Mandatory email validation

[+thebruce0]

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.

Sure does.

I wasn't talking about that.

 

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.

Yep, the raw email stream's segment header reads

Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

It has the mime type encoded to tell the parser that once decoded from base64 the result should be displayed as text/html instead of a default text/plain.

These are very standard email parsing instructions. So I'm still baffled that a smartphone email app would decode the base64 but not display the segment as html, unless it was told explicitly not to perhaps in a setting, or it's got an error somewhere that's causing it to misunderstand the instructions.

I do agree with the suggestion that having a simplified text/plain segment as well would be beneficial, if only for a fallback.

Edited October 8, 2014 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

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.

 

A validated user can turn into a non validated one at a later stage however.

I encountered even accounts of cachers who are PMs and own a lot of caches and do not have a validated e-mail adress and I do not refer to cachers whose account got temporarily locked by Groundspeak.

 

It would not even help if they enforced the existence of a valid e-mail address to allow for further log-ins as it would deal with the cases where someone does not want to log in either.

 

Cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

A validated user can turn into a non validated one at a later stage however.

I encountered even accounts of cachers who are PMs and own a lot of caches and do not have a validated e-mail adress and I do not refer to cachers whose account got temporarily locked by Groundspeak.

 

It would not even help if they enforced the existence of a valid e-mail address to allow for further log-ins as it would deal with the cases where someone does not want to log in either.

 

Cezanne

 

How does one unvalidate their email address? Assuming it's even possible, how many users are we talking about?

 

If GS implemented a process that required email validation when logging into the web site and getting past an introductory screen in the app, I suppose there might be a tiny fraction of users that still might be able to play the game. It seems to me that the benefits of having almost all users with validated email addresses significantly exceeds the possibility that a few might slip through the cracks.

 

[+J Grouchy]

As I understand it, the "validation" is only to confirm the email address given at sign-up is a valid email address to a real live person. Basically, all the person has to do is click a link in an email sent to them after they sign up on the website. If people can't even do that one tiny basic step, how can they be allowed access to the site and all that basic membership allows.

 

I'm no coder or site-builder, but it seems to me it would only take a minimal effort to restrict site access until an email is validated. It's such a common thing these days...why wouldn't GS "flip that switch"?

[+thebruce0]

Reasons an email may be become invalid, that I can think of; there may be more -

* email provider ends service

* user cancels email service but doesn't change email address

* user changes email address but doesn't complete new email verification

etc

[+J Grouchy]

* user changes email address but doesn't complete new email verification

etc

 

Does GS require validation if one changes their email address on the site? I've never tried and was wondering about that part of it.

[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.

 

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?

 

So make the emails text-based until the user expresses a preference for HTML. The fact they screwed something up once isn't a reason not to do a good thing later by simply unborking what they already borked.

[team tisri]

Reasons an email may be become invalid, that I can think of; there may be more -

* email provider ends service

* user cancels email service but doesn't change email address

* user changes email address but doesn't complete new email verification

etc

 

All these could cause the problem. Of course there's no way to know for sure whether a person doesn't respond to emails because they don't receive them or because they choose not to reply. There's nothing to stop someone using a disposable email address to sign up, activating their confirmation email, then just deleting anything that comes from Groundspeak from there on in.

 

It might not hurt if GS had an automated process that sent out an email every three months or so to make sure email addresses were still valid. Anything that came back undeliverable would result in the user account being suspended until they revalidated, and anything that didn't get a simple response within a couple of weeks would do the same.

 

If people are on holiday they may not get their emails, but if they are accessing the web site they clearly have internet access so can process a basic email. All it would need is a simple "click this link to revalidate your email", leading to a simple page thanking them for validating. And if they got back to find the revalidation email they could just click the link and be revalidated instantly.

[jholly]

Reasons an email may be become invalid, that I can think of; there may be more -

* email provider ends service

* user cancels email service but doesn't change email address

* user changes email address but doesn't complete new email verification

etc

There is a difference between the given email address is invalid and the email address simply does not exist. In the cases you cited an email sent to the address would bounce and you know it is not valid. The issue most folks have is the users with an account finding caches that simply don't have any email listed, i.e., an unvalidated user.

[+The A-Team]

It might not hurt if GS had an automated process that sent out an email every three months or so to make sure email addresses were still valid. Anything that came back undeliverable would result in the user account being suspended until they revalidated, and anything that didn't get a simple response within a couple of weeks would do the same.

I believe something sort of like this is already occurring. When people started reporting that they weren't getting the newsletter, it was traced back to Comcast blacklisting some Groundspeak servers for constantly sending emails to addresses that no longer existed, with Groundspeak not heeding the bounce-back emails that resulted. It was around this time that some user accounts that were previously validated started to become unvalidated. It appears that Groundspeak finally started to process bounce-back emails and now unvalidates email addresses if bounce-back emails indicate they no longer exist.

