Mandatory Membership

[+CrimsonWrath]

I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache?  Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

Hey! Watch it!

Whoops. So sorry. Let me amend my comment:

 

"Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, criminals?"

[+Criminal]

I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache?  Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

Hey! Watch it!

Whoops. So sorry. Let me amend my comment:

 

"Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, criminals?"

Hey! I'm not liking the turn this thread has taken...

 

 

BTW, there is only one.

[+Starglider]

That's a good idea. Not for protecting against sock puppet looters but for creating a new business model to have cachers pay while sticking to the principle of "free" caching.

"creating a new business model to have cachers pay while sticking to the principle of "free" caching"

 

What a great example for "Doublethink" in action

(see "1984" by George Orwell)

[+cachew nut]

My 2 copper plated zincs worth:

 

Only non-plunderable caches, such as virtuals and locationless should be visible without a login.

 

All physical caches (except MO caches) should be visible to those who are registered and logged in.

 

Registered does not necessarily mean a paying member.

Edited May 7, 2004 by cachew nut

[Cholo]

Taking that one step further, we could create a "trusted" network of players. You could vouch for particular users and your trust ranking would allow you to see certain caches.

 

Would this be called the "our thing" network, with only made members allowed?

[+PandyBat]

My 2 copper plated zincs worth:

 

Only non-plunderable caches, such as virtuals and locationless should be visible without a login.

 

All physical caches (except MO caches) should be visible to those who are registered and logged in.

 

Registered does not necessarily mean a paying member.

Great ideas!

I can't imagine someone being so freaked out about having to provide an email address in order to see cache co-ords. Lots of sites on the internet "hide" certain areas or specific information from non-registered viewers. If they're serious about wanting to play, then they'll register to do so.

 

I don't understand why this site and this game is still trying to be played the way it was when it first started. There were virtually no rules because the problems were minimal back then. But how bad do the problems have to get before something is done about them? Everyone is so worried about discouraging new membership to the game. How about worrying about keeping the older members that get fed up with the new problems introduced to the game for a change?

[+bons]

I don't see how a registered e-mail address is a solution. No one has shown me any indication that a cache thief can't just make a collection of sockpuppet accounts. Nor have they shown me that they can identify the thief from the list of accounts that have viewed or gotten the page in a PQ or off of a google cache.

 

I see no benefit this proposed system. I see a lot of detriments but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that mandatory membership and logins will prevent a single theft.

 

The solution does nothing except making some people feel better. That's not a solution in my book.

Edited May 8, 2004 by bons

[CoyoteRed]

I think some of the solutions presented above would deter the casual thief. A determined one would be practically impossible to thwart without closing down the system and letting the owner pick and choose who he will let view his cache. With that you don't even need this site. In other words, this site still doesn't need to change.

[+PandyBat]

I don't see how a registered e-mail address is a solution. No one has shown me any indication that a cache thief can't just make a collection of sockpuppet accounts. Nor have they shown me that they can identify the thief from the list of  accounts that have viewed or gotten the page in a PQ or off of a google cache.

 

I see no benefit this proposed system. I see a lot of detriments but I haven't seen anyone prove to me that mandatory membership and logins will prevent a single theft.

 

The solution does nothing except making some people feel better. That's not a solution in my book.

I don't think any of the proposed solutions would completely stop the problem either. But it might help to slow them down a bit.

 

If nothing is done to help stop or at least slow down cache thieves, then eventually the honest cache hiders quit hiding caches. The cache thieves win.

 

I have a travel bug that I am leary of putting out because so many go missing. I also have a cache ready to put out but am leary of doing it for fear it will go missing or someone will take all the good stuff and leave it trashed. But as the site stands, I will never be able to even have an inkling of who did it because no one is required to log in to see the cache co-ords or even log that they found it. I'm a newbie! Kinda weird that I already have these feelings and I haven't been doing it that long.

I don't know what the solution to all this is. I realize my fears are part of the game and I certainly don't want to quit playing the game because of them. But I'd also like to know that if there is a solution out there that can be implemented to help deter the problems even a little bit, that it might be considered instead of shot down right off the bat because others don't want to see changes in the site or the game. Everything evolves at some point.

Edited May 8, 2004 by PandyBat

[+Starglider]

I also have a cache ready to put out but am leary of doing it for fear it will go missing or someone will take all the good stuff and leave it trashed. But as the site stands, I will never be able to even have an inkling of who did it because no one is required to log in to see the cache co-ords or even log that they found it.

 

 

To me the most interesting aspect of a good cache is not the box or its contents but the place where it is located and where I would probably never go if I would not hunt for caches. You can't steal such a place.

Is it such a tragedy if a plastic box with, lets face it, a lot of rubbish in it is stolen?

