulking about, or for some reason, legitimate users don't _LOGIN_.


 

Haven't we witnessed enough incursions by Trolls into this login only forum to see how effective the login system is at inhibiting bad behavior? I almost always login, but when I use a public computer I don't. I don't think I should automatically be denied access to cache coordinates, because I've done nothing wrong.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats:

OK, only 60ish responded, but a 2 to 1 margin in favor of the idea, not what I'd call "few", but your idea of "few" may be different.


 

That works out to about .2% of the registered users. You are correct. It is less than a few.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats: That's why it's an idea, you can't prove any idea without trying it ...

 

Why make a fundamental change when no actual need has been demonstrated? There has not been even one example offered of a cache plundered by an unregistered person.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

I thought Jeremy's original "no" was a response to the request, and only a couple of people weren't happy with it.


 

Jeremy never said "no". If anyone can offer any convincing evidence that Jeremy said "no" I would line up support to get them a new pair of glasses.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

Haven't we witnessed enough incursions by Trolls into _this_ login only forum to see how effective the login system is at inhibiting bad behavior? I almost always login, but when I use a public computer I don't. I don't think I should automatically be denied access to cache coordinates, because I've done nothing wrong.


 

What are you afraid of? That somebody will snag your geocaching password and post a few more finds to your account?

 

It's interesting that you would be so vocal about this subject. It isn't so much about how it will inconvenience the registered user who is seeking a cache as much as it is about adding functionality for somebody who is hiding a cache. By taking a peek at your profile, I can see that you have no experience regarding the latter. Now, I can see how somebody like BasoonPilot may find this a bit of an inconvenience, since that guy has amassed an incredible number of finds, and most likely is searching the site for caches to persue on a daily basis. But looking at your equally impressive profile, you haven't had a find in months.

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on July 08, 2002 at 07:22 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

 

Your First Point

I almost always login, but when I use a public computer I don't.

 

Your Second Point

That works out to about _.2%_ of the registered users.

 

Your Third Point

Why make a fundamental change when no _actual need_ has been demonstrated? There has not been even _one_ example offered of a cache plundered by an unregistered person.


 

Point 1...I, too, would like to know why you're afraid of logging in on a public computer? If it's your because some person may be able to log in to your account by going to all the work required to snag your geocaching login and username, so, as Cashew Nut so aptly put...they can log a few more finds...imagine how Cashew Nut must feel when he not only finds but HIDES caches for you to find, only to have someone plunder them.

Now I can see (thanks again Cashew Nut) why you don't understand...you'd have to actually put out some of your own precious time to hide a cache, then you may have an idea of what you are giving up only to have it trashed. Many of us who hide caches, spend a great deal of time preparing them. If logging in to see location information prevents one cache from being plundered, it was worth all that inconvenience, especially when it's to those who take, don't give back, heck can't even scrape together the measely ten cents a day to support the site?? I digress, more points to ponder...

 

Point 2...

How many citizens have to vote to make an election democratic??? Should George Bush REALLY be President.

If 28 unique visitors posted notes on this subject, 63 voted and 42 were in favor of this option being provided to THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES I'd say that the majority of voters who cared to pipe up and vote was a significantly higher percentage than those who put Mr. Bush in office.

In fact, with only 28 unique visitors posting, exactly 150% of the commenting visitors were in favor...don't you just love numbers??? How they twist and turn at the least likely moment. Of course, we know that not everyone votes; only those who care to voice an opinion.

Of course, maybe we should only poll either paying members and / or THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES. Maybe then it wouldn't matter whether it was .2% or 150%, it would only be the voices of those that support the sport through a contribution of their own time / $$$.

 

Point 3

Obviously no one can prove that without some idiot logging on and becoming a user after the fact just to say, Hey I'm the Troll who plundered your cache. While I won't wait around for that guy, you may want to, that way you could be really sure it would be worth making

quote:
a fundamental change when no actual need has been demonstrated?

 

Definition of Fundamental (Dictionary.com)

 

Of great significance or entailing major change:

 

Logging in...an extra 2.5 seconds...There's fundamental change for you...beats global warming in all but .2% of cases, anyway...

