cacher not validated member

[+weston wanderer]

Today I had a set of logs from one of our cache series. As the finder claimed to have had "quick" finds on each of the caches, even the one that experienced cachers find difficult I looked up the profile. Apparently he/she joined today and logged 98 finds all from today. Under "status" on the Profile page is Not Validated Member.

In that case how can caches be logged and I am more than suspicious that 98 were logged as today's finds over a wide geographical area! I suppose he/she could be a cacher who has changed caching name and is relogging everything but ignoring the original dates.

[+steben6]

As I am not seeing anybody logging your caches today (on your profile), I'm assuming those logs have disappeared? Strange.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Is most likely is somebody that really doesn't care about what they are doing or going about doing it.

Regarding the "Not a Validated Member" status, is probably due to the fact that they did not respond to a validation email sent to each member upon signing up for geocaching.com. Don't respond to the automated message and you end up being in a not validated status.

 

Quite likely, that 'member' is a smart phone user as they have never visited the website. This generally means they are using a phone.

Some will argue (for this reason in particular) that phone use is "polluting" geocaching, as it makes if far too easy for folks to ignore things as guidelines, etc. Just buy a phone, acquire an app and do what you want, without consequence.

 

It may well be that they intend to do right, but are clueless from the get-go. Never having been to the geocaching.com website, they will most likely remain that way -- either intentionally or otherwise.

You cannot email them as their email is disabled due to not being verified, yet they can continue on their merry way. Something that should be rectified (in my opinion) by Groundspeak HQ.

 

Likewise, they could also be "armchair logging" simply because they don't know better. Looking at their 98 Found It logs this date, I would say that "armchair logging" is the case, be it actually intentional or not. I rather doubt that they would changed name and are re-logging because usually a cacher that has (at least) that experience would normally have mentioned so in the logs -- or at least some of them, anyway.

 

Delete their logs if you desire, AFTER checking to make sure they didn't sign the log book/sheet. It probably won't matter to them as they may not get the deletion notice email, or pay attention to such. Your choice.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

As I am not seeing anybody logging your caches today (on your profile), I'm assuming those logs have disappeared? Strange.

They are there... page 3 and beyond.

[+Simply Paul]

You could email them through their profile and ask them..?

[Pup Patrol]

You could email them through their profile and ask them..?

 

Nope, can't do that because it's not a validated member:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=60371293-cedf-4e0f-a599-ee4880c38fe9

 

Today I had a set of logs from one of our cache series. As the finder claimed to have had "quick" finds on each of the caches, even the one that experienced cachers find difficult I looked up the profile. Apparently he/she joined today and logged 98 finds all from today. Under "status" on the Profile page is Not Validated Member.

In that case how can caches be logged and I am more than suspicious that 98 were logged as today's finds over a wide geographical area! I suppose he/she could be a cacher who has changed caching name and is relogging everything but ignoring the original dates.

 

It's either an armchair logger or someone who has created a new account, and doesn't know to backdate the finds.

 

The logs don't sound like the typical armchair logger. People creating new accounts *usually* say something about logging finds under a new name.

 

Interesting. Not sure how you can solve this. 98 finds in one day certainly looks suspicious on the face of it.

 

 

B.

[+Beach_hut]

It looks mighty suss to me. Or possibly innocent. Not sure which?

 

Did you notice a second non-validated account logged those caches today as well?

[+Simply Paul]

You could email them through their profile and ask them..?

Nope, can't do that because it's not a validated member:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=60371293-cedf-4e0f-a599-ee4880c38fe9

I see what you mean. A good point well made. What a ridiculous feature of GC.com though.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Caches Found 98

 

Member Since: Thursday, 28 March 2013

Last Visit: Never

 

Last Visit: Never indicates they are logging via the Groundspeak API, ie by phone.

 

Groundspeak really should implement new users having to at least visit the site to verify their email, before they can use the site and get details of caches.

[+weston wanderer]

 

Did you notice a second non-validated account logged those caches today as well?

 

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful.

 

People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts.

 

I shall be checking those log books asap!

[+Beach_hut]

How is either user accessing the API to obtain details of as many caches as they are? They're not a prem member so that should give them 3 at most? Or am I mis-understanding? Or is there a back door?

[+T.D.M.22]

How is either user accessing the API to obtain details of as many caches as they are? They're not a prem member so that should give them 3 at most? Or am I mis-understanding? Or is there a back door?

 

I thought it was the free official app that only gives you three caches....and anyway that's the Groundspeak app-there are others that are authorized by Groundspeak. And C:geo which is not authorized so it "skims" the Geocaching.com website. Since it is not official or authorized it is not bound by any limits...