 

If a cache is stolen and you know everyone who knows the co-ordinates you would still not be able to tell who has stolen it. There would be dozens of people who looked up the co-ordinates in preparation and who consequently have not logged a find.

 

What if someone had looged his find in the past and returns to the cache to destroy it a few weeks later? What if he logs a not-found and takes the cache immediately or later?

 

And if you put a 24/7 infrared surveillance camera near the cache someone will come to the place disguised with a rubber George W. mask to take the cache AND the camera...

[+cachew nut]

To me the most interesting aspect of a good cache is not the box or its contents but the place where it is located and where I would probably never go if I would not hunt for caches. You can't steal such a place.

Is it such a tragedy if a plastic box with, lets face it, a lot of rubbish in it is stolen?

Yep, pretty much since the cache would need to be disabled or archived. It might make a nice virtual cache, but there's not too many of those being approved as before.

 

Heh, maybe archived caches should be the only ones visible without a login

 

And if you put a 24/7 infrared surveillance camera near the cache someone will come to the place disguised with a rubber George W. mask to take the cache AND the camera...

 

or maybe someone will come as Gerhard S. dressed in an Elvis Presley style outfit.

Edited May 9, 2004 by cachew nut

[+PandyBat]

I also have a cache ready to put out but am leary of doing it for fear it will go missing or someone will take all the good stuff and leave it trashed. But as the site stands, I will never be able to even have an inkling of who did it because no one is required to log in to see the cache co-ords or even log that they found it.

 

 

To me the most interesting aspect of a good cache is not the box or its contents but the place where it is located and where I would probably never go if I would not hunt for caches. You can't steal such a place.

Is it such a tragedy if a plastic box with, lets face it, a lot of rubbish in it is stolen?

I'm not as interested in the actual cache either as much as I am the location, but putting out a cache is part of the game. It is a tragedy when you take the time and effort to do things for other people to enjoy and stupid cache thieves ruin it for everyone.

[+kone]

I would figure that most individuals that are interested in stealing caches will be immature teenagers. Teenagers in general are lazy. So at least putting a mandatory login to be able to view co-ords sounds like a good idea to me. I mean, people who want to geocache should have no problem with this. As has been said by others, the determined theif can't be stopped. But the extra effort required to see co-ords will stop casual theives. That is worth it.

 

PS - my wife is a high-school teacher and she has told her kids about geocaching... some of the immediate responses from the guys were "i wanna get a gps so i can go steal them, he he".

Edited May 10, 2004 by kone

[+bons]

But the extra effort required to see co-ords will stop casual theives.  That is worth it.

The extra effort will also stop casual geocachers and people who simply don't want to create accounts (my 70 year old parents who are addicted to geocaching leap to mind).

 

The loss of those people from the community isn't worth it in my opinion. You don't seem to value them but I do.

 

If you want your cache to be protected by this method, you can already do that by making it a members-only cache. But I strongly disagree with any suggestion that my caches should be limited to mandatory log-in because of a problem in your area with your cachers.

 

And really, how much extra effort is it to make a throwaway account when a theif already has to make the effort of getting the GPS, traveling to the cache, and finding the dang thing. It's not that hard to make an account. That's the easiest thing on the to do list. Especially for the generation you're accusing. Other people from older generations tend be a lot more leary of accounts and records. Teenagers have a lot less fear and confusion when it comes to the internet.

 

PS - my wife is a high-school teacher and she has told her kids about geocaching... some of the immediate responses from the guys were "i wanna get a gps so i can go steal them, he he".

Unfortunately that says a lot more about your town than it says about the children. Someone had to raise them. I wonder if anyone did. I wonder if anyone even bothered.

[+Renegade Knight]

No caches, no cachers. Nobody is trying to stop 70 year old parents from enjoying the game. But people do have an interest in having the caches they do place be found by cachers and not cache maggots.

[+bons]

The difference is, what people are trying to do and what they will manage to accomplish are often two different things. It wasn't that long ago that someone was complaining in the TB forum because their suggestion was implemented.

 

I realize that someone in your area is stealing caches RK. And I agree that your area needs to find a way to get a grip on the situation. If this means that every cache in your area is de-activated and moved to a new location as a members-only cache, then I can understand that. (Existing caches are already archived by google. Anything you do to them, be it mandatory membership or MOC would be pointless).

 

But whatever "solution" you propose, I want it to be a local solution to a local problem. I don't want it to be a worldwide solution for two reasons:

1) It's not a worldwide problem.

2) I want proof that it works before I'm saddled with it.

 

Now I realize that mandatory membership doesn't bother many people here, simply because they think it doesn't affect them. Since they're members already and since they use automatic logins, geocaching as they know it won't be changed.

