Mandatory email validation

[+Bogart and Bacall]

My suggestion is that an account that hasn't verified their email address be allowed to search for caches, find them physically, but not log the find until their email is verified. I have just deleted several logs on a few of our hides, waiting to see what happens.

 

I don't think you should be doing this. It's a violation of the guidelines and oversteps the bounds of your responsibilities as a cache owner. If someone found your cache and signed the log, they are entitled to log the find. It matters not that you don't approve of their style of logging or that they have not validated their email address. Even if they never visit the site and never know the difference, it's not your call.

 

Besides, if they stick around for awhile and become "proper" Geocachers they will eventually check their stats and it's not fair that you deleted some of their finds when they were just starting out.

[+Bogart and Bacall]

We have put a disclaimer on all our cache hides. 'Anyone logging this cache without a validated email address will have their log deleted.' So I think we have this covered. B&B.

[+Walts Hunting]

We have put a disclaimer on all our cache hides. 'Anyone logging this cache without a validated email address will have their log deleted.' So I think we have this covered. B&B.

You can try that but it won't hold up. If the log is signed the log is valid. Besides do you really want to spend time going to all the profiles to see if it is validated. Seems like a waste of time to me.

[7rxc]

But "revalidation" will cause many Groundspeak members to lose access, because they just plain never get email from GS for various reasons.

I don't see this as a bad thing. If a member can't be bothered to click a link in an email or take a few minutes to properly configure their email, how can we trust them to take the time to properly rehide a cache or maintain their hides?

 

It isn't always the members' fault. Remember that Comcast blocks email from Groundspeak to many users because GS gets too many bounce backs. (check out this thread: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=314431 )

 

They had it fixed for about a month earlier this year, but until GS figures out how to cull the bad addresses to stay below the Comcast threshold, this will remain a problem.

 

The 'bad addresses' are part of what revalidation would be helping with. Validation for the initial address to unlock the site for coordinates and services like the newsletter. Revalidation for people who have switched email addresses or providers over the years.

 

Wasn't too far back that the ISP's would demand an email update just to stay in touch for their billing statements... at least where I was living. Times have changed I guess, I don't see that any more, but I do have to log in to many websites (photo storage) or email provider sites like Hotmail.com to maintain my service. Not sure what the current limit is these days, but it was something like 60 to 90 days when I started there.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+ecanderson]

It isn't always the members' fault. Remember that Comcast blocks email from Groundspeak to many users because GS gets too many bounce backs. (check out this thread: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=314431 )

As I started that thread, I'll toss in my 2 cents. That impacts only the newsletter (different server). All other email to Comcast users (notifications of new caches, email from other members initiated through Groundspeak, etc.) has continued to function normally. As for the newsletter, they've moved that function to a server with a better rep at Comcast, and that's working for now, but we'll see how long it holds up. No reason to suspect that the same issue won't reoccur if they don't get the mailing list cleaned up further.

[jholly]

It isn't always the members' fault. Remember that Comcast blocks email from Groundspeak to many users because GS gets too many bounce backs. (check out this thread: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=314431 )

As I started that thread, I'll toss in my 2 cents. That impacts only the newsletter (different server). All other email to Comcast users (notifications of new caches, email from other members initiated through Groundspeak, etc.) has continued to function normally. As for the newsletter, they've moved that function to a server with a better rep at Comcast, and that's working for now, but we'll see how long it holds up. No reason to suspect that the same issue won't reoccur if they don't get the mailing list cleaned up further.

and my two cents,

 

When you look at the members profile and you note that email is not available because the email address has not been validated I don't think you can put the blame on comcast.

[+Walts Hunting]

No the blame isn't comcast. It clearly lies with the allowing of unvalidated email accounts. That is what creates the bounce backs. We do need to remember that this is a business and raising the bar for new customers can have an adverse impact on bottom line.

