Jump to content

Unused usernames


redants

Recommended Posts

I spend lots of my time searching up different usernames on GC.com, and some of all of the accounts using the good usernames have absolutely no finds, or 1-2 finds.

 

I think this is annoying. I would have been 'Redant' if it wasn't for a person with 2 finds that signed up in '04. I feel that some of these people should be relieved of their username, because people have to be called Dragonman123 (for example) because 'Dragonman' was gone to a person who signed up and found 2.

 

I'm not putting this forward as a proposal, but I want to see what the general community think.

 

Red

Edited by redants
Link to comment

I would have been 'Redant' if it wasn't for a person with 2 finds that signed up in '04. I feel that some of these people should be relieved of their username...

And what name should be used to identify the two "Found It" logs that "Redant" wrote in '04?

 

Personally, I think there are plenty of good usernames still available for those people who are creative enough to come up with them.

Link to comment

Doesn't matter so much what we think as we aren't the ones sailing the ship. We're only along for the ride.

 

 

I do think, however, that if you could come up with a proposal to (re)utilize those particular usernames that did not include simply wiping those folks off the face of the map (along with their history as well as any cache history) -- like they never existed in the first place -- then I think that TPTB just might entertain such an idea.

 

You can bet that many other folks would also be interested.

Link to comment

Think about how a new cacher would feel about this. Whenever I return to a site after a long time, I expect my account to still be there. If I end up struggling to recover my access because it's no longer there, the chances of me ever visiting again are close to zero. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to keep coming by, no matter how much time there is between visits?

Link to comment

Think about how a new cacher would feel about this. Whenever I return to a site after a long time, I expect my account to still be there. If I end up struggling to recover my access because it's no longer there, the chances of me ever visiting again are close to zero. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to keep coming by, no matter how much time there is between visits?

Not that, Its just when they do nothing with it.

Link to comment

 

Personally, I think there are plenty of good usernames still available for those people who are creative enough to come up with them.

 

^THIS^

 

I wanted to be 'Cachemeister'.

 

It was taken, so I became AZcachemeister, which is probably cooler since it ties me to my home state.

 

Just the same, most locals refer to me as 'cachemeister'.

 

Looking back, I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Link to comment

I spend lots of my time searching up different usernames on GC.com, and some of all of the accounts using the good usernames have absolutely no finds, or 1-2 finds.

 

I think this is annoying. I would have been 'Redant' if it wasn't for a person with 2 finds that signed up in '04. I feel that some of these people should be relieved of their username, because people have to be called Dragonman123 (for example) because 'Dragonman' was gone to a person who signed up and found 2.

 

I'm not putting this forward as a proposal, but I want to see what the general community think.

 

Red

 

Did you check for Red_Ant, *Red_Ant*, *RedAnt*, _RedAnt_, xRedAntx, RedAnt! or RedAunt?

Link to comment

Think about how a new cacher would feel about this. Whenever I return to a site after a long time, I expect my account to still be there. If I end up struggling to recover my access because it's no longer there, the chances of me ever visiting again are close to zero. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to keep coming by, no matter how much time there is between visits?

 

Try opening a Yahoo or Gmail account, never use it, and see if it's still there after 6 months. Bzzzzzzt, it's gone. Fact is, unscientific research shows Groundspeak has a couple million 0 find 0 hide accounts, that are just people signing up for a free account at a website on the internet, never to be heard from again. I was denied changing my username to a name I wanted because there was a 0 find 0 hide account that logged in for one day in 2007.

 

Now if Redant, as opposed to Redants logged 2 caches in 2004, I'm fine with that. The username may be inactive but there's a history there. If they log even 1 cache or 1 TB, I'm good with it being gone forever.

Link to comment

Think about how a new cacher would feel about this. Whenever I return to a site after a long time, I expect my account to still be there. If I end up struggling to recover my access because it's no longer there, the chances of me ever visiting again are close to zero. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to keep coming by, no matter how much time there is between visits?

 

Try opening a Yahoo or Gmail account, never use it, and see if it's still there after 6 months. Bzzzzzzt, it's gone. Fact is, unscientific research shows Groundspeak has a couple million 0 find 0 hide accounts, that are just people signing up for a free account at a website on the internet, never to be heard from again. I was denied changing my username to a name I wanted because there was a 0 find 0 hide account that logged in for one day in 2007.

 

Now if Redant, as opposed to Redants logged 2 caches in 2004, I'm fine with that. The username may be inactive but there's a history there. If they log even 1 cache or 1 TB, I'm good with it being gone forever.

I agree

Link to comment

I'm thinking that there are far more important issues for the lackeys and codeslingers to work on.