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

;) Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
You are new here with 5 posts and no hidden caches and no finds, so I'll just chalk it up to newbieness. A good idea would be to read through the whole thread before responding with your revelation of old news. Welcome to geocaching

 

quote:
It's interesting that you would be so vocal about this subject......By taking a peek at your profile, I can see that you have no experience regarding the latter......But looking at your equally impressive profile, you haven't had a find in months.

 

Cachew, must you evaluate every poster's worth based on their numbers? I can see that plundering has got you upset, but using poster's stats as a reason to disccount their arguments doesn't come off well. There are enough real issues to discuss in this topic without getting personal.

 

And yes, before you explain that I don't know what I'm talking about, I do have only 2 finds and 1 hide. That doesn't mean I don't know what constitutes a good argument as opposed to an ad hominem attack. It just means there aren't many caches I can get to at the moment. icon_smile.gif

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

 

[This message was edited by evilrooster on July 08, 2002 at 11:25 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
You are new here with 5 posts and no hidden caches and no finds, so I'll just chalk it up to newbieness. A good idea would be to read through the whole thread before responding with your revelation of old news. Welcome to geocaching

 

quote:
It's interesting that you would be so vocal about this subject......By taking a peek at your profile, I can see that you have no experience regarding the latter......But looking at your equally impressive profile, you haven't had a find in months.

 

Cachew, must you evaluate every poster's worth based on their numbers? I can see that plundering has got you upset, but using poster's stats as a reason to disccount their arguments doesn't come off well. There are enough real issues to discuss in this topic without getting personal.

 

And yes, before you explain that I don't know what I'm talking about, I do have only 2 finds and 1 hide. That doesn't mean I don't know what constitutes a good argument as opposed to an ad hominem attack. It just means there aren't many caches I can get to at the moment. icon_smile.gif

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

 

[This message was edited by evilrooster on July 08, 2002 at 11:25 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

If anyone can offer any convincing evidence that Jeremy said "no" I would line up support to get them a new pair of glasses.


 

I've said before that I think most caches aren't plundered by "unregistered lurkers," but by the regular, registered users.

 

You make rude statements like that all the time to people who disagree with you in the forums. If you interact with your other local cachers like that, then there should be no surprise why your caches get plundered.

Share this post


Link to post

Ignoring the unregistered lurkers, if there are 15,000 registered users, and logging in takes an additional 2.5 seconds each time they log on, and each user visits the site an average of twice a day, how many man hours a month will be wasted for no clear benefit?

 

quote:

Point 2...

How many citizens have to vote to make an election democratic???


 

I don't know. Are polls and elections comparable? Has there ever been an election where only .2% of the registered voters voted?

 

But unintentionally, you raised a good point. Sample ballots are mailed to the address of every registered voter. To reach a true consensus, maybe Jeremy should include questions he deems of potential merit in a survey mailed with the new cache list every week. Non-binding, of course.

 

quote:
If 28 unique visitors posted notes on this subject, 63 voted and 42 were in favor of this option being provided to THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES I'd say that the majority of voters who cared to pipe up and vote was a significantly higher percentage than those who put Mr. Bush in office.

 

I'd rather hear what the people who have placed the most caches think about the matter.

 

quote:

Point 3

Obviously no one can prove that without some idiot logging on and becoming a user after the fact just to say, Hey I'm the Troll who plundered your cache. While I won't wait around for that guy, you may want to, that way you could be _really sure_ it would be worth making


 

Let me make sure I've got it straight:

 

Someone placed six caches, perhaps badly because of their inexperience. Two of the caches were subsequently stolen, and that person imagines, because there is no proof, that they were stolen by Trolls, and dreams up a scheme that will inconvenience a huge number of people, and probably won't protect anyone's cache one iota.

 

I'm sorry; you people are right. It's a great idea. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

[This message was edited by ACME geocachers on July 09, 2002 at 07:02 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

Ignoring the unregistered lurkers, if there are 15,000 registered users, and logging in takes an additional 2.5 seconds each time they log on, and each user visits the site an average of twice a day, how many man hours a month will be wasted for no clear benefit?

 

quote:

Point 2...

How many citizens have to vote to make an election democratic???


 

I don't know. Are polls and elections comparable? Has there ever been an election where only .2% of the registered voters voted?