 

I believe it will. And I believe it will for the worse. I believe that less people will look for my caches. I belive that will mean less people discover they like the sport enough to hide caches. And I believe it won't do squat to protect your caches since someone on subigo's forum offered to send him complete MemberOnlyCache pocket queries.

 

You have a members-only flag already. Use it. Prove that it works. Prove that it even makes a difference before you start suggesting that we need to limit who has access to everyone's caches, not just your own.

[+kone]

For site critical questions like this maybe a member voting system should be implemented. Allow all senior members (ones with many finds/hides listed) cast a vote. I'm just an extreme newbie here so my opinion doesn't count for much yet.

[+Renegade Knight]

For site critical questions like this maybe a member voting system should be implemented. Allow all senior members (ones with many finds/hides listed) cast a vote. I'm just an extreme newbie here so my opinion doesn't count for much yet.

Your opinion is as good as anyones. Especially if you are agreeing with me.

[MOCKBA]

This thread goes on for days and I haven't figured out yet what specific problem affects our Idaho friends. Isn't it important to study the characteristics of the crime in order to prevent it? Or are you, RK, just looking for protection from a totally hypothetical crime wave?

 

Random finders take caches. Beginner cachers do. Well-established cachers do it, too. Caches have been stollen from owners' front yards. Caches have been stolen by primium members. For kicks, for swag, for a personal vendetta.

 

You gotta understand the motives and the methods to develop an efficient prevention and protection techniques.

 

And I would like to know about the magnitude of your specific problem, too. Is the sky really falling? Do we really need to poison the atmosphere with the total suspicion and security overhaul?

 

I need a detailed crime report, please.

[+PandyBat]

But the extra effort required to see co-ords will stop casual theives.  That is worth it.

The extra effort will also stop casual geocachers and people who simply don't want to create accounts (my 70 year old parents who are addicted to geocaching leap to mind).

 

The loss of those people from the community isn't worth it in my opinion. You don't seem to value them but I do.

 

You can't order from ebay or amazon without an account, right? Half the newspaper websites request that you create an account just to view the news. I'm not so sure that taking into consideration the people who just refuse to create an account somewhere is a good enough excuse for people not to have to register to see the co-ords either. It's not like GC.com asks for your credit card information as part of registration. Most places just a name and email address is required.

I still believe that if people truly want to geocache, they'll register at a website in order to get the information they need to do it.

Why are we so worried about the people that don't fully participate by not logging their caches, participating in the forums or paying the site for the premium membership? They might as well be ghosts to this site. They might as well go out and steal caches. Nothing even to the slightest degree is being done to prevent them from doing so.

[+cachew nut]

The extra effort will also stop casual geocachers and people who simply don't want to create accounts (my 70 year old parents who are addicted to geocaching leap to mind).

Sounds like a local problem. Their addiction or lack of account does not affect geocaching in my area.

[janx]

I'm a registered user. I'm not a premium member. I also don't wreck caches.

 

I look at all sorts of caches in my area. And some caches in other areas that people link funny stories to.

 

What keeps me from doing bad things to caches that you can control from this site?

 

That I viewed a cache? That's not proof.

 

I log my finds. Wouldn't a bad guy log some, and wreck others?

 

If I were a premium member, I could find and wreck premium sites. Heck, I could even report them as DNFs.

 

If I was smart, I'd find some caches, and report others as DNFs. I'd even time some of my DNFs to be after some one else.

 

Why would I do this? Who knows the mind of a bad guy. They go through a lot of work playing their own game.

 

Anyway, I don't do any of these bad things. But bad people do, and there's not a lot you can do to stop it, without making this site less friendly. Heck, if most caches were Premium, then my hometown of 55760 would be even sparser than 17 caches in 100 miles.

 

I'd rather see this site offer more reasons to go Premium. Basically, all new features should be part of Premium. Keep the basics running, but anything newer and cooler should be a premium feature.

 

Or consider what sites like enworld.org and realmworx.com do. Both are fan-sites run on user contributions. They have large user bases (possibly larger than geocaching.com). And they do well financially.

 

So give me some goodies to go premium...

Janx

[+cachew nut]

I'm a registered user. I'm not a premium member. I also don't wreck caches.

Of course not, why should you? You registered here so that you can play the game like the rest of us. If you didn't want to be a part of the community then you would not have registered.

 

This website is like a community, you may even remember how it won a webby in the community category. The community hides caches for other members of the community.

 

Frankly if you don't want to join the community, then you are a virtual geocacher as far as I'm concerned. Virtual caches for the virtual geocachers!

[+cachew nut]

If you want your cache to be protected by this method, you can already do that by making it a members-only cache.

How do you propose non-premium members find that members only cache?

 

Should they email a premium member to get the coordinates?

 

And once they found it, how would they log it online?