[jholly]

It might not hurt if GS had an automated process that sent out an email every three months or so to make sure email addresses were still valid. Anything that came back undeliverable would result in the user account being suspended until they revalidated, and anything that didn't get a simple response within a couple of weeks would do the same.

I believe something sort of like this is already occurring. When people started reporting that they weren't getting the newsletter, it was traced back to Comcast blacklisting some Groundspeak servers for constantly sending emails to addresses that no longer existed, with Groundspeak not heeding the bounce-back emails that resulted. It was around this time that some user accounts that were previously validated started to become unvalidated. It appears that Groundspeak finally started to process bounce-back emails and now unvalidates email addresses if bounce-back emails indicate they no longer exist.

 

Close, but it looks like the server switch is what did it. They did do a lot of trimming of dead wood, but reputation is everything.

 

Hey everyone!

 

Thanks for your patience with the missing newsletters. I had another chat with I.T. yesterday and I know that they moved e-mails to another server that has a "higher reputation" with Comcast. They will be looking into why the current one still has such a bad reputation, since they have removed all the accounts that were giving them a hard bounce message.

 

Hopefully the server switch should fix things again. Don't want you guys to be left in the dark.

[+Gill & Tony]

One of the reasons for needing a "real" e-mail address is the ability to physically contact the member. Unpaid anonymous e-mail don't allow that.

 

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but my understanding is that a publisher is responsible for their published content. For a forum, the owner or operator is the publisher. If someone posts something here which can be deemed defamatory then Ground speak are legally responsible unless they can direct the complaint at the actual person who made the post. Sending an e-mail to a hot mail account asking for their real name and address isn't going to work. The ISP can be legally required to give out name and billing address.

 

You don't need to use the real address in normal messaging, but it has to be available to the forum owner.

[cezanne]

 

There is a difference between the given email address is invalid and the email address simply does not exist. In the cases you cited an email sent to the address would bounce and you know it is not valid. The issue most folks have is the users with an account finding caches that simply don't have any email listed, i.e., an unvalidated user.

 

So what is the difference between a user of the free app (which as far as I know cannot be used to hide caches) and a cacher like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=5107cd77-ca9e-462e-ac02-39aee081b7df

 

The result is the same - the cacher cannot be contacted

[+The A-Team]

Since we're on page 3 of this discussion and the situation (and my knowledge) has changed somewhat in the year-and-a-half since my OP, I thought I'd post an updated summary of what happens now and what I feel needs to be done.

 

The Current Situation

Currently, when someone creates a new account, they are sent an email that contains a link that needs to be clicked to confirm that the email address entered is valid. If the user clicks this link, the email is validated and the account can be contacted via the website (or directly by email if the user chooses to make their email address publicly visible). If the user does not click this link, the email address remains unvalidated and the member is listed as being a "Not Validated Member" (see example). Unvalidated members are not able to log into the website or use software that requires the user to authenticate to use the API (e.g. GSAK, Project-GC, non-Groundspeak mobile apps, etc.), but they are able to log into the official Groundspeak mobile apps (both full/paid/pro and intro) with no restrictions compared to a validated member.

 

(The following line is inferred from past discussions and evidence on the site, so may not necessarily be completely accurate. If this isn't how it works, this it how it should!)

If a previously-validated member's email address ceases to exist and emails sent by the website to this address result in bounce-back emails, the member will be automatically unvalidated and won't be able to log in until they've validated a new email address.

 

Problems Under the Current Situation

Under the current situation, problems can arise when a member needs to contact another member for some reason, but can't because the email address hasn't been validated. This can include, but isn't limited to, the following:

• Educating a new user
  
• Questions about what a finder observed at GZ
  
• Concerns about the content of a log (e.g. spoilers)
  
• Reviewer requesting information regarding a hide
  

In many such situations where the member can't be contacted, problems remain unresolved and/or the member's log is deleted by a cache owner. If an unvalidated member is able to get a cache published, they will not receive log emails and maintenance of the cache is more likely to lapse or not occur at all. Unvalidated members are effectively caching and using the Groundspeak services anonymously.

 

What Needs to Happen

Mandatory validation needs to be enforced across all platforms. Members should not be able to log into the Groundspeak mobile apps until they have a validated email address where they can be contacted if any issues or questions arise.

 

Periodic revalidation also needs to occur to cover the following scenarios:

• Where an email address may no longer exist, but emails aren't being sent to it that would trigger automatic unvalidation (ie. if the member has no hides, hasn't signed up for the newsletter, etc.)
  