I'm thinking that they have a long To Do list already.

 

More accurately, they like it that way. Many websites don't care about touting how many members they have. You think Yahoo, which kills never used email accounts after 6 months, cares about this? Of course not. There are 7 million Geocachers. Never mind a couple million of them only logged in for one day, and have never Geocached. :ph34r:

Link to comment

An argument might be made for freeing up accounts that have no logged no caches and haven't logged into the site for years (with a warning email to log in the site or else).

 

However, once an account makes any logs (not necessarily even Found It) then the account can't be wiped out without screwing up every cache page they ever logged.

Link to comment

An argument might be made for freeing up accounts that have no logged no caches and haven't logged into the site for years (with a warning email to log in the site or else).

 

However, once an account makes any logs (not necessarily even Found It) then the account can't be wiped out without screwing up every cache page they ever logged.

 

Correct. +1. Don't mind me, but seriously, I couldn't get a 0 find 0 hide 1 day log-in from 2007, because they consider it "used"? I hope I don't sound bitter or anything. :anicute: I'm really quite happy being Mr. Yuck. :blink:

Link to comment

Here's a question - what about the usernames that sign up just to post spam on the forums? Does the frog delete and release those? :lol:

 

No they absolutely do not. That has come up before, and I bookmarked the profile of one at work. During lunch hour, of course, I don't surf the web during working hours. :laughing: Spam bots are amongst the 7 million Geocachers.

 

You know, I might sound a little radical here, and like I'm bashing the Frog. But C'mon now, if you tried to get a username, and was told it was "used" because someone with 0 finds and 0 hides logged in with it for one day in 2007, couldn't you see it from my perspective? :blink:

 

For those who couldn't care less, I agree with some of the previous posts that you have to get creative with special characters on the keyboard, or put on "s" on the end like Redant did, etc...

Link to comment

Think about how a new cacher would feel about this. Whenever I return to a site after a long time, I expect my account to still be there. If I end up struggling to recover my access because it's no longer there, the chances of me ever visiting again are close to zero. Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to keep coming by, no matter how much time there is between visits?

Not that, Its just when they do nothing with it.

If there has been absolutely no activity (no logs of any kind) then yes you can get the name and their email is unvalid. If the email is valid you also can't get that name. I use to be jellis50. Jellis was taken but the cacher wasn't active and the email was invalid and so I got the name.

Link to comment

Here's a question - what about the usernames that sign up just to post spam on the forums? Does the frog delete and release those? :lol:

 

No they absolutely do not. That has come up before, and I bookmarked the profile of one at work. During lunch hour, of course, I don't surf the web during working hours. :laughing: Spam bots are amongst the 7 million Geocachers.

 

You know, I might sound a little radical here, and like I'm bashing the Frog. But C'mon now, if you tried to get a username, and was told it was "used" because someone with 0 finds and 0 hides logged in with it for one day in 2007, couldn't you see it from my perspective? :blink:

 

For those who couldn't care less, I agree with some of the previous posts that you have to get creative with special characters on the keyboard, or put on "s" on the end like Redant did, etc...

I wonder how many million cachers are actually just spam bots? I've always assumed the reason Groundspeak doesn't delete spam accounts is just so they can pad their numbers for marketing purposes.

 

 

Link to comment

Here's a question - what about the usernames that sign up just to post spam on the forums? Does the frog delete and release those? :lol:

 

No they absolutely do not. That has come up before, and I bookmarked the profile of one at work. During lunch hour, of course, I don't surf the web during working hours. :laughing: Spam bots are amongst the 7 million Geocachers.

 

You know, I might sound a little radical here, and like I'm bashing the Frog. But C'mon now, if you tried to get a username, and was told it was "used" because someone with 0 finds and 0 hides logged in with it for one day in 2007, couldn't you see it from my perspective? :blink:

 

For those who couldn't care less, I agree with some of the previous posts that you have to get creative with special characters on the keyboard, or put on "s" on the end like Redant did, etc...

I wonder how many million cachers are actually just spam bots? I've always assumed the reason Groundspeak doesn't delete spam accounts is just so they can pad their numbers for marketing purposes.

 

Well, it IS about the numbers... Isn't it? :blink:

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

Here's a question - what about the usernames that sign up just to post spam on the forums? Does the frog delete and release those? :lol:

 

No they absolutely do not. That has come up before, and I bookmarked the profile of one at work. During lunch hour, of course, I don't surf the web during working hours. :laughing: Spam bots are amongst the 7 million Geocachers.