[+bons]

If you want your cache to be protected by this method, you can already do that by making it a members-only cache.

How do you propose non-premium members find that members only cache?

How do you propose that non-members find any caches after your proposed change is implemented? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't care if non-members are allowed to find caches.

And once they found it, how would they log it online?

If they want to log it online, they can pay for it. I don't see that as being any different of an attitude than your "if they want to look for it they need to register". There are people who don't want to pay. There are people who don't want to register. Forcing people to do one or the other doesn't strike me as having a big difference. You're still forcing people to do something that they don't want to do. It just happens to be something you don't mind doing so it doesn't affect you directly.

 

There's one difference between your proposal and mine. My proposal gives all cache owners the right to choose. Yours doesn't. Now if Jeremy want to add a "registered accounts only" option along with the "members only" option, I have no problem with that. But I am seriously opposed to public access to my cache being changed without my consent.

[+cachew nut]

If you want your cache to be protected by this method, you can already do that by making it a members-only cache.

How do you propose non-premium members find that members only cache?

How do you propose that non-members find any caches after your proposed change is implemented? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't care if non-members are allowed to find caches.

They can register on the site and become active participants in the community. It costs nothing to do this. Why would you say I don't care about them? They would still be able to enjoy virtual and locationless caches without a login, and then register to find physical caches when they are ready to become a community member.

 

I used the term "virtual geocacher", but RK's "cache maggots" description is probably more accurate. They are essentially "welfare recipients" of the efforts the community. Even welfare recipients need to be registered to receive their benefits.

 

These virtual geocachers take their pleasure and give nothing back. They won't share their experiences with the rest of the community. They are unable to alert the community if a cache has gone missing. They can't warn of any dangers at a cache location, or even email the cache owner. They screw up things up for travel bug owners by not logging their moves.

 

I seriously doubt that there are more than a handful of these maggots playing the game anyway, and I'm confident they would register if it was required. If they are smart enough to take coordinates off of a website and put them into a GPS, then I'm sure they can manage filling out a simple online form. All it does is identify them as a participating member of the community. If they don't want to be a community member, I don't feel that I owe them anything more than what I'm willing to share. They can go begging elsewhere.

 

If they want to log it online, they can pay for it. I don't see that as being any different of an attitude than your "if they want to look for it they need to register".

 

You don't? I don't believe you. You know that it doesn't cost anything to register as a member.

 

There's one difference between your proposal and mine. My proposal gives all cache owners the right to choose.

 

To hide a cache on the site, you agree to follow the rules on the site. So if registration was mandatory, you would have your right to choose between following the rules or not. Now, lets look at your proposal:

 

If this means that every cache in your area is de-activated and moved to a new location as a members-only cache, then I can understand that.

 

So you think that forcing everybody to pay in order to play is better than requiring a login? Remember that members only caches are only for paying members. If we follow your model, than the cache maggots would not only need to register, they would also need to pay to find those caches, and if they only want to find caches that are free, they I should think that virtual and locationless caches should satisfy them. I don't think we will hear any complaints from them.

 

I also think it's pretty selfish to be so unconcerned with the rest of the community. This wouldn't be such a hot topic if there wasn't concern. Just because it hasn't affected you yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find a solution for those who are affected, and those who may be in the future.

 

Edit:typo

Edited May 11, 2004 by cachew nut

[+Renegade Knight]

...I used the term "virtual geocacher", but RK's "cache maggots" description is probably more accurate. They are essentially "welfare recipients" of the efforts the community. Even welfare recipients need to be registered to receive their benefits...

Just to clarify.

 

Parasites are what I called people who don't log anywhere and essentially give nothing back to the community. Bon's parents probably (log the log book) and give back that way.

 

Cache maggots are cache thieves.

[+PandyBat]

These virtual geocachers take their pleasure and give nothing back. They won't share their experiences with the rest of the community. They are unable to alert the community if a cache has gone missing. They can't warn of any dangers at a cache location, or even email the cache owner. They screw up things up for travel bug owners by not logging their moves.

 

I agree. People that are not registered and don't participate in the community affect the game for all of us in some way.

[MOCKBA]

They are essentially "welfare recipients" of the efforts the community. Even welfare recipients need to be registered to receive their benefits.

These virtual geocachers take their pleasure and give nothing back. They won't share their experiences with the rest of the community.

careful here, OK?

In a single paragraph you manage to denigrate everybody ... the First Cacher who rarely logs any caches; the average slightly unsecure who wouldn't log DNFs; the nice unregistered cacher family who always trade up and leave nice paper logs; and of course welfare recipients as well.

From RK description of their local problem, it seems to be the work of a single disgruntled cacher with an agenda. I don't see how you can prevent this by purely technical data-access means. The better solutions must be more psychological ... give the poor guy his closure or leave one bored after a while, I dunno... Or find out who it is and appeal to shame ... the thief probably brags about one's exploits somehwhere?