• Where emails being sent to a member are caught by a spam filter or otherwise don't arrive in the member's inbox, so the member doesn't see them and may not realize they've even been sent
  

Periodic revalidation would likely consist of a confirmation email being sent to the member on a periodic schedule (ie. annually, semi-annually, etc.). If the member clicks the link to validate their email address, the account remains validated and unchanged. However, if the member does not click the link within a specified time period, the email address will become unvalidated and the member will be required to validate the current email address or a new email address before they can log in again. This would serve to alert a member whose emails are being caught in a spam filter that there's a configuration problem with their email provider/client and would trigger automatic unvalidation if the email address no longer exists (ie. the confirmation email results in a bounce-back).

 

---

I've personally encountered situations where I've needed to contact a new-but-unvalidated member and also a validated member that had their emails caught by a spam filter. This is a real and growing problem and needs to be dealt with. Many people probably wouldn't even think about it, but periodic revalidation is also necessary for the reasons I outlined above. Hopefully this can all be dealt with soon so we don't have to keep dealing with finders and hiders who can't be contacted.

[jholly]

 

There is a difference between the given email address is invalid and the email address simply does not exist. In the cases you cited an email sent to the address would bounce and you know it is not valid. The issue most folks have is the users with an account finding caches that simply don't have any email listed, i.e., an unvalidated user.

 

So what is the difference between a user of the free app (which as far as I know cannot be used to hide caches) and a cacher like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=5107cd77-ca9e-462e-ac02-39aee081b7df

 

The result is the same - the cacher cannot be contacted

 

In the case you cited the last logged find was August 13,2013. The last website visit was October 17,2013. The player status is inactive, basically he left the game. Yes, he has active caches out there, but that is about the same as some one joining, playing for a while with a gmail email and then leaving the game to never look at the email account again. Neither one is logging finds. Neither one cares if their caches are in need of maintenance or has a NA log. Adoption is about the only reason to contact them. The intro app user without a valid email is actively finding caches and posting logs. If there is something about the log you wish they would change you can't contact them. Your only option is to delete the log. Or perhaps they did something to the cache, like putting it some where else and you would like to retrieve it. You can't find out.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Reasons an email may be become invalid, that I can think of; there may be more -

* email provider ends service

* user cancels email service but doesn't change email address

* user changes email address but doesn't complete new email verification

etc

 

All these could cause the problem. Of course there's no way to know for sure whether a person doesn't respond to emails because they don't receive them or because they choose not to reply. There's nothing to stop someone using a disposable email address to sign up, activating their confirmation email, then just deleting anything that comes from Groundspeak from there on in.

 

 

I still don't see why this is a problem. Currently zero email addresses are validated. I suspect it would be impossible to validate every user account with a continuously working email address, but the practice of validating user accounts with an email address is extremely common. So what if 5-10% of the user accounts end up with invalid email addresses. That still means that 90-95% of new user accounts *will* have valid email addresses.

 

 

[+The A-Team]

Currently zero email addresses are validated. I suspect it would be impossible to validate every user account with a continuously working email address, but the practice of validating user accounts with an email address is extremely common. So what if 5-10% of the user accounts end up with invalid email addresses. That still means that 90-95% of new user accounts *will* have valid email addresses.

I don't follow.

 

First of all, why are you saying that currently zero email addresses are validated? Every member who can log into the website has validated an email address. There are hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of validated email addresses.

 

As for the 5-10% of users with invalid email addresses, those are exactly the ones we're trying to deal with because they're a problem. This number can't be reduced to zero, but in my earlier post I addressed ways that this number can be minimized.

[cezanne]

The intro app user without a valid email is actively finding caches and posting logs. If there is something about the log you wish they would change you can't contact them. Your only option is to delete the log. Or perhaps they did something to the cache, like putting it some where else and you would like to retrieve it. You can't find out.

 

I also came across cachers who once had validated e-mails adresses and then ended up with the status that they could not be contacted even though they still logged into the site from time to time and some even logged finds and retrieved trackables. I just could not recall another concrete example off my head to link to.

 

In some cases one wants to contact cachers due to their logs and sometimes due to their owned caches.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

One of the reasons for needing a "real" e-mail address is the ability to physically contact the member. Unpaid anonymous e-mail don't allow that.

 

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but my understanding is that a publisher is responsible for their published content. For a forum, the owner or operator is the publisher. If someone posts something here which can be deemed defamatory then Ground speak are legally responsible unless they can direct the complaint at the actual person who made the post. Sending an e-mail to a hot mail account asking for their real name and address isn't going to work. The ISP can be legally required to give out name and billing address.

 

You don't need to use the real address in normal messaging, but it has to be available to the forum owner.

 

OK, so register the domain abusivesilliness.com, use a prepaid mastercard to pay for it, enter a rogue address in the WHOIS domain, and then spam and defame to your heart's content. If anyone looks up WHOIS they get useless information, if they go to the card company they'll never know who owned the card, and if you're posting from internet cafes they can't trace the IP to anything useful.

