Jump to content

Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.


NimravusHSSR

Recommended Posts

The proposal is usually that the cache can be logged online just like any other cache, but if the finder can also report the secret code, they would get a gold star or some other acknowledgement that this is a verified find. I can't recall if a Groundspeak lackey has ever responded to a request like this. My impression is that they would see this as an unnecessary complication to the game.

No kidding. If you've seen all the posts about Premium Caches being “elitist”, wait til the forums fill with posts by cachers who don't have Stars Upon Thars.

 

Sneetches.jpg

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I think I have a better idea what the OP is asking for. It has been asked for many times over the last 10 years and either turned down or ignored by TPTB.

 

(Everything else snipped)

 

Do you honestly have no respect for signing the logbook as the benchmark for claiming a find?

 

 

edit: grammer

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I think I have a better idea what the OP is asking for. It has been asked for many times over the last 10 years and either turned down or ignored by TPTB.

 

As I mentioned earlier, when Geocaching.com provided the ability to log finds online, there was immediately an issue with what are now called bogus logs - someone posting a found log online who didn't find the cache.

 

Groundspeak's response was to make cache owners responsible for the online logs posted to their cache pages. Logs that appeared to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not meeting requirements were to be deleted.

 

When people asked how to tell if a found log was bogus, Groundspeak said they could look at the physical log book and whether or not it was signed.

 

This caused a problem for people who had caches that were difficult to get to. These caches were not found often and it was too much of a burden for the owners of these caches to check physical logs for each find. Some owners of these high terrain caches would put a code word in the cache and ask finders to email them the code word as condition of logging a find.

 

For a number of years, Groundspeak was OK with this solution. So long as there was still a log book to sign, the cache owner could have additional requirements for logging the cache, including having verification codes.

 

However,I think this verification code idea never had that much support from Groundspeak. The preference was for owners of remote caches to trust that these caches were being found by people who logged them as found. But if someone were to post finds on a number of high terrain caches on one day and it was obvious that no one could have been to these cache on the same day, the owners could delete the logs that appeared to be bogus. Then if the finder could present the code word as proof they had been to the cache, the cache owner could accept this in lieu of needing to check the log book.

 

When Groundspeak decided to change the guidelines to prohibit ALRs for logging finds, a number of owners of high terrain caches complained that they lost this method of verifying finds. TPTB response was they didn't see it as a problem. True fake finds are generally easy to spot. It is extremely rare, if not unheard of, for someone to post a single fake log on a high terrain cache.

 

Given Groundspeak's long time view that additional verification for online finds is not necessary, some have requested a special log or cache type for verified finds. The proposal is usually that the cache can be logged online just like any other cache, but if the finder can also report the secret code, they would get a gold star or some other acknowledgement that this is a verified find. I can't recall if a Groundspeak lackey has ever responded to a request like this. My impression is that they would see this as an unnecessary complication to the game.

 

I don't like this because it creates the appearance of two levels of finds, with one being better than the other. Most of us consider a find as a find. Creating another thing for people to compete over and argue about just seems unnecessary.

 

Of all the caches that I have found and logged online, I have never had a cache owner challenge me on the idea that I may not have found their cache. Of all of the finds posted on my caches, only one was clearly bogus, one was by a German that was caching in Germany that day and typed in the wrong GC-Code, and recently two were logged by mistake and quickly deleted by the cacher.

 

I guess it's hard for me to support a verification system because in almost 8 years of caching, 5986 found logs posted and 6694 found logs posted on my caches, I have never seen a need for a verification system. I think that such a system will simply create drama where we don't need it.

Link to comment

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

I'm not closed to new ideas, I just call out what I believe to be bad ideas when I see them.

 

Your idea of a "bad idea" is different from mine or someone elses... so who is right?

 

It proves the FTF. How do you get the code from a friend for the FTF? hmmm...

 

If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start. Sometimes the majority is wrong (large numbers usually think so right after an election, whoever gets elected). When there's little to no obvious benefit to an idea and multiple reasons to dislike the idea that, to me, is also a good sign it's not a very good one.