Just to repeat our local observations: If I remember all the details right (it was mostly affecting easy-terrain caches the neighboring county, and it happened almost a year ago) we had a premium member stealing the caches, mostly from one's already-found list, including one large cache planted in the owner's front yard. Now how do you stop something like this?

[+Renegade Knight]

You can join the site and reserve your name and never log anything which would be the minimal type of membership. Most people who are computer illeterarte know someone who can get them that far. We are assuming that from there they have a means to look up caches input the coordinates into a GPS etc.

 

While some people may be parasites that is a completely different issue than having some simple easy bar to meet to be able to see caches to find to help minimize the problem of stolen caches.

[+Wreck Diver]

Right now anyone can look up a cache. To log online you have to be a member and certain benifits come with being a premium member (MOC for example)<BR><BR>Does anyone see an advantage of making it so that you had to be a member to see caches. Maybe there could be some special caches that people can designate for 'everyone' to newbies.<BR><BR>What I'm thinking of is reducing plunder of caches by the membership requirment.<BR><BR>What are your thoughts on this?

I think that the coordinates for caches should be hidden from casual observers and available only if you create an account and log on with a username and password.

 

This wouldn't seem an unreasonable request in order to protect geocaches from malicious outsiders because at present, you have to create an account, confirm the received e-mail, then log on to read posts in certain discussion groups.

 

The same restrictive principal is currently in effect for general members that try to view members-only caches.

 

If it is acceptable to prevent general members from seeing the listed coordinates for members-only caches, then it should be acceptable to prevent unregistered guests from seeing the listed coordinates for approved caches.

 

The discussion groups detail groups of caches being deliberately destroyed, sometimes after a cache has been moved to new coordinates.

 

If nothing else, make hidden cache coordinates a Premium Membership option because I would REALLY rather have the coordinates for my caches available ONLY to people that have created an account and confirmed their e-mail, not just a couple of teen-aged paintballers that saw it online and now consider it part of the mission.

[+bons]

So you think that forcing everybody to pay in order to play is better than requiring a login?

No. I think that forcing everyone to have to create an account is the wrong solution.

 

Let me sum up why I think it's wrong and what my proposal really is:

• I don't think it'll even stop casual theft. It won't stop theft from muggles. It won't stop theft from people who are comfortable with throw away accounts. In fact, there is only one class of people I see it as stopping theft from: Those people who don't want to be bothered creating an account.
  
• I do think it will stop some people from becoming geocachers. I believe that many members start out as non-members. They find their first cache. And then after having discovered that they have a good time they decide to register an account. In short, I believe that many people try before signing up and would not try unless they had to sign up first.
  
• I also think that non-members bring more people to the community. Once again, I'll point to my parents who are introducing people to geocaching. I believe that many of these people will become members and many of them will eventually become paying members.
  

In short. I see the end results as being a net loss for geocaching. Less members, less growth, and possibly more disgrunted people who take the whole membership thing the wrong way.

 

My proposal is as follows:

I'm all for Jeremy creating another flag, similar to the MOC flag that allows non-premium members to view the cache when logged on with all the traceability features. If anyone wants to do that with their cache before creating it (because let's be real, if it's in google now, it's too dang late) they have the CHOICE of doing that.

 

That way you can choose to do exactly what you want to force everyone to do. You can try it out in your local area and see if it makes a difference without forcing a change on the rest of us.

Edited May 11, 2004 by bons

[+kone]

Let me sum up why I think it's wrong and what my proposal really is:

 

    * I don't think it'll even stop casual theft. It won't stop theft from muggles. It won't stop theft from people who are comfortable with throw away accounts. In fact, there is only one class of people I see it as stopping theft from: Those people who don't want to be bothered creating an account.

    * I do think it will stop some people from becoming geocachers. I believe that many members start out as non-members. They find their first cache. And then after having discovered that they have a good time they decide to register an account. In short, I believe that many people try before signing up and would not try unless they had to sign up first.

    * I also think that non-members bring more people to the community. Once again, I'll point to my parents who are introducing people to geocaching. I believe that many of these people will become members and many of them will eventually become paying members.

 

I disagree with all these points...

 

My proposal is as follows:

I'm all for Jeremy creating another flag, similar to the MOC flag that allows non-premium members to view the cache when logged on with all the traceability features. If anyone wants to do that with their cache before creating it (because let's be real, if it's in google now, it's too dang late) they have the CHOICE of doing that.

 

Although I do completely agree with this. An optional flag for making you cache info hidden from a user until they do the free sign-up makes a lot of sense. I'm sure many would use this option.