 

There comes a point when it's easier to just take down offensive material and ban the user rather than going to the n-th degree to make absolutely, positively, sure that nobody can slip anything past the checkers. And if the checker gets too intrusive the chances are it will just encourage people to subvert it.

 

I still remember a BBS I signed up for years ago where my name was blocked despite being inoffensive, although after seeing it was blocked I noticed it contained a naughty word within an innocent word. From there the friend I was signing on with and I wondered just how silly/offensive a name we could slip past the filter.

[+thebruce0]

Excellent summary A-Team.

 

I've seen periodic email validation checks come through for some websites. It's certainly a good way to check those two things simultaneously - that the email is valid (no bounce), and that the user is active (clicked the link). And it's really not a complex thing to set up. The mechanisms already exist, it's just adjusting the process a little and creating a timed email validator.

I'm anxious to see what the devs have been and/or are reportedly working on to address the issue. If only to quell these minor rebellions rising in the forum

[+ecanderson]

It might not hurt if GS had an automated process that sent out an email every three months or so to make sure email addresses were still valid. Anything that came back undeliverable would result in the user account being suspended until they revalidated, and anything that didn't get a simple response within a couple of weeks would do the same.

I believe something sort of like this is already occurring. When people started reporting that they weren't getting the newsletter, it was traced back to Comcast blacklisting some Groundspeak servers for constantly sending emails to addresses that no longer existed, with Groundspeak not heeding the bounce-back emails that resulted. It was around this time that some user accounts that were previously validated started to become unvalidated. It appears that Groundspeak finally started to process bounce-back emails and now unvalidates email addresses if bounce-back emails indicate they no longer exist.

As one of the 'victims' (as were all Comcast users, for a while), I'll address that. And yes, it's a function of the weekly newsletter which is, to my mind, a preferable interval to 3 months.

GS was NOT and is not suspending accounts due to bounced email, of which there has been a ton - hence the blacklisting of their servers from time to time due to 'reputation' issues. It's just recently that they've worked on cleaning up their own lists to purge the LISTS of bogus or defunct email addresses for purposes of newsletters, etc. The accounts remain valid and accessible when this occurs, however ... it's just the mailing lists that are being cleaned up. If login were not permitted until a new and valid email address was supplied, that would resolve both the contact problem and the blacklisting problem.

[+terratin]

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!)

 

Well.. I don't have an email app. I just use my normal webmail (doesn't work properly in safari) or a web service for reading email (get HTML code in safari from HTML mails). Bloody iphone!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Currently zero email addresses are validated. I suspect it would be impossible to validate every user account with a continuously working email address, but the practice of validating user accounts with an email address is extremely common. So what if 5-10% of the user accounts end up with invalid email addresses. That still means that 90-95% of new user accounts *will* have valid email addresses.

I don't follow.

 

First of all, why are you saying that currently zero email addresses are validated? Every member who can log into the website has validated an email address. There are hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of validated email addresses.

 

Sorry, I think I got threads mixed up I was under the assumption we were talking about the intro app which allows users to find caches without providing a valid email address.

 

As for the 5-10% of users with invalid email addresses, those are exactly the ones we're trying to deal with because they're a problem. This number can't be reduced to zero, but in my earlier post I addressed ways that this number can be minimized.

 

That was mainly my point. There seems to be a lot of feature suggestion which are posted to address a problem and then some will come with various exceptions which exemplify how the suggestion won't eliminate the problem entirely. It seems to me that if a suggestion can significantly minimize the problem then it may still be worth implementing.

[+thebruce0]

Well.. I don't have an email app. I just use my normal webmail (doesn't work properly in safari) or a web service for reading email (get HTML code in safari from HTML mails). Bloody iphone!

So just trying to understand then... your webmail doesn't provide an html formatted view of html emails? What webmail are you using?! GS emails can't be the only problem then.

Why don't you use the Mail app on the iPhone?

[+kunarion]

there are many cases where a new user places and submits a cache, but it has some kind of guideline violation that prevents it from being published. Without a working email address, reviewer notes will likely go completely unnoticed and the cache will languish and never be published, leading to geo-trash.

 

-If a new user submits a cache and has it published, the owner won't be receiving log emails, so any maintenance issues will be missed and the cache will eventually fall into disrepair. I've personally seen many examples of this scenario in my region.

 

-The user cannot be contacted in any way. If a cache owner or trackable owner wants to contact the user regarding a cache log, trackable log, or any other concern, it's impossible to do so. I've attempted to contact many finders of my caches to get more information regarding DNF or NM logs, but rarely hear back. I suspect they don't have a working email address.

Does this idea do anything except give The Company a nice address list to sell? All of the above already happens now with members who have validated email addresses.

Edited October 9, 2014 by kunarion

[+ecanderson]

Does this idea do anything except give The Company a nice address list to sell? All of the above already happens now with members who have validated email addresses.