[+Mike in FN20hc]

Thank you, ecanderson for pointing out the server issue, and explaining about the newsletter. I was not trying to blame Comcast for anything (it isn't their fault GS wasn't dealing with the problem of bounces), just to point out one explanation for people not getting email from Groundspeak, and suggest there might be others. People may not even know they have a problem. I hadn't noticed the newsletter stopped, because when it happened I was still a noob and the newsletter was not something I had come to expect regularly. It was ecanderson's thread which pointed it out to me.

 

I am all for mandatory, and periodic, email verification. I suspect any solution will have to be fully automated, as anything requiring hands-on intervention will get short shrift at HQ. Based on what Lackeys have said on these forums, their IT department is woefully understaffed for the amount of things that require regular maintenance, not to mention development.

[+ecanderson]

Understood. I was just assuring Comcast users here that the only email they should have been missing is the newsletter.

 

That said - back the idea of validation. As 7rxc notes, "The 'bad addresses' are part of what revalidation would be helping with." gc.com's servers know if any problem related to an undeliverable message is of their own doing or whether it's due to an invalid email address. Comcast's (and other) servers clearly define whether the mail is being rejected due to server reputation issues or an unrecognized email address. However, in the case of addresses that are unrecognized by the host mail server, gc.com needs to be pro-active about dealing with those else they once again wind up with a lousy server reputation on whatever server is performing the validation. It would seem that the problem with the server that was previously pumping out the newsletter is that when mail bounced back from the cacher's mail host due to invalid accounts, that information was not being well used to kill off the dead accounts at gc.com.

 

In either case, the problem was of gc.com's own making, can be resolved there, and should not be used as ammunition to shoot down a verification system. I'm definitely on board with the idea of implementing one.

 

Of course, there's still no way to know if a cacher has simply abandoned an old email address, and dropped out of the system altogether. When that happens, the mail is getting delivered, but there's nobody home. The alternative is that a cacher moves to a new email address, abandons the old one, and forgets to update that address at gc.com. There's no way at all that anyone, let alone gc.com, will ever be able to know if an address is actually still any good for contacting a member unless the member is obligated to reply to the email. Closing that loop is the only way it will work. So a user who switches email accounts had jolly better remember to change it here, just as would be true at any other site.

[team tisri]

Of course, there's still no way to know if a cacher has simply abandoned an old email address, and dropped out of the system altogether. When that happens, the mail is getting delivered, but there's nobody home. The alternative is that a cacher moves to a new email address, abandons the old one, and forgets to update that address at gc.com. There's no way at all that anyone, let alone gc.com, will ever be able to know if an address is actually still any good for contacting a member unless the member is obligated to reply to the email. Closing that loop is the only way it will work. So a user who switches email accounts had jolly better remember to change it here, just as would be true at any other site.

 

Requiring a reply to an email would create another potential issue if the reply disappeared for some reason.

 

It should be fairly straightforward to have a process that sent an email out once a year that required the user to click a link to confirm the email had been received. If the user didn't click the link they'd get a couple of reminders and if they still hadn't reactivated after maybe a month they wouldn't be able to access any caches until they had confirmed a valid email address.

 

Whether GS have the inclination to impose such a restriction on app users is another matter, and the track record so far suggests not.

[Jayme H]

We have put a disclaimer on all our cache hides. 'Anyone logging this cache without a validated email address will have their log deleted.' So I think we have this covered. B&B.

Please refrain from deleting legit found logs from unvalidated e-mail addresses. This is against our ToU, for the reasons stated below:

• Violate any of the guidelines or policies associated with our services.
  
• Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy our services.
  
• Stalk, harass, or otherwise harm another user of our services, Groundspeak employee or third party.
  

If there is an unvalidated user that you would like to contact, please send the username to us via the HelpCenter and we will help solve the issue for you. We know that this is problem and are currently re-working the validation process on the apps and website. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting other users' found logs on the basis that their account is unvalidated.

[+The A-Team]

We know that this is problem and are currently re-working the validation process on the apps and website. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting other users' found logs on the basis that their account is unvalidated.