[+bigredmed]

My proposal is as follows:

I'm all for Jeremy creating another flag, similar to the MOC flag that allows non-premium members to view the cache when logged on with all the traceability features. If anyone wants to do that with their cache before creating it (because let's be real, if it's in google now, it's too dang late) they have the CHOICE of doing that.

 

Although I do completely agree with this. An optional flag for making you cache info hidden from a user until they do the free sign-up makes a lot of sense. I'm sure many would use this option.

I would MOST assuredly use this type of flag on my caches.

 

I do think that membership should be encouraged and perhaps a lower membership that doesn't get all the features but can look at MOC's would be an option to help out those of us who can't afford the full membership price.

[+cachew nut]

I also think that non-members bring more people to the community. Once again, I'll point to my parents who are introducing people to geocaching. I believe that many of these people will become members and many of them will eventually become paying members.

As RK points out above, I'm not lumping bon's parents into the equation if in fact they are logging and trading etc.

 

I am concerned if they are introducing new people to the game and telling them that there is no reason to register, ie. look at us, we can't be bothered with registering so there's no need for you to do so either.

 

(because let's be real, if it's in google now, it's too dang late)

 

Not true, it just takes some action rather than inaction to get it done.

http://www.google.com/remove.html

[+beaulauber]

I have a solution.... Lock boxes with a satellite up link to the online database with a finger print recognition and a retina scanner. And for the prime spots there will also be a urine test, and blood test. Bet that will stop the casual thief

 

There is no way around it. I just signed up for premium membership. With that i hope to have new features and options over non-paying members. But even so i could still go plunder a cache if i wanted.

 

My point being people with a grudge would be hard to stop without the above bio-metrics solution.

 

 

Now i am wondering why i signed up to pay

Edited May 12, 2004 by beaulauber

[janx]

Free sign-up for an account does not solve anything.

 

I have free accounts on all sorts of sites. Some because I post on forums there, others because I wanted to see what was inside.

 

Yes, this site could log everything I see. And yes, it can block it from Google. Google does not cache pages, it catalogs them. You can have the URL to my cache, but I can code GC.com to not display anything unless you're logged in. But with perfect logging, you still don't have proof that I wrecked your cache. And that makes it useless to go through that effort.

 

I'm a software architect. I make web-apps that are in some ways more complex than this site. And I have to keep the information secure. If I don't see a practical technical solution to the problem, you can be reasonably assured that there isn't one.

 

Tightening up security access turns people away. It's a fact. People with basic needs want easy access (which means I browse to the info, I see it qith no hassle).

 

I am pretty confident that a cache-wrecker without an account would be comfortable with making an account so he can continue finding and wrecking caches. I would also suspect that a high percentage of cache-wreckers do have an account so they can see the forums, and because they were normal GeoCachers before they went bad.

 

Janx

[+Wreck Diver]

If you want to test drive a car, you're required to show a driver's license so that the dealership knows who they are providing access to.

 

I lock the doors to my home, my vehicle, and my station when they are unattended. In the long run, it may not prevent a motivated or determined felon from gaining access, but it may discourage them.

 

An unlocked door might well serve as an invitation, however.

 

Delaying access to exact coordinates until there's some means of knowing who is inquiring seems a common sense precaution.

 

Why there is argument about it is beyond me.

[janx]

This thread demonstrates that "members" are capable of cache-wrecking

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=70940#

 

I wouldn't say that the people making the comments about wrecking a cache would do so. But there are likely to be real people to take offense at somebody else's action, and to go out and wreck their cache.

 

All it takes is Member A to do something that offends Member B.

 

Member B then goes out and wrecks Member A's caches.

 

Janx

[CoyoteRed]

I think we're talking about the new comer who thinks it cool to raid caches. There would be absolutely no way to stop a cacher who turns bad.

 

A cacher that has cached out his area and has a decent memory could probably pick up a pickup truck full of caches in a single night. Do it again the next night and then wait a month or two. A few hundred caches could be gone just like that. But that's not what we're talking about.

 

What we are talking about is the casual thief. Non-throwaway email accounts, multi-tiered permissions, minimum membership durations all can be used to slow down a thief without hurting the rest of the members.

[+GeoBlank]

I think that hiding maps and coords if you are not signed in is not a bad idea.

Joe Badguy who wants to be a pain but does not have a GPS can still get too close to caches with the information posted.

 

Of course the person who creates a dummy email account will be able to see those details, but at least there is a few steps in the road and he must follow up and activate the account from the initial mail. So like some sites where you can put in someone else's account, we have that validation step.

 

I think showing the cache description is not bad but the coords and the maps and logs should be hidden.

 

We want to market to newcomers but not exposes too much without getting them to get a real account.