I believe the POINT is that each of those things are a problem when members do NOT have a valid email address on file. Many of us would, as has been clearly stated many times in this thread, REALLY appreciate it if gc.com were to institute a requirement for both initial and periodic validation.

[+kunarion]

Does this idea do anything except give The Company a nice address list to sell? All of the above already happens now with members who have validated email addresses.

I believe the POINT is that each of those things are a problem when members do NOT have a valid email address on file. Many of us would, as has been clearly stated many times in this thread, REALLY appreciate it if gc.com were to institute a requirement for both initial and periodic validation.

No you wouldn't. There'd be full page ads, surveys, all kind of things in the GC "Periodic Validation" email, and accounts being suspended due to no fault of the users.

 

Email validation is not for the convenience of people to "contact" others. It's a slightly out-dated way to prevent automated signup, and especially to gather email address lists for sale. If you wish to chat about the failings of an unvalidated user, start a Topic. Or is whatever you'd tell that person too harsh for public eyes? Because if it is, I can understand why they have an unvalidated address.

 

When this plan goes way wrong, don't come emailing to me.

Edited October 9, 2014 by kunarion

[+thebruce0]

Does this idea do anything except give The Company a nice address list to sell? All of the above already happens now with members who have validated email addresses.

I believe the POINT is that each of those things are a problem when members do NOT have a valid email address on file. Many of us would, as has been clearly stated many times in this thread, REALLY appreciate it if gc.com were to institute a requirement for both initial and periodic validation.

No you wouldn't [he just said we would]. There'd be full page ads [speculation], surveys [speculation], all kind of things [speculation] in the GC "Periodic Validation" email, and accounts being suspended due to no fault of the users [speculation].

 

Email validation is not for the convenience of users to "contact" other users [according to...?]. It's a slightly out-dated way [uninformed opinion] to prevent automated signup [irrelevant], and especially to gather email address lists for sale [someone hates The Man].

 

When this plan goes way wrong, don't come emailing to me.

Your theory is way off the deep end. Of course no one would want that, and no one is suggesting that - but to promote the idea that a positive, useful fix to an ongoing and significant concern would with certainty be defiled by Corporate Greed™ is, well, ok I've already ranted about that...

If implemented that way (under the public assumption that Groundspeak only cares about money and not the community) then sure, it might.

If implemented to address the issue, then it won't

 

I don't think anyone will be emailing you if Groundspeak starts includes ads in emails.

[team tisri]

Does this idea do anything except give The Company a nice address list to sell? All of the above already happens now with members who have validated email addresses.

I believe the POINT is that each of those things are a problem when members do NOT have a valid email address on file. Many of us would, as has been clearly stated many times in this thread, REALLY appreciate it if gc.com were to institute a requirement for both initial and periodic validation.

No you wouldn't. There'd be full page ads, surveys, all kind of things in the GC "Periodic Validation" email, and accounts being suspended due to no fault of the users.

 

Email validation is not for the convenience of people to "contact" others. It's a slightly out-dated way to prevent automated signup, and especially to gather email address lists for sale. If you wish to chat about the failings of an unvalidated user, start a Topic. Or is whatever you'd tell that person too harsh for public eyes? Because if it is, I can understand why they have an unvalidated address.

 

When this plan goes way wrong, don't come emailing to me.

 

I'm not a big fan of Groundspeak, as regular readers of my posts will probably have noticed.

 

Even so I think your criticisms are way off the mark. They may be ads, surveys etc but as long as revalidation is nothing more than clicking a link I see no harm in that. We already get a weekly email that consists of lists of nearby events, recently published caches, and usually invites to visit a faceache page or watch a video. What's the harm if we get another email with a link to click to keep an account active? I don't suppose it will ever be implemented, simply because it would allow the "active geocachers" statistic to be measured and it sounds better to say "8,000,000 geocaching accounts" than "500,000 active geocaching accounts".

 

Email validation is to make sure people have a valid email address. The fact a system exists to contact another user via email suggests the original intention was that each user would have an email address. It does little to prevent automated signup, given how easy it is to register a domain and then produce endless accounts with email address of spam1@mydomain, spam2@mydomain, spam3@mydomain etc. Automated signup is easily prevented with something like recaptcha rather than requiring an email address.

 

Selling address lists is also something they need to be very careful with. I'm not the only one who uses an email address along the lines of geocaching@mydomain, so if I get anything commercial from anybody other than Groundspeak I know who gave my address away. As it stands I get a particular form of spam to that folder and that folder alone, which primarily consists of emails apparently from young ladies who feel a desire to spend a weekend with me with no obligations (there are a few variations on the theme, but you get the picture).

 

If an unvalidated user has no email address registered the chances are they won't be visiting the forums so a comment, however eloquently worded and sensitively expressed, is wasted if they never see it.