I think people have been resorting to log deletion out of frustration due to lack of action or acknowledgement of the problem by Groundspeak. Your post is the first official acknowledgement of the problem I've seen, so thanks for letting us know you're aware of it. Personally, if I were prioritizing things to deal with, this would be right near the top of the list below the long-standing time zone issue, but I'm not in charge of prioritization here and there may be other back-end issues that are worse. Please just know that this is causing real problems for both cache owners and finders and is getting worse by the day.

 

I'm glad to hear you're working on it.

[Jayme H]

Thanks for the understanding, A-Team. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we hadn't acknowledged this issue as one that needed to be addressed. We read through so many threads here that sometimes I think that I've responded to some topic when in fact, I haven't.

 

Yep, we are officially working on this one.

[+niraD]

I think people have been resorting to log deletion out of frustration due to lack of action or acknowledgement of the problem by Groundspeak.

Well, and when you think about it, if a cache owner needs to communicate with a finder with an unvalidated email address, there aren't many options other than log deletion available.

[Blue Square Thing]

I think people have been resorting to log deletion out of frustration due to lack of action or acknowledgement of the problem by Groundspeak.

Well, and when you think about it, if a cache owner needs to communicate with a finder with an unvalidated email address, there aren't many options other than log deletion available.

Although if someone can't manage to log in to the website in the first instance then deleting their log is unlikely to be communication in any sense is it?

 

It's good to hear that the issue is being addressed. Thank you GS for that.

[+paleolith]

I hope GC fixes this, but I decided not to wait any longer. Though I'm not aware of any case where I've been unable to contact someone, I've seen a number of logs on my caches where the user is "not validated", and that bothers me. Most of my caches are now PMO.

 

I'm saddened that I felt I had to take this step. When I first signed up, before I paid, I was offended at what I perceived as an attitude of "you can't see this even though you are a member". Partly my issue was that "always free" was a big talking point. (Haven't looked to see if it's still there.) If someone wanted, they could dredge up my posts on the matter.

 

In most cases, I don't care if someone has paid. I don't really care if they've validated an email address. But I want to be able to contact them, however that's done.

 

Edward

[LQ]

Must say, that I do agree with this suggestion, as I have seen way too many "never loged in - not validated" accounts logging caches. What could you for example do, when a travelbug goes missing after such a users visit to a cache? They might even mention in the cache log that they took something, but still have failed to learn how to log travellers properly.

 

I guess facebook and mobile-api users are the main issue here.

[+-CJ-]

This problem with unvalidated email addresses has been really annoying.

 

Containers that are taken away from their hiding places. Trackables disappearing in someone's pockets. Spoilers published in logs. Questions asked by newbies who think that logs are perfect place for asking their questions. Mysterious logs that look senseless. In a country where population doesn't know English well (and most articles/guidelines/help center pages are in English only) this problem is multiplied by 2.

 

I believe that this problem should not be left to COs. I currently have to put huge efforts into the development of the game in my area, place geocaches, translate descriptions, etc. - and I'm not even able to contact a large part of visitors. The ability to contact people who come to my geocaches is an essential part of their maintenance.

 

I looked through this thread and noticed that there have been several ideas of how this problem could be solved. Mandatory e-mail validation. Another level of access to geocaches (premium, verified, everyone). Private messaging system. I think it's time to do something about this big issue.

Edited June 4, 2014 by -CJ-

[+-CJ-]

As an example, yesterday I had to encrypt a text spoiler in a cache log posted to one of my geocaches. I would like to contact the newbie author and explain that logs aren't good for giving hints to other cachers) but his e-mail hasn't been validated.

 

Today I noticed he posted the same text once again. Still cannot contact him. Had to delete the log.

 

I don't want newbies to get insulted with encrypted or erased logs but I need to maintain my caches and take care of other players. Dear Groundspeak, if you prevent me from contacting a user by email, please explain how I could do this in any other way.