 

You know, I might sound a little radical here, and like I'm bashing the Frog. But C'mon now, if you tried to get a username, and was told it was "used" because someone with 0 finds and 0 hides logged in with it for one day in 2007, couldn't you see it from my perspective? :blink:

 

For those who couldn't care less, I agree with some of the previous posts that you have to get creative with special characters on the keyboard, or put on "s" on the end like Redant did, etc...

I wonder how many million cachers are actually just spam bots? I've always assumed the reason Groundspeak doesn't delete spam accounts is just so they can pad their numbers for marketing purposes.

 

Well, it IS about the numbers... Isn't it? :blink:

 

:laughing:

 

What would be really classic would be if someone asked for a username, but it was already taken by a spambot . I'll bet that's already happened, but we'd never hear about it, and the person asking for the username would just be all like, Ok, if you say so. :ph34r:

Link to comment

It is annoying, and as you can see I have the number 53 on the end of my username because Bushwalker was taken. But with the 53 on the end it sounds better! Good usernames are hard to get these days, on many websites, But I think it would be a bit cruel to rob someone of a username just because they haven't found many caches.

Link to comment

It is annoying, and as you can see I have the number 53 on the end of my username because Bushwalker was taken. But with the 53 on the end it sounds better! Good usernames are hard to get these days, on many websites, But I think it would be a bit cruel to rob someone of a username just because they haven't found many caches.

 

Plain old Bushwalker did find and log one cache. It was created in 2005, and last logged into in 2010. Disappointing if you want it, but I totally agree it should be gone forever.

 

As threatened the other day, proof that Groundspeak will never delete accounts, even that of a spambot. This has come up before, so when I saw some spam in the forums a couple months ago, I bookmarked a spambot's profile. Username akmkbjok was created for, and only used for the purposes of spamming the forums http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=6803354 although "locked", it obviously has not been deleted.

 

So who wants to write to the contact address and ask if they can change their name to, or create the account akmkbjok? I'm in enough hot water around here these days. :anicute:

Link to comment

It is annoying, and as you can see I have the number 53 on the end of my username because Bushwalker was taken. But with the 53 on the end it sounds better! Good usernames are hard to get these days, on many websites, But I think it would be a bit cruel to rob someone of a username just because they haven't found many caches.

 

Plain old Bushwalker did find and log one cache. It was created in 2005, and last logged into in 2010. Disappointing if you want it, but I totally agree it should be gone forever.

 

As threatened the other day, proof that Groundspeak will never delete accounts, even that of a spambot. This has come up before, so when I saw some spam in the forums a couple months ago, I bookmarked a spambot's profile. Username akmkbjok was created for, and only used for the purposes of spamming the forums http://www.geocachin...ile/?id=6803354 although "locked", it obviously has not been deleted.

 

So who wants to write to the contact address and ask if they can change their name to, or create the account akmkbjok? I'm in enough hot water around here these days. :anicute:

Groundspeak doesn't even lock all spambot accounts. I reported jimmyhelu a while back and all they did was delete the forum posts. He still has a spam link in his profile.

I'd like to see someone try to get their name changed to jimmyhelu. The account isn't locked(yet) and has a verified email.

Edited by UMainah
Link to comment

It is annoying, and as you can see I have the number 53 on the end of my username because Bushwalker was taken. But with the 53 on the end it sounds better! Good usernames are hard to get these days, on many websites, But I think it would be a bit cruel to rob someone of a username just because they haven't found many caches.

 

Plain old Bushwalker did find and log one cache. It was created in 2005, and last logged into in 2010. Disappointing if you want it, but I totally agree it should be gone forever.

 

As threatened the other day, proof that Groundspeak will never delete accounts, even that of a spambot. This has come up before, so when I saw some spam in the forums a couple months ago, I bookmarked a spambot's profile. Username akmkbjok was created for, and only used for the purposes of spamming the forums http://www.geocachin...ile/?id=6803354 although "locked", it obviously has not been deleted.

 

So who wants to write to the contact address and ask if they can change their name to, or create the account akmkbjok? I'm in enough hot water around here these days. :anicute:

Groundspeak doesn't even lock all spambot accounts. I reported jimmyhelu a while back and all they did was delete the forum posts. He still has a spam link in his profile.

I'd like to see someone try to get their name changed to jimmyhelu. The account isn't locked(yet) and has a verified email.

 

Now that's interesting. It would just be speculation, but they may not even have a record of JimmyHelu being a spammer. Ol' "Jimmy" absolutely meets Groundspeaks criteria for an account that is "used" and gone forever; Jimmy's confirmation email was responded to, and the account is validated.

 

The low-level Groundspeak Lackey that denied me a 0 find 0 hide 2007 one day log-in repeatedly used the term the account in question was "used" :blink:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...