[+CrimsonWrath]

If you want to test drive a car, you're required to show a driver's license so that the dealership knows who they are providing access to.

 

I lock the doors to my home, my vehicle, and my station when they are unattended.  In the long run, it may not prevent a motivated or determined felon from gaining access, but it may discourage them. 

...

I don't see the benefit to knowing who has viewed your cache page. If your car is parked on the street and fifty people walk by remarking how muddy your Jeep is, how is any one of those people responsible in any way for the theft of the car? Granted someone must "look" at the car to steal it. Unfortunately, identies are can be easily created.

 

Since you cannot identify the thief from a list of people who have viewed a cache page, how would that discourage anyone? There is no way to identify a felon short of some ID system around the perimiter of the cache.

 

...

Delaying access to exact coordinates until there's some means of knowing who is inquiring seems a common sense precaution.

 

Why there is argument about it is beyond me.

Pocket queries are one example. These queries run and return the results for a wide range of results. Should all of these results be blocked until individual access is granted? Seems like an awful lot of programming work to get an incomplete answer since there is no proof that a viewer is a thief.

[+cachew nut]

Pocket queries are one example.

The website does not make pocket queries available to virtual geocachers or basic members. It is a premium member option.

[+CrimsonWrath]

Pocket queries are one example.

The website does not make pocket queries available to virtual geocachers or basic members. It is a premium member option.

Yup!

 

So, when a (premium) member is getting data via a pocket query, their identity is known and therefore they get to see the data? Sounds reasonable, but that ...

Seems like an awful lot of programming work to get an incomplete answer since there is no proof that a viewer is a thief.

 

I think janx sums up my position best:

Tightening up security access turns people away. It's a fact. People with basic needs want easy access (which means I browse to the info, I see it qith no hassle).

 

All of the ideas mentioned here have some merit, but turning away potential thieves who are too lazy to set up a sock puppet will probably turn away more upstanding geocitizens.

[+Wreck Diver]

All of the ideas mentioned here have some merit, but turning away potential thieves who are too lazy to set up a sock puppet will probably turn away more upstanding geocitizens.

I think the presence or absence of actual coordinates would be negligable so far as upstanding geocitizens are concerned.

 

Their interest should be cultured via cache description, hints, previous logs, and previous finders image files.

 

My request is that primarily listed coordinates be hidden until login. Maps of the general area could still be presented offering the opportunity to search sans GPS. An interested but undecided geocacher could still search for the cache without the electronic aids, and their success (or failure) might prove further motivation to create an account.

 

The inventor of "The Club" is immeasurably wealthy now, not because The Club is a guarantee or because it is impossible to circumvent, but because it forces the additional efforts and expenditure of time (60 seconds to hacksaw a steering wheel) that car thieves can't be bothered to continue to try and circumvent.

 

If those that choose ill will wish so, they will put the effort in regardless of the countermeasure.

 

But there's no need to offer it as a dangling carrot for even the most unmotivated of miscreants.

[+bons]

I lock the doors to my home, my vehicle, and my station when they are unattended.  In the long run, it may not prevent a motivated or determined felon from gaining access, but it may discourage them.

And if you lock yourself out of your house or your car how long do you expect the locksmith to take opening it for you? Is there some reason to think he can do it but no one else can?

 

An unlocked door might well serve as an invitation, however.

And apparently we shouldn't want to invite anyone to geocache. That might give people the wrong impression.

 

Delaying access to exact coordinates until there's some means of knowing who is inquiring seems a common sense precaution.

Adopting a practice designed to discourage new cachers normally doesn't meet my defination of "sense".

 

Why there is argument about it is beyond me.

Because I want the right to choose what security features are placed on my cache listing. I don't want something I consider pointless and detrimental forced on me.

 

The inventor of "The Club" is immeasurably wealthy now, not because The Club is a guarantee or because it is impossible to circumvent, but because it forces the additional efforts and expenditure of time (60 seconds to hacksaw a steering wheel) that car thieves can't be bothered to continue to try and circumvent.

No. It doesn't take nearly that long with the right equipment. He's rich because people give him money for a false sense of security. And in my opinion, that's what's being proposed here, a false sense of security.

 

Do what you want to on your caches. Use the MOC flag. Have Jeremy spend his time making a new flag for registed members instead of the other site updates. It's your cache and you can do what you want with it. But if you're suggesting that friends I haven't met yet can't see my information without meeting your approval process then I have to disagree with you.

[+Wreck Diver]

I don't see the benefit to knowing who has viewed your cache page. If your car is parked on the street and fifty people walk by remarking how muddy your Jeep is, how is any one of those people responsible in any way for the theft of the car? Granted someone must "look" at the car to steal it. Unfortunately, identies are can be easily created.