Edited June 6, 2014 by -CJ-

[+irisisleuk]

As an example, yesterday I had to encrypt a text spoiler in a cache log posted to one of my geocaches. I would like to contact the newbie author and explain that logs aren't good for giving hints to other cachers) but his e-mail hasn't been validated.

 

Today I noticed he posted the same text once again. Still cannot contact him. Had to delete the log.

 

I don't want newbies to get insulted with encrypted or erased logs but I need to maintain my caches and take care of other players. Dear Groundspeak, if you prevent me from contacting a user by email, please explain how I could do this in any other way.

 

Not being able to contact the geocacher is annoying and I hope this get fixed by Groundspeak soon.

 

In your case I would delete the log again, but would also post a (owner maintenance) note on the cache page addressing this cacher (and other cachers) that you had to delete a log because.... Also say you wouldn't have done this if the cacher had his e-mail validated (link available on profile), because you normally would have asked (via pm) to adjust the log, instead of deleting the entire log, but now this is impossible and you see no other solution.

 

I've seen some situations like this around here, and it seems to help a bit. Of course only with those cachers who want to continue caching, because they will notice their find is missing and will try to find out what happened. Of course lots of them only try it one day and then disappear with the trackables they have found, but those won't care about any log deletion.

[+-CJ-]

I thought about this variant but I'm not sure that logs are good place to sort out such questions. What if he/she wishes to post another log to answer? I will be forced to erase one more log and give another explanation...

[+niraD]

And here's another example of a problem with a non-validated member:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=323167

 

When there is a problem with a non-validated member, the only real options are to delete the logs (again and again and again if necessary) or to contact Groundspeak. And it isn't clear what Groundspeak can do if the user can just create another non-validated account.

[+niraD]

When there is a problem with a non-validated member, the only real options are to delete the logs (again and again and again if necessary) or to contact Groundspeak. And it isn't clear what Groundspeak can do if the user can just create another non-validated account.

I just had another non-validated member post spoiler Find logs. Fortunately, this member also posted several other Find logs that were not spoilers, so when I deleted the extras, I just needed to choose one of the non-spoiler logs to keep.

 

It would be nice to be able to offer confused newbies a little help, but the only way I can communicate with non-validated members is to delete or encrypt their logs.

[+Kasheuren]

I have for a number of years tried to help out newcomers into this marvellous hobby by trying to reply with enthusiasm and chearful thanks on log from cachers with very low Find count. I try to send a small hint, informing maybe on the existens of these forums and in general give a little positive something back for a Find log.

This has gotten real tricky since the problem with non validated email accounts since I can not contact them anymore in any way.

I do feel we have left these newcomeres on their own, left them trying to find the information they may need (not always so easy since there is so much information available on geocaching these days).

I would very much continue to be a part of a helpful Community and I would therefore be very happy if it would be possible to communicate with all other geocachers, especially newcomers, somehow again. As someone said, the way we do this is not important, as long as there is a way to reach them.

Thanks in advance!

Bernt, Sweden

[+J Grouchy]

Sheesh...I just had to delete several duplicate logs on a cache I adopted. The cacher posted the same log three times and I deleted two and left the first. Then he posted a fourth log with different wording, which I assume was because the original log commented on the cache location and maybe he thought I was offended. I would have HAPPILY emailed him to explain why I deleted them, but could not because - of course - he does not have a validated email account.

 

So I deleted that fourth log and posted a note about it on the cache page. I guess now I'll see if he is paying attention...

[+Ma & Pa]

I assume that having people start logging finds with their smart phones without coming to the website can cause this problem

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=45569df2-38a7-4db3-805e-84b30f9b7fca

[+wesi]

I assume that having people start logging finds with their smart phones without coming to the website can cause this problem

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=45569df2-38a7-4db3-805e-84b30f9b7fca

 

Well hey, at least you have the option to (Give a Gift Membership) to poor unverified francis

 

I suspect this mess is just another chapter of the Grand Plan. N00bs buying 10$ apps that they only use once. And seasoned cachers who, exasperated, mark their caches as "Premium Members Only" to weed out the noise, and by doing so, keep the premium member income stream alive.