[+larryc43230]

Selling address lists is also something they need to be very careful with. I'm not the only one who uses an email address along the lines of geocaching@mydomain, so if I get anything commercial from anybody other than Groundspeak I know who gave my address away. As it stands I get a particular form of spam to that folder and that folder alone, which primarily consists of emails apparently from young ladies who feel a desire to spend a weekend with me with no obligations (there are a few variations on the theme, but you get the picture).

I have an e-mail address that I created specifically and only for geocaching. I've used that same e-mail address ONLY to register for the geocaching site and the GSAK site. That was more than eight years ago.

 

With my general-use e-mail account, maybe 30% of the incoming mail is spam of one sort or another. I have never, ever, not even once, received spam mail to my geocaching e-mail account. Groundspeak has never sold that e-mail address to any third party, and no one has succeeded in "stealing" it from either Groundspeak or the folks at GSAK.

 

If history is any indication, I'm not worried about getting spam from Groundspeak. I vote for mandatory e-mail validation of geocaching accounts.

 

--Larry

[team tisri]

Selling address lists is also something they need to be very careful with. I'm not the only one who uses an email address along the lines of geocaching@mydomain, so if I get anything commercial from anybody other than Groundspeak I know who gave my address away. As it stands I get a particular form of spam to that folder and that folder alone, which primarily consists of emails apparently from young ladies who feel a desire to spend a weekend with me with no obligations (there are a few variations on the theme, but you get the picture).

I have an e-mail address that I created specifically and only for geocaching. I've used that same e-mail address ONLY to register for the geocaching site and the GSAK site. That was more than eight years ago.

 

With my general-use e-mail account, maybe 30% of the incoming mail is spam of one sort or another. I have never, ever, not even once, received spam mail to my geocaching e-mail account. Groundspeak has never sold that e-mail address to any third party, and no one has succeeded in "stealing" it from either Groundspeak or the folks at GSAK.

 

If history is any indication, I'm not worried about getting spam from Groundspeak. I vote for mandatory e-mail validation of geocaching accounts.

 

--Larry

 

Sure, re-reading my post it may not be clear that I don't imagine Groundspeak was responsible for me getting the spam messages from these young ladies. I suspect what happened was that one of them happened to find the address elsewhere, sent an email that looked enough like a real mail for me to open it, and then used some form of email tracking to confirm it was valid. If Groundspeak had sold my email address I'd expect to be getting mails offering more than the promise of an obligation-free weekend way.

[+jellis]

Do you mean Comcast email or Comcast internet. I have Comcast internet but I use Yahoo email. No problem with email but I too think it should be mandatory email validation.

Do you think Groundspeak is reading this?

How do we explain to newbies or the intro app users of their mistakes like logging a found when it should have been a DNF, if they really found the cache, or to just respond to talk to them?

Edited April 4, 2015 by jellis

[+Touchstone]

Do you think Groundspeak is reading this?

 

Judging from how often the Lackey's respond, yes, I believe they actually read all the threads in this sub-Forum.

 

I'm guessing it's strictly a business decision on letting people try out the site, relatively hassle free, and with few as steps as possible to get them roped into Geocaching.

 

Sure, it's mildly annoying as a CO to get erroneous log entries from unvalidated accounts. The price of cache ownership I suppose. If I got tired of policing the log entries, I'd stop owning caches. I haven't gotten to that point yet, and besides, even the legitimate log's from validated accounts can be equally annoying at times. Meh...

[+NeverSummer]

Do you think Groundspeak is reading this?

 

Judging from how often the Lackey's respond, yes, I believe they actually read all the threads in this sub-Forum.

 

I'm guessing it's strictly a business decision on letting people try out the site, relatively hassle free, and with few as steps as possible to get them roped into Geocaching.

 

Sure, it's mildly annoying as a CO to get erroneous log entries from unvalidated accounts. The price of cache ownership I suppose. If I got tired of policing the log entries, I'd stop owning caches. I haven't gotten to that point yet, and besides, even the legitimate log's from validated accounts can be equally annoying at times. Meh...

They're reading the User Insights topic, but don't want to hear about integrating validated emails into the "Friends" features as fundamental levels of communication on the website. Oh well...

 

ETA: Constructive Feedback has been censored (removed) on that thread within the Insights topic by Lackeys. I don't know how validated emails wouldn't be on topic to a discussion about expanding the "Friends" functions of the website...it's a fundamental aspect of communication to even become "friends" on geocaching.com.

 

So, I don't really get the feeling that they want to hear it, and this thread may only get a cursory read-through and no feedback or plans to improve the ability to reach other users.

 

I never would have guessed that things could get this adversarial...I've never run into this issue before, and I'm rather taken aback by being censored and not allowed to provide relevant, on topic feedback when TPTB solicit for it.

Edited April 6, 2015 by NeverSummer

[Moun10Bike]

Do you think Groundspeak is reading this?