[Blue Square Thing]

How is either user accessing the API to obtain details of as many caches as they are? They're not a prem member so that should give them 3 at most? Or am I mis-understanding? Or is there a back door?

 

The free app gives you three, but the paid for app will give you all of them - iirc it's only a £6-7 isn't it?

 

The geographical spread is interesting (and reminds me that I could use going back up Thetford way at some point...) - almost like it's someone who's been finding them for ages but not logging and who's suddenly gotten around to signing up and logging them.

[+Legochugglers]

 

Did you notice a second non-validated account logged those caches today as well?

 

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful.

 

People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts.

 

I shall be checking those log books asap!

Checking the log books is the way forward but I would print off the full list on the cache listing so you can tick off each on-line log to the ones on the paper log. It may be that the cachers found the cache several months ago or they signed as a different name.

There may be a completely innocent explanation?

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

Did you notice a second non-validated account logged those caches today as well?

 

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful.

 

People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts.

 

I shall be checking those log books asap!

Checking the log books is the way forward but I would print off the full list on the cache listing so you can tick off each on-line log to the ones on the paper log. It may be that the cachers found the cache several months ago or they signed as a different name.

There may be a completely innocent explanation?

 

The app is total trash. Its so battery hungry you can only manage about 5 caches if you are walking a series or double that if you are cache and dashing before that bettery is dead as a dodo. You could in car charge but it only maintains a level battery, because it is so battery hungry. You can select an area and download all caches in that area. But it will only do 30 in one go. Then you need to select find more caches. The more times you do that the more caches will download. You then have to save them all for offline use and that is the maximum you can get out of your battery. Maximum of say 20 caches. But because the app is slowwwwww to catch up with you (on iphone) you take longer to find them.

 

Most most likely its a sock puppet account. Some sullen cacher who is rubbishing logs. had one here a while ago who was logging caches miles apart in one day with just a "!" symbol. Still some there on the logs. Ask your reviewer to have a look.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Ask your reviewer to have a look.

Not a reviewer's job. They have plenty of babysitting to do without policing other garbage!

[+Legochugglers]

 

Did you notice a second non-validated account logged those caches today as well?

 

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful.

 

People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts.

 

I shall be checking those log books asap!

Checking the log books is the way forward but I would print off the full list on the cache listing so you can tick off each on-line log to the ones on the paper log. It may be that the cachers found the cache several months ago or they signed as a different name.

There may be a completely innocent explanation?

 

The app is total trash. Its so battery hungry you can only manage about 5 caches if you are walking a series or double that if you are cache and dashing before that bettery is dead as a dodo. You could in car charge but it only maintains a level battery, because it is so battery hungry. You can select an area and download all caches in that area. But it will only do 30 in one go. Then you need to select find more caches. The more times you do that the more caches will download. You then have to save them all for offline use and that is the maximum you can get out of your battery. Maximum of say 20 caches. But because the app is slowwwwww to catch up with you (on iphone) you take longer to find them.

 

Most most likely its a sock puppet account. Some sullen cacher who is rubbishing logs. had one here a while ago who was logging caches miles apart in one day with just a "!" symbol. Still some there on the logs. Ask your reviewer to have a look.

Doesn't read like a sullen cacher or anyone with any sort of gripe. Logs are polite but very short and generic in their content. Only thing they seem to be achieving, if they are bogus, is a quick burst of pointless smilies.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Legochugglers

[Blue Square Thing]

The app is total trash. Its so battery hungry you can only manage about 5 caches if you are walking a series or double that if you are cache and dashing before that bettery is dead as a dodo. You could in car charge but it only maintains a level battery, because it is so battery hungry. You can select an area and download all caches in that area. But it will only do 30 in one go. Then you need to select find more caches. The more times you do that the more caches will download. You then have to save them all for offline use and that is the maximum you can get out of your battery. Maximum of say 20 caches. But because the app is slowwwwww to catch up with you (on iphone) you take longer to find them.

 

Odd how I've had a good days use out of it then (on the odd occasion I've actually used any form of GPS device). Worth trying closing the app when you're not actually using it. Fwiw.

[+weston wanderer]

I checked a cross section of the logsheets today and surprise surprise neither of them have signed the logsheets. We checked back a few months - it's a popular series so the logs are changed quite frequently.

So do I bother to delete the logs? Or ignore the whole episode as I suppose no harm has been done. I am still at a loss as to why anyone would want to spend all that time logging caches they probably haven't visited - and using a phone to do the whole lot!