 

Maybe Facebock acquired Groundfrog, and we just weren't told yet? Would explain a lot.

 

.

[+ZSandmann]

So no movement on this issue since May? I've started moving all my caches to PMO to combat this issue I guess I will have to continue to do so.

[+MAntunes]

So no movement on this issue since May? I've started moving all my caches to PMO to combat this issue I guess I will have to continue to do so.

 

That's the "Big Plan"!

[+Bear and Ragged]

I assume that having people start logging finds with their smart phones without coming to the website can cause this problem

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=45569df2-38a7-4db3-805e-84b30f9b7fca

 

Relative of this guy, but spelt his name wrong... Dennis Pennis

 

(Hope he doesn't struggle too much, when he logs TFTC! )

[team tisri]

So no movement on this issue since May? I've started moving all my caches to PMO to combat this issue I guess I will have to continue to do so.

 

With this solution (and it's easy to see why people would do this) it's hard to see how it will help the cashflow. If people migrate their caches to multis/puzzles/PMO it just means that the new people signing up with the app really will have little beyond a few soggy film pots behind posts to look for. I'd have thought that would make them less likely, rather than more likely, to pay for the full app or a premium membership.

 

Unless the marketing is going to be "give us $30 and you can find some other caches and they're actually worth taking the time to find, honest".

[+Ma & Pa]

I assume that having people start logging finds with their smart phones without coming to the website can cause this problem

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=45569df2-38a7-4db3-805e-84b30f9b7fca

 

Well hey, at least you have the option to (Give a Gift Membership) to poor unverified francis

 

I suspect this mess is just another chapter of the Grand Plan. N00bs buying 10$ apps that they only use once. And seasoned cachers who, exasperated, mark their caches as "Premium Members Only" to weed out the noise, and by doing so, keep the premium member income stream alive.

 

Maybe Facebock acquired Groundfrog, and we just weren't told yet? Would explain a lot.

 

.

 

Just noticed that Francis made the common mistake of unverified members. He has 3 finds because he logged one cache twice.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+JJnTJ]

A new cacher with an unverified email address recently wrote a whole bunch of "Found It" logs consisting only of blatant hide spoilers. One CO with a tricky hide deleted the logs on his caches because he had no means of contacting the cacher to request he edit his logs.

 

People should not be allowed to pollute cache pages without even the possibility of anonymized contact with other cachers.

 

Email validation should be mandatory.

[+Kasheuren]

I would be very interested in reading any official statement on the strategy of allowing inverified users. I can not really understand the rational behind it and I am very fond of understanding things. Anyone read anything official?

[+Gill & Tony]

My son runs a technology forum. Membership is free, but a real, paid e-mail address is required. Gmail, hotmail etc. are not accepted. This enables him to refer complaints about posts to the ISP who have a real mailing address.

 

If a one-man band with no employees can do this, surely Groundspeak could do something similar.

[+MartyBartfast]

I would be very interested in reading any official statement on the strategy of allowing inverified users. I can not really understand the rational behind it and I am very fond of understanding things. Anyone read anything official?

 

I believe it's because they're moving more towards the app users, and away from browser/website users. For the app they want to provide "instant gratification", the punter sees an app in the app store, clicks to download it, and is ready to go; introducing an Email & verification before they can get started will put some people off the app - and that's lost revenue for GS. If I'm right then you're not likely to see an official statement because "We care more about our $$$$ than our members" doesn't sound good.

 

If a one-man band with no employees can do this, surely Groundspeak could do something similar.

 

They could, but they choose not to.

[+J Grouchy]

My son runs a technology forum. Membership is free, but a real, paid e-mail address is required. Gmail, hotmail etc. are not accepted. This enables him to refer complaints about posts to the ISP who have a real mailing address.