 

How does it prove the FTF, unless the idea is that the FTF takes it away? If they took it away what's to stop them sending it to a friend and both claiming joint FTF? And besides, why should Groundspeak be interested in changing the entire game in order to support an unofficial game-within-a-game? Even if they did, now you're saying you need two codes or QR codes stuck inside every cache to prove FTF? Good luck getting that into a nano. Even if it's in a film pot it's easy to see how someone who doesn't log every cache within a microsecond of finding it could take a code home only to find the piece of paper disintegrated or got wet or some such, so they still couldn't log it.

 

If people want to bicker over who got FTF let them bicker, it's not Groundspeak's job to referee silly disputes. Maybe the owner could rule on who they consider to be FTF, maybe if they really can't agree both people claiming it would just continue to claim it. It's not like anybody checks how many FTFs someone has. Usually it's pretty easy, whoever signed the log first got FTF. If there are multiple ways of logging that actually makes it harder to determine who was there first.

Link to comment

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

 

And how would you enforce that? If Groundspeak spends development time on a feature which allows the app to update data read off a bar code there are going to be some that *will* slap a barcode sticker on the outside of a container or on a magnetic sheet slapped on some object. As long as the cache owner doesn't mention how the barcode was used the reviewer would never know and the cache would be published. It would then be seen as a precedent for how to use these bar codes. If it's not revealed on the cache listing that the bar code is the only way to log the cache, someone that hasn't brought a smartphone *and* has purchased the app will arrive at the cache location, find the container but won't be able to log it.

 

One of the metrics I use when evaluating suggestions like this is how it would work in countries outside of North America or Europe. Most of the geocaching I do these days is while traveling, and when traveling to other countries I'm not going to my smartphone due to the astronomical data roaming charges I would incur. If geocaching becomes even more dependent upon a smartphone it effectively limits those that enjoy geocaching while traveling to far away places.

Link to comment

And how would you enforce that?

 

How are invalid caches enforced now? LOL... The majority of cachers are honest and good people, who will report invalid caches such as no log book, no container, etc... No different that current system? you are funny... good one...

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

 

If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start. Sometimes the majority is wrong (large numbers usually think so right after an election, whoever gets elected). When there's little to no obvious benefit to an idea and multiple reasons to dislike the idea that, to me, is also a good sign it's not a very good one.

 

How does it prove the FTF, unless the idea is that the FTF takes it away? If they took it away what's to stop them sending it to a friend and both claiming joint FTF? And besides, why should Groundspeak be interested in changing the entire game in order to support an unofficial game-within-a-game? Even if they did, now you're saying you need two codes or QR codes stuck inside every cache to prove FTF? Good luck getting that into a nano. Even if it's in a film pot it's easy to see how someone who doesn't log every cache within a microsecond of finding it could take a code home only to find the piece of paper disintegrated or got wet or some such, so they still couldn't log it.

 

If people want to bicker over who got FTF let them bicker, it's not Groundspeak's job to referee silly disputes. Maybe the owner could rule on who they consider to be FTF, maybe if they really can't agree both people claiming it would just continue to claim it. It's not like anybody checks how many FTFs someone has. Usually it's pretty easy, whoever signed the log first got FTF. If there are multiple ways of logging that actually makes it harder to determine who was there first.

 

I hardly think this is considered "lots of people". There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cachers, maybe even millions of people who knows. And a dozen people all of the sudden become lots of people? I thought this was a forum where we can bounce around ideas. I know people hate change, and their way is usually the "best" way. But can't we just give constructive criticism?

 

Cheating will become rampant. Since we are all now speculating I guess... What if, what if, what if... we can "what if" all we want. There will always be a small percentage of bad apples. Why aren't people going around destroying caches, etc. You guys make it sound like cheating will become rampant and out of control. All of the sudden, everyone will pass around codes and cheat... lol

Link to comment

 

If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start. Sometimes the majority is wrong (large numbers usually think so right after an election, whoever gets elected). When there's little to no obvious benefit to an idea and multiple reasons to dislike the idea that, to me, is also a good sign it's not a very good one.

 

How does it prove the FTF, unless the idea is that the FTF takes it away? If they took it away what's to stop them sending it to a friend and both claiming joint FTF? And besides, why should Groundspeak be interested in changing the entire game in order to support an unofficial game-within-a-game? Even if they did, now you're saying you need two codes or QR codes stuck inside every cache to prove FTF? Good luck getting that into a nano. Even if it's in a film pot it's easy to see how someone who doesn't log every cache within a microsecond of finding it could take a code home only to find the piece of paper disintegrated or got wet or some such, so they still couldn't log it.

 

If people want to bicker over who got FTF let them bicker, it's not Groundspeak's job to referee silly disputes. Maybe the owner could rule on who they consider to be FTF, maybe if they really can't agree both people claiming it would just continue to claim it. It's not like anybody checks how many FTFs someone has. Usually it's pretty easy, whoever signed the log first got FTF. If there are multiple ways of logging that actually makes it harder to determine who was there first.

 

I hardly think this is considered "lots of people". There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cachers, maybe even millions of people who knows. And a dozen people all of the sudden become lots of people? I thought this was a forum where we can bounce around ideas. I know people hate change, and their way is usually the "best" way. But can't we just give constructive criticism?

 

Cheating will become rampant. Since we are all now speculating I guess... What if, what if, what if... we can "what if" all we want. There will always be a small percentage of bad apples. Why aren't people going around destroying caches, etc. You guys make it sound like cheating will become rampant and out of control. All of the sudden, everyone will pass around codes and cheat... lol

 

Nobody said it was considered "lots of people". But relatively speaking more people here seem to think it's a bad idea than a good idea. If you want to speculate what the people who haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other think go ahead, but don't be surprised if others speculate differently.

 

Here's a radical idea. How about looking at how your proposed solution will improve the game in practical ways?

 

Seriously, what will this idea achieve? Adding another way to verify a find introduces more development work for the sake of saving people writing on a log book. In other words it creates work for no benefit - if people can't be bothered to sign a log they don't get a find.

 

It won't resolve any arguments over who got FTF unless there's another code to take away. Multiple ways of logging a cache just muddy the water. If there's a log book the first person to write in the log book is the FTF. If there's a log book and a barcode to scan then the first person to write in the book will claim FTF and the first person to scan the barcode will also claim FTF. Who gets to be the referee when the inevitable squabbles break out over who was really first?

 

Having a barcode won't provide any extra proof that someone was even there so it still won't provide a validated find. At present I can find a cache and write your name in it and tell you at the end of the day which caches you found. With barcodes I can send you a list of the caches you found with their validation codes so you know which verified finds you can log. So it doesn't improve anything there.

 

The only thing I can see it does provide is a way for people to log a find with even less effort than it presently takes, and frankly I don't want to see the game moving towards a smartphone-based activity where the idea is just to beep a code and move on fast. If we're going to do that we might as well just upload a GPX track log to a site and let it automatically write "TFTC" against any cache if we passed within about 50 feet of it.

 

So now you've got some constructive criticism, I'd be interested in what benefits you think a barcode would actually offer.

Link to comment

And how would you enforce that?

 

How are invalid caches enforced now? LOL... The majority of cachers are honest and good people, who will report invalid caches such as no log book, no container, etc... No different that current system? you are funny... good one...

 

I wasn't intending to be funny.

 

I think you're probably right that a majority of people would report caches if it did not contain a log book, because without one most geocachers probably wouldn't log a found it if they didn't have a log book to sign. However, I'm not convinced that most cachers would report a cache which violates the guidelines as long as they were able to get credit for the find. I've seen numerous examples of caches that should have had a needs maintenance log posted but lots of people will log finds without mentioning it.

 

In any case, the fact that there are guidelines that exist now that are not easily enforcable is not a very convincing argument for adding