 

But unintentionally, you raised a good point. Sample ballots are mailed to the address of every registered voter. To reach a true consensus, maybe Jeremy should include questions he deems of potential merit in a survey mailed with the new cache list every week. Non-binding, of course.

 

quote:
If 28 unique visitors posted notes on this subject, 63 voted and 42 were in favor of this option being provided to THOSE THAT CARE TO HIDE CACHES I'd say that the majority of voters who cared to pipe up and vote was a significantly higher percentage than those who put Mr. Bush in office.

 

I'd rather hear what the people who have placed the most caches think about the matter.

 

quote:

Point 3

Obviously no one can prove that without some idiot logging on and becoming a user after the fact just to say, Hey I'm the Troll who plundered your cache. While I won't wait around for that guy, you may want to, that way you could be _really sure_ it would be worth making


 

Let me make sure I've got it straight:

 

Someone placed six caches, perhaps badly because of their inexperience. Two of the caches were subsequently stolen, and that person imagines, because there is no proof, that they were stolen by Trolls, and dreams up a scheme that will inconvenience a huge number of people, and probably won't protect anyone's cache one iota.

 

I'm sorry; you people are right. It's a great idea. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

[This message was edited by ACME geocachers on July 09, 2002 at 07:02 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Ignoring the unregistered lurkers, if there are 15,000 registered users, and logging in takes an additional 2.5 seconds each time they log on, and each user visits the site an average of twice a day, how many man hours a month will be wasted for no clear benefit?


 

625 Hours/Month

Oh, wait a minute, that assumes that nobody logs in now, well I've already stated that I always do, so you can subtract 2.5 minutes from that total,

 

Oops again...

 

quote:
Originally posted by ACME geocachers:

I almost always login


...

I guess that means that we need to subtract say 2 minutes for you, too.

 

Boy, now that I think of it, lots of the posts have stated the same thing...boy, guess it's not really 625 hours after all!

 

Compared to the average time someone who is careful when hiding a cache invests, well in our case we would estimate about 3 hours per cache.

Now, we may be off the deep end, but we spend time collecting the stuff, finding the location, printing the labels, trying to make it a bit more entertaining, so if the average is only an hour, well that's equivilant to 1440 inconvenient logins/hide, so I could log in 1440 times and just find, and give up hiding.

 

quote:
Someone placed six caches, perhaps badly because of their inexperience. Two of the caches were subsequently stolen

 

By this I imagine you are referring to the individual who started this thread, ok, here's a voice from someone with 30 hides...(3rd highest on the thread)

 

quote:
Origially posted by joedohn:

Since making most of my caches MOC's I've had no problems with plundering. Before then, 4 of my first 18 caches were ransacked or taken (and I believe 3 by someone looking specifically for caches to steal).


 

One of the more convincing posts from earlier in the thread, joedohn was talking about MOC's effect on plundering. What we're talking about here is applying a MOC ability to the general population, so that people who hide caches can feel just a little more secure, without having to exclude the cache from folks that don't pay for the right to search, as they now have to in order to find joedohn's new mocaches. Can't say I'd blame him, after all, at 30 Hidden caches, he's provided a lot of fun for all. Oh yeah what about...

 

quote:
I'd rather hear what people who have placed 70 or 80 caches think about the matter.

Well of those interested in posting here...Nobody had 70 or 80 hides, although 6 did have 0, of which 5 were in opposition to the idea, hmmm,

Since we can't find someone on this thread with the level of knowledge on the subject that you deem necessary to comment, maybe we'll have to follow some other track.

 

The average number of hides by those voicing support through the posts on this thread...11.1

 

The average number of hides by those voicing opposition through the posts on this thread...6.8

 

Average Ratio of finds:hides by those voicing support through posts on this thread...4.7:1

 

Average Ratio of finds:hides by those voicing opposition through posts on this thread...19.6:1

 

quote:
maybe Jeremy should include these questions of earth shattering importance in a survey mailed with the new cache list every week

Great idea, all he'd need is the money to pay for such a program...maybe we could get everyone to pay the dime a day, then he'd be able to do lots of new things.

Until then, we just have to put up with polls, after all, those who care to vote, can voice an opinion at any time.

 

Last point, if the reason for not logging in at a public computer is security, perhaps someone can look into the real risks involved there, and whether the button "Logging in from Public Computer" which is on my webmail account does anything, and could be implemented on the site, making people feel as safe as they do when they check webmail at a public computer.