 

If a one-man band with no employees can do this, surely Groundspeak could do something similar.

 

If Gmail or other such email services were no longer valid, membership here would drop to almost nothing. Gmail is my primary personal email. I suppose I have an email address with my ISP, but I don't even know what it is and have no intention of ever using it. I would never allow my work email address to be used for such things.

[+thebruce0]

Seems this needs to be requoted as the thread was revived...

 

We know that this is problem and are currently re-working the validation process on the apps and website. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting other users' found logs on the basis that their account is unvalidated.

Yes it back from mid-May, but they know of the problem and are working on it.

Taking a long time but it's in the queue.

Edited October 7, 2014 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

My son runs a technology forum. Membership is free, but a real, paid e-mail address is required. Gmail, hotmail etc. are not accepted. This enables him to refer complaints about posts to the ISP who have a real mailing address.

 

If a one-man band with no employees can do this, surely Groundspeak could do something similar.

 

If Gmail or other such email services were no longer valid, membership here would drop to almost nothing. Gmail is my primary personal email. I suppose I have an email address with my ISP, but I don't even know what it is and have no intention of ever using it. I would never allow my work email address to be used for such things.

+1

I use hotmail for this site.

My personal email is known by family members and a few friends only.

There's a couple forum sites that wouldn't accept hotmail and since I couldn't enter anyway, figure it's nothing missed.

[+J Grouchy]

Seems this needs to be requoted as the thread was revived...

 

We know that this is problem and are currently re-working the validation process on the apps and website. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting other users' found logs on the basis that their account is unvalidated.

Yes it back from mid-May, but they know of the problem and are working on it.

Taking a long time but it's in the queue.

 

If their log is deleted, will they even receive an email about it?

 

As for the almost six month queue...well, I don't even need to comment about that, do I?

[+frinklabs]

As for the almost six month queue...well, I don't even need to comment about that, do I?

 

I do!

 

"The cake queue is a lie!" (from Portal)

 

Meanwhile, I see this as a missed win/win opportunity.

 

If they were to limit unvalidated users of the app to, say, 10 cache lookups then they could force validation. Then, they could limit validated but unpaid app users to, say, 25 more cache lookups. Then force them to pay to play.

 

They get their money and we get a reduction in untraceable problematic logs and cache visits.

[+Semper Questio]

By Jeremy's own word, they will never force pay-to-play, but I can certainly see an overall limit for an unvalidated user and a per day limit for an intro app user. If they want to go past the limit they can use the website or pay for the full app.

[+The A-Team]

If they were to limit unvalidated users of the app to, say, 10 cache lookups then they could force validation. Then, they could limit validated but unpaid app users to, say, 25 more cache lookups. Then force them to pay to play.

 

They get their money and we get a reduction in untraceable problematic logs and cache visits.

In your hypothetical situation, there would indeed be a reduction in anonymous users, but not an elimination. An anonymous user could still log those 10 caches with 10 (or more!) problematic logs.

 

It really isn't that hard for people to click on a link in an email, so they should be required to do so before being given access to any cache information.

[+NanCycle]

My son runs a technology forum. Membership is free, but a real, paid e-mail address is required. Gmail, hotmail etc. are not accepted. This enables him to refer complaints about posts to the ISP who have a real mailing address.

 

If a one-man band with no employees can do this, surely Groundspeak could do something similar.

 

If Gmail or other such email services were no longer valid, membership here would drop to almost nothing. Gmail is my primary personal email. I suppose I have an email address with my ISP, but I don't even know what it is and have no intention of ever using it. I would never allow my work email address to be used for such things.

 

I had to create a gmail account specifically for geocaching because my "real, paid email" (Comcast) would not let the newsletters through.

[team tisri]

If they were to limit unvalidated users of the app to, say, 10 cache lookups then they could force validation. Then, they could limit validated but unpaid app users to, say, 25 more cache lookups. Then force them to pay to play.