 

Since you cannot identify the thief from a list of people who have viewed a cache page, how would that discourage anyone? There is no way to identify a felon short of some ID system around the perimiter of the cache.

To clarify, I have never expressed an interest in knowing who has viewed my cache page. As you said, you cannot identify the thief from a list of people who have viewed a cache page.

 

Tracking the cache page views would be a tremendous waste of bandwidth and circumstantial at best.

 

My aspiration and expectation is that the caches that I've invested time, effort, money, and a tremendous amout of research time will have rudimentary protection.

 

Cachers spend four dollars for a travel bug and a basic expectation is that others will not reveal the travel bug numbers. Should that expectation be violated, innocently or not, aggravation results.

 

Four dollars doesn't even cover a traditional sized Rubbermaid container, last time I checked. Expense aside, a compromised cache and the preventable loss of a log book is heartbreaking.

 

Providing actual coordinates without login is an inherently exploitable and preventable security flaw that seems the equivolent of putting my unshredded bank statements or credit card invoices in the curbside trash.

[+PandyBat]

Ok....so I guess the only way for me to protect my cache then is to make it a members only cache. Chances are cache thieves aren't going to pay for a membership to raid caches. They want something for nothing and I don't fathom many of them would pay to get coordinates. Then I also wouldn't have to worry about a non-member seeing the coords to my cache either and not sharing their experiences with the rest of the community. I would stand a better chance of a member logging in to report the status of the cache and their experience, which would be the part I would enjoy most about hiding a cache.

 

I'm a premium member, it's a benefit that I receive for being a premium member, so I might as well use it. I hate to have to do that to non-members, but if GC.com can't help stop it, then I'll have to take it upon myself to prevent my cache from going missing or being destroyed. I may not have as many people find my cache as they would if it was an open cache, but it would almost guarantee that if I spent the money put a nice cache out there, it will be there for a while. I can live with the low find ratio. A members only cache seems to be the only solution I have available to stop the cache thieves or at least slow them down a bit.

 

Is that what it's going to come to?? I don't want to see an abundance of members only caches either because I realize there are some people out there that can't afford to become a premium member. I can't really afford it either but I scraped up enough to do it because I feel like I am giving back to the site that helped me immensely in getting started in this great hobby. I don't think it's going to grow much as a community if everyone started placing members only caches to secure the safety of their caches, but it could very well come to that someday because people will get tired of their caches being messed with and having no other alternative available to stop it.

 

I'm not worried about those geocachers that don't participate with the rest of the community because they are not members. They don't contribute anything to the game anyway. They don't hide caches, they don't log caches, most probably don't attend events and most probably don't CITO. Why make accomodations for them to be able to play when they aren't giving back in any shape or form? I'm more concerned with keeping the members that we have now by making things better for everyone to continue playing. It's those members that contribute the most whether they pay for membership or participate in other ways by logging caches.

 

How about, if someone wants to check out geocaching to see if they like it before creating an account or becoming a contributing member, then they can go to a page that gives them 10 or so of different variations from cache listings in their state. If they get through them, they should have a pretty good idea whether they want to continue doing it and become a member to get more coords.

 

I understand that making people log in before getting coords will not stop the cache thieves completely. I can't think of a solid solution to all this either. But there must be something that can be done, no matter how small of a step it is towards prevention.

[+bons]

Tangent:

 

At them moment I can think of 4 caches I've seen with combination locks on them. On all 4 caches, the combination is/was on the site. Of these four, two have gone missing. Of the two, neither one had the lock opened via the combination. That leads me to think that of the two caches deliberately stolen, neither was taken by people who found the co-ordinates via the website (otherwise they would have copied the combination along with the co-ordinates).

 

So, what is everyone else's experience with combination locks with the combination posted on the site? When a cache with a combination lock goes missing or has the contents taken does it appear that the combination was used or that the lock was bypassed/broken.

[janx]

Bear in mind, I joined GC.com over a year ago.

 

I started caching 6 months ago when I got a GPS. Which is also when I started posting basically.

 

So clearly, I don't mind filing for an account. I would hazard that there are plenty of other people who don't care either way. If the site made them login first, to see a cache, they would.

 

Once that occurs as a constant, then 90% of the non-members will likely become members. Out of that population of "new" members, there will be the cache-wreckers.

 

You will effectively be right where you started, except worse, because the remaining users who decided not to join, will also likely be the folks who don't want to bother getting a membership (even if its free). We will effectively be turning them away. We're talking the geo-grandma's and the like who are lucky to know how to surf the web, let alone wanting to get a new-fangled account. I don't care what they contribute to the e-community. They contribute to the world by being there. Doing their thing. And maybe they'll spread the word to others, and those others will get accounts.

 

The point is, you won't stop the bad guys, so the benefit is minimal.

 

Janx