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

;) Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats:

 

so I could log in 1440 times and just find, and give up hiding.


 

It's your choice. If you are saying that you will give up hiding caches if the idea isn't implemented, then go ahead. I think it would be foolish.

 

quote:

 

One of the more convincing posts from earlier in the thread, joedohn was talking about MOC's effect on plundering.


 

Where did his post say he suspected his caches were stolen by unregistered lurkers? I agree with joedohn 100% that most caches are intentionally stolen. His post made a strong statement about the effectiveness of MOCs. His post was clearly not an endorsement for the hidden coordinate idea. The way I read his post, he didn't like the idea.

 

quote:
Since we can't find someone on this thread with the level of knowledge on the subject that you deem necessary to comment

 

That's not what I said. There are active cache placers who have lost a lot more caches than most of the proponents have placed. You are right that I would value their input.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:

 

Cachew, must you evaluate every poster's worth based on their numbers? I can see that plundering has got you upset, but using poster's stats as a reason to disccount their arguments doesn't come off well. There are enough real issues to discuss in this topic without getting personal.


 

Your first example is my reply to an obvious troll. Somebody with absolutely no finds or hides telling me that the idea sucks. Sorry, I'll respond how I wish, the statement would have more weight from somebody who at least found or hid one cache. I'll make no apologies.

 

In your second example, I'm merely pointing out that for somebody who participates minimally in the sport, why make a big deal about logging in on a public computer? In a few months time, there is plenty of opportunity to use your home computer to gather waypoints. Why use a public computer to search for waypoints if you are not going to find the caches?

 

I'm really not discounting an argument based on the stats, as at one time my stats were pretty low as well. I'm simply implying that an argument would carry more weight from somebody who has experienced enough to argue for or against the subject matter.

 

As far as public computers go, I search for caches across the country, expect to see me logging a cache in your area (general statement) in the future. If I know I'll be in the area, I generally prepare ahead of time by entering waypoints, making printouts, etc. If I find myself in a new place without prior preperation, and need to use a public computer, then I will log in, and generally clean my trail by deleting any cookies, files, and history I may have caused to be stored on that computer. Yes, I'm one of those who believe that if you are going to use a computer, then you should know a bit about how it operates.

 

In my short 5 months of geocaching, I haven't had any problems with somebody stealing my password and adding finds to my account. If they did, I would have the option to delete them, and if they changed my password, an email to the site administrators would correct the problem.

 

Following the logic of ACME, there is no evidence given to suggest that using a public computer for geocaching has resulted in any catostrophic event to anyone's account. Therefore, nothing needs to be done to prevent somebody from logging in to see coordinates that may have been rendered invisible by the hider.

 

Since Jeremy said this would be a charter member option, I can't see why a non-charter member's opinion should carry any weight in this argument, since it is not an option for their use. This is added functionality and value for those who invest in the sport. It doesn't change anything at all for the registered user, except the burden of proof that you are indeed registered.

 

quote:

And yes, before you explain that I don't know what I'm talking about, I _do_ have only 2 finds and 1 hide. That doesn't mean I don't know what constitutes a good argument as opposed to an ad hominem attack. It just means there aren't many caches I can get to at the moment. icon_smile.gif


 

This is all fine and dandy but the one thing that perplexes my about your post is that you wanted us to stick to the topic, but you failed to give your opinion, for or against, and reasons for your position, on the very topic we are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:

 

Cachew, must you evaluate every poster's worth based on their numbers? I can see that plundering has got you upset, but using poster's stats as a reason to disccount their arguments doesn't come off well. There are enough real issues to discuss in this topic without getting personal.


 

Your first example is my reply to an obvious troll. Somebody with absolutely no finds or hides telling me that the idea sucks. Sorry, I'll respond how I wish, the statement would have more weight from somebody who at least found or hid one cache. I'll make no apologies.

 

In your second example, I'm merely pointing out that for somebody who participates minimally in the sport, why make a big deal about logging in on a public computer? In a few months time, there is plenty of opportunity to use your home computer to gather waypoints. Why use a public computer to search for waypoints if you are not going to find the caches?

 

I'm really not discounting an argument based on the stats, as at one time my stats were pretty low as well. I'm simply implying that an argument would carry more weight from somebody who has experienced enough to argue for or against the subject matter.