 

Judging from how often the Lackey's respond, yes, I believe they actually read all the threads in this sub-Forum.

 

I'm guessing it's strictly a business decision on letting people try out the site, relatively hassle free, and with few as steps as possible to get them roped into Geocaching.

 

Sure, it's mildly annoying as a CO to get erroneous log entries from unvalidated accounts. The price of cache ownership I suppose. If I got tired of policing the log entries, I'd stop owning caches. I haven't gotten to that point yet, and besides, even the legitimate log's from validated accounts can be equally annoying at times. Meh...

They're reading the User Insights topic, but don't want to hear about integrating validated emails into the "Friends" features as fundamental levels of communication on the website. Oh well...

 

This is a proper spot for such discussion; trying to force it into a User Insights thread devoted to another topic is not.

[+NeverSummer]

Do you think Groundspeak is reading this?

 

Judging from how often the Lackey's respond, yes, I believe they actually read all the threads in this sub-Forum.

 

I'm guessing it's strictly a business decision on letting people try out the site, relatively hassle free, and with few as steps as possible to get them roped into Geocaching.

 

Sure, it's mildly annoying as a CO to get erroneous log entries from unvalidated accounts. The price of cache ownership I suppose. If I got tired of policing the log entries, I'd stop owning caches. I haven't gotten to that point yet, and besides, even the legitimate log's from validated accounts can be equally annoying at times. Meh...

They're reading the User Insights topic, but don't want to hear about integrating validated emails into the "Friends" features as fundamental levels of communication on the website. Oh well...

 

This is a proper spot for such discussion; trying to force it into a User Insights thread devoted to another topic is not.

Moun10bike, it's entirely relevant to the feedback you, yourself, solicited for!

 

It is fundamental--a foundation of communication--to be able to reach users. And to have the "friends" function work, Groundspeak needs to close the gap on validation. Otherwise, how do you propose we'll be able to welcome, get to know, introduce, and become friends (or "friends") with other users?

 

The "Friends" feature is directly related to user validated email addresses.

[Moun10Bike]

Communication between users is important; however, it is separate from any key bullet-point functionality needed for friends/followers functionality. To put it another way, ideal friends/followers functionality may require good communication, but the communication tool is not part of the friends/followers feature itself. That's why we are telling you that your posts are off-topic and why we ask that you respect the boundaries outlined in the pinned thread in the User Insights forum.

[+NeverSummer]

I also take offense that you called my feedback a "forced" off topic change of direction. My interpretation of what the Friends function is on this site is directly related to communication between users. You're misrepresenting what I was doing, and appear rather thin-skinned when all I was trying to do was provide feedback which I thought was entirely on topic. I didn't bring it up to stir any pots, Moun10bike. I read your post, read what others were saying, and then posted that I think that a KEY function of any "friends" integration or improvements is the ability to reach people via the "contact" link to their email address. I failed to see that this relationship which I see to "friends/followers" was something you viewed as "off topic". Now I know, but I still think that it is entirely on topic, and that it was treated as trolling off topic posting, perhaps because of the hot-button, difficult discussion that has been going on about email validation for some time now.

 

I see the issues of email validation and "friends/followers" as completely intertwined, and apart from the heated rhetoric which we've seen on the topic in many other threads.

 

If you're saying that the "friends/followers" function is not going to use or need to use the email contact function of the website, I'm really confused how it will work and be integrated. I don't think that we should be allowed to follow or friend someone without their permission, and to gain that permission you need to start with the foundation of communication--email to someone's inbox. For that, we need to have validated email addresses.

 

Then we can see how friending someone can be more functional and meaningful for the site.

 

So, can you please provide details on how we will be seeing improvements or changes to email validation issues as you alluded to in the Insights topic?

Edited April 6, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+thebruce0]

I see the issues of email validation and "friends/followers" as completely intertwined, and apart from the heated rhetoric which we've seen on the topic in many other threads.

You know, I sort of have to side M10b on this one... Email validation, functionally, is a different beast that the idea of website accounts/profiles being connected through a 'friend' connection. What you're referring to is more like notifications. Without a valid email, how will accounts know that there are friend requests (let alone many other essential communications regarding geocaching?)

 

Thus the email validation applies to much more than just friends/followers, and I can see why they'd want to keep the topics streamlined to the relevant points.

 

I can't speak to the methods of censoring or what's been said - I don't think I've read that thread. But I'd suggest continuing the discussion of email validation in its own thread. At this point, that would be this one, as it's a 'Feature Discussion', and not a heavily managed thread in the UI forum about a new feature.

 

If you're saying that the "friends/followers" function is not going to use or need to use the email contact function of the website, I'm really confused how it will work and be integrated. I don't think that we should be allowed to follow or friend someone without their permission, and to gain that permission you need to start with the foundation of communication--email to someone's inbox. For that, we need to have validated email addresses.