 

They get their money and we get a reduction in untraceable problematic logs and cache visits.

In your hypothetical situation, there would indeed be a reduction in anonymous users, but not an elimination. An anonymous user could still log those 10 caches with 10 (or more!) problematic logs.

 

It really isn't that hard for people to click on a link in an email, so they should be required to do so before being given access to any cache information.

 

... and since smartphone app users are presumably connecting to the internet using their phones it's not as if they can't get at their emails.

 

I don't see any need to disqualify hotmail/yahoo/gmail addresses. If someone is going to go to the trouble to set one up just to avoid giving away their "real" email address they're already talking about making an effort to get on board. It's not as if someone signing up just to steal caches and trackables is going to be put off by that extra hurdle, especially when you can register a domain for sufficiently little money they're all but disposable.

[+EngPhil]

It really isn't that hard for people to click on a link in an email, so they should be required to do so before being given access to any cache information.

Hear, hear. The app should then direct the user to check their mail and confirm their account before continuing.

 

The email could even give more info on the game to get the new user both more educated and, maybe, even more interested.

 

I don't see any need to disqualify hotmail/yahoo/gmail addresses. If someone is going to go to the trouble to set one up just to avoid giving away their "real" email address they're already talking about making an effort to get on board. It's not as if someone signing up just to steal caches and trackables is going to be put off by that extra hurdle, especially when you can register a domain for sufficiently little money they're all but disposable.

Absolutely agree. As long as it provides a mechanism to contact the user, it's sufficient -- there's no need to pass judgement on the worthiness of any given email provider.

[+terratin]

If they were to limit unvalidated users of the app to, say, 10 cache lookups then they could force validation. Then, they could limit validated but unpaid app users to, say, 25 more cache lookups. Then force them to pay to play.

 

They get their money and we get a reduction in untraceable problematic logs and cache visits.

In your hypothetical situation, there would indeed be a reduction in anonymous users, but not an elimination. An anonymous user could still log those 10 caches with 10 (or more!) problematic logs.

 

It really isn't that hard for people to click on a link in an email, so they should be required to do so before being given access to any cache information.

 

... and since smartphone app users are presumably connecting to the internet using their phones it's not as if they can't get at their emails.

 

I don't see any need to disqualify hotmail/yahoo/gmail addresses. If someone is going to go to the trouble to set one up just to avoid giving away their "real" email address they're already talking about making an effort to get on board. It's not as if someone signing up just to steal caches and trackables is going to be put off by that extra hurdle, especially when you can register a domain for sufficiently little money they're all but disposable.

 

But the emails are in HTML! I cannot read my geocaching emails properly on my smartphone as I only get to see the HTML code and have to dig for the relevant information in there Can we assume someone actually trying to validate their email is able to read the email in the first place?

[+thebruce0]

But the emails are in HTML! I cannot read my geocaching emails properly on my smartphone as I only get to see the HTML code and have to dig for the relevant information in there Can we assume someone actually trying to validate their email is able to read the email in the first place?

 

...you have a smartphone, and check your email on it, but you don't see html content, only the underlying html code?

What smartphone are you using? Either that smartphone ain't too smart or that app is very restrictive.

 

Now, seeing html code is different than seeing the email as intended, but with the content being far too small... GS should spend some time to make sure the html code is simple enough to display readably on most any html-capable email app (which by now should be all of them, at least on smartphones!)

[+frinklabs]

I had a look at the raw email as it arrives, and it isn't actually HTML at that point -- it is a block of BASE64 code.

 

When you un-BASE64 it, you get HTML. Perhaps the not-so-smartphone email app believes it has done its due diligence by processing the BASE64?

 

On a related note, I went back and had a look at the so-called "text" emails we used to get -- they were also BASE64-encoded.

[+niraD]

GS should spend some time to make sure the html code is simple enough to display readably on most any html-capable email app (which by now should be all of them, at least on smartphones!)

Plain text is simple, and works in all email apps.