 

As far as public computers go, I search for caches across the country, expect to see me logging a cache in your area (general statement) in the future. If I know I'll be in the area, I generally prepare ahead of time by entering waypoints, making printouts, etc. If I find myself in a new place without prior preperation, and need to use a public computer, then I will log in, and generally clean my trail by deleting any cookies, files, and history I may have caused to be stored on that computer. Yes, I'm one of those who believe that if you are going to use a computer, then you should know a bit about how it operates.

 

In my short 5 months of geocaching, I haven't had any problems with somebody stealing my password and adding finds to my account. If they did, I would have the option to delete them, and if they changed my password, an email to the site administrators would correct the problem.

 

Following the logic of ACME, there is no evidence given to suggest that using a public computer for geocaching has resulted in any catostrophic event to anyone's account. Therefore, nothing needs to be done to prevent somebody from logging in to see coordinates that may have been rendered invisible by the hider.

 

Since Jeremy said this would be a charter member option, I can't see why a non-charter member's opinion should carry any weight in this argument, since it is not an option for their use. This is added functionality and value for those who invest in the sport. It doesn't change anything at all for the registered user, except the burden of proof that you are indeed registered.

 

quote:

And yes, before you explain that I don't know what I'm talking about, I _do_ have only 2 finds and 1 hide. That doesn't mean I don't know what constitutes a good argument as opposed to an ad hominem attack. It just means there aren't many caches I can get to at the moment. icon_smile.gif


 

This is all fine and dandy but the one thing that perplexes my about your post is that you wanted us to stick to the topic, but you failed to give your opinion, for or against, and reasons for your position, on the very topic we are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone hear the joke about the two arguing geocachers that walked into a bar to get the bartender to resolve their difference of opinion? icon_wink.gif

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone hear the joke about the two arguing geocachers that walked into a bar to get the bartender to resolve their difference of opinion? icon_wink.gif

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe that requiring a cacher to login will solve this problem. I seriously doubt that many cache are stolen by lurkers. Obviously, I have no evidence to support this thought. There is no way to know how many caches are plundered by lurkers.

 

I do believe that the majority of caches are plundered either by mundanes who find the cache (without knowledge of the site) or registered users. I do know that registered users plunder caches because one of them stole mine.

 

Your 'solution' would not solve this problem.

Share this post


Link to post

...is wholly unknown, so a true solution cannot be found without doing a bit of homework. Changing policy based on an assumption is a waste of effort and member's "tax" dollars.

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...

>> snip <<

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.


A GPS is not yet a commodity. People who have them invested the money for a purpose, thus in general GPS owners do not fit the profile of vandals or scavengers. You may remember back to when you were a kid. It was a big, new world full of curiosities and finding hidden nooks and crannies to hide stuff from Mom was one of your favorite pastimes. Isn't it amazing how alert and observant children are? I'll bet if we actually bugged a few caches to see what happens to them we would find out that most are found completely by accident. A child stubling across a box full of toys in the woods will probably grab it and run to Mommy with excitement, who then reads the label, but doesn't know where it was hidden, so the cache is lost.

 

Does anyone know the ratio of mocahes plundered vs. public caches? This could be a good indication. If there is a dramatic reduction of plundering in mocaches, well, you have your answer... become a member!

 

There is, of course, a proven, government tested way to prevent deliberate misuse of the site. Just scramble the last three digits of the LAT/LON and watch the fun!

Share this post


Link to post

I notice that a large majority of the discussion here has to do with whether this feature would have an effect on reducing the rate of plundered caches. MY purpose for wanting this feature is to discourage trolls (or whatever the PC equivalent term is: 'people who selfishly go out and seek caches, but won't bother to log any feedback onto the cache page' perhaps?).

 

If it's too much trouble to take a couple of seconds to log in before viewing my cache coordinates, then I'd just as soon you not take advantage of the hours and hours of time I spent in planning and placing the cache, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post

i wish you would have to log in,

i placed my only cache that is extremely well hidden far enough off a trail but unregistered people have robbed it or taken the better 10 dollar items only to leave something like a pencil! i know requiring to sign in to view the coordinates would not prevent all of this but it could help, maybe it could be an optional option when you post a cache?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...