[+Beach_hut]

I'd certainly be inclined to delete the logs of the ones you've checked - see if they query it before you go any further?

 

I wonder if the "email not validated" status works both ways - are they able to message you or other users whilst they've not validated their email address?

 

You know, I've heard it said in the forums "everyone plays the game their own way" and that we should turn a blind eye, I'm not entirely sure of that approach where it comes to our own owned caches myself.

[+butch_uk]

 

I thought it was the free official app that only gives you three caches....and anyway that's the Groundspeak app-there are others that are authorized by Groundspeak. And C:geo which is not authorized so it "skims" the Geocaching.com website. Since it is not official or authorized it is not bound by any limits...

 

Just for the record, all third party apps that use the Groundspeak API require premium membership to use, including C:geo.

[Deceangi]

I thought it was the free official app that only gives you three caches....and anyway that's the Groundspeak app-there are others that are authorized by Groundspeak. And C:geo which is not authorized so it "skims" the Geocaching.com website. Since it is not official or authorized it is not bound by any limits...

 

Just for the record, all third party apps that use the Groundspeak API require premium membership to use, including C:geo.

 

I've just had a look at Groundspeak API Partner Page and that program is not listed, which means it must still be Screen Scraping and not accessing the API at all. Meaning that it is not a App Licensed to access GC.

 

Deci

[+butch_uk]

I beg your pardon.

 

"Why does c:geo not use Groundspeak's public API ?

Let us answer this once and for all in one place. But let's start with basics.

 

There is very simple reason why us and Groundspeak can't sync. We are a FREE, opensource application, they are a corporation. We give our software for no money, they would like to make profit with a service. They don't like what we do, we don't like what they do. It's like fire & water, cat & dog, hell & heaven....

 

The initial idea of c:geo is to provide a free (and open-source) app for mobile geocaching for everybody.

 

What would change with the API?

 

- c:geo only for premium members

- no support for OpenCaching or other platforms than geocaching.com

- Groundspeak-advertisements

 

There are also problems with the development:

- Development would take 2-4 months to implement the API

- During this time there would be only access to a testing-server, no nightly-builds

- Devlopers are using the development-build for caching

- The API requires a private key for the app. But c:geo is open-source. There are a lot of independent developers, but only one would get the key - all other developers wouldn't be able to test what they do

- c:geo would be no longer open-source

- Only a few core-developers allowed

- Much slower development

 

The Groundspeak's "public" API would fix most of our current problems, however c:geo would then force users to pay money to a corporation. This is not the opensource spirit.

If Groundspeak says OK to our idea then c:geo might have an API some day..."

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'd certainly be inclined to delete the logs of the ones you've checked - see if they query it before you go any further?

 

I wonder if the "email not validated" status works both ways - are they able to message you or other users whilst they've not validated their email address?

 

You know, I've heard it said in the forums "everyone plays the game their own way" and that we should turn a blind eye, I'm not entirely sure of that approach where it comes to our own owned caches myself.

Yep, if you've checked the log books then it's your duty to delete the fake online logs. I'd leave the ones unchecked, because there's always the slight chance that some could be genuine.

[+lodgebarn]

 

I thought it was the free official app that only gives you three caches....and anyway that's the Groundspeak app-there are others that are authorized by Groundspeak. And C:geo which is not authorized so it "skims" the Geocaching.com website. Since it is not official or authorized it is not bound by any limits...

 

Just for the record, all third party apps that use the Groundspeak API require premium membership to use, including C:geo.

I think you will find that ordinary members can use some API functions just not all. GSAK certainly supports non premium access.

[+TheHarleyRebel]

People can still log on a mobile device.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Since my last post the app has been seriously improved. Really accurate now and hardly battery hungry at all.

 

However using it does not as has been mentioned, log as a visit on the website. Which makes it a bit hard to contact people if they pick up TB's etc or log caches. Especially if they have only ever visited the site via a mobile phone app.

 

However the rule is ... if you have not signed the log sheet you cannot claim a find. It may well be a sock puppet that someone is using for some future purpose. I've heard that when someone wants to put out a series in a certain area, but that area is populated with poorly maintained caches - to creat a sock. Blast some find logs. Hold on for a bit then log a needs maintenance log on the caches in the area you want and follow that up with a needs archived. I have noticed this from a few never before heard of profiles and suddenly there they are using experienced language but only 50 or so finds.

 

But it could be anything really. Stick to the mantra that if you don't sign the log you don't claim a find. They can appeal it if they are genuine and you can prove they aren't. Simple. Or leave it.

 

Ooo edit - careful they weren't caching as a team. And used a different handle to save you log space.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Seaglass Pirates