Technically, to get that permission you need to start with a way to get notification - not necessarily via email. For example the web-based private messaging mentioned by kunarion on post #46. I'm assuming it's been suggested elsewhere too, but that's just in this thread.

 

That said, I still believe email validation is an essential requirement for geocaching.com profiles! So I am in full agreement on its importance but in the context of friends/followers, I agree it's not quite completely on topic, though tangentially related.

[+NeverSummer]

Well, there's the whole idea that the current "Friends" function is nothing more than a quick link to profiles of those you've had added as "friends". From there, you can view their profile with fewer clicks.

 

To me the "Friends" feature is more than just looking at a profile, it also the ability to communicate quickly and with fewer clicks. That is how I use the "Friends" function--to email those who I collaborate with, or want to have conversations with. So yes, I've also thought and mentioned that adding in the Personal Message feature to the geocaching.com website and profiles would be a good "fix".

 

But then.... It becomes a situation where we can't get notification if someone friends us if we don't have a validated email. And to me that's foundational in the whole of the existing "Friends" function, and therefore also foundational in the development of future functions.

 

Also, we are looking at the importance of validated emails from another angle within this (and other) threads on the subject. We all really do need to be able to get in touch with other users to discuss issues or to collaborate. If I can't reach a user, I can't talk with them about their DNF. I can't contact them to try and let them know why their log on my Earthcache was deleted. I can't get in touch to invite them to go caching, or to attend an event they might not have seen.

 

Other social media requires valid email addresses, and if we're trying to integrate more ways to share, to collaborate, and to communicate, a validated email is necessary for Geocaching.com

[+NeverSummer]

Additionally, Moun10bike said there's something we might see rolled out to address this issue. I'm all ears to hear what it is they're looking at doing.

[+The A-Team]

Ironically, this "Friends" side-discussion is going a bit off-topic in this discussion now.

 

However, I should point out that since the current "Friends" functionality is only accessible through the website, and unvalidated accounts can't log into the website, those users can't use the functionality anyway.

[+NeverSummer]

Ironically, this "Friends" side-discussion is going a bit off-topic in this discussion now.

 

However, I should point out that since the current "Friends" functionality is only accessible through the website, and unvalidated accounts can't log into the website, those users can't use the functionality anyway.

Aside from the fact that mandatory email validation relates to that topic--you've outlined clearly why in your own post, as I have in my posts as well.

 

What i see in this thread (and the others which have discussed this issue of non-validated accounts) is that there is a feeling that validated emails are fundamental to many aspects of the game: Logging finds, communicating with other users, developing "friends", correcting behaviours, Cache review, etc. This validation issue is a starting point for integrating and repairing many things, including providing frameworks for making friends and communicating.

 

My last post is interesting, and I wonder why there's such tight lips--Moun10bike said there is something in the works to deal with validated emails which we "will start to see soon". I'd love to know what that plan is...

[+The A-Team]

My last post is interesting, and I wonder why there's such tight lips--Moun10bike said there is something in the works to deal with validated emails which we "will start to see soon". I'd love to know what that plan is...

He didn't say specifically that it would address email validation, but rather "non-validated users and related communication issues". I suspect what he was referring to was the new beta Message Center that was released earlier today.

 

Let's just hope that email validation is still being considered, because it would still be required even with this new system.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Let's just hope that email validation is still being considered, because it would still be required even with this new system.

 

When I logged into my wife's (infrequently used) account to test the messaging feature it made me validate the Email address, which it has never previously done for that account which was last used a few months ago, though I suspect the majority of unvalidated accounts belong to app users, which is a different kettle of fish.

[+The A-Team]

When I logged into my wife's (infrequently used) account to test the messaging feature it made me validate the Email address, which it has never previously done for that account which was last used a few months ago, though I suspect the majority of unvalidated accounts belong to app users, which is a different kettle of fish.

Hmm, are you sure she was able to log in before? When I posted my summary of the situation back in October, I had tested with an unvalidated account and confirmed that it could not log into the website. The only place it could log in was in the official mobile apps.

[+MartyBartfast]

When I logged into my wife's (infrequently used) account to test the messaging feature it made me validate the Email address, which it has never previously done for that account which was last used a few months ago, though I suspect the majority of unvalidated accounts belong to app users, which is a different kettle of fish.

Hmm, are you sure she was able to log in before? When I posted my summary of the situation back in October, I had tested with an unvalidated account and confirmed that it could not log into the website. The only place it could log in was in the official mobile apps.

 

Yes, I logged into her account on January 3rd to send a friend request to my account, I remember at the time there was a message about the account Email being unverified but I ignored it 'cos I knew she wouldn't want to get Emails, and I was able to fully log in and send myself a friend request. This time when I logged in to test the messaging I couldn't proceed without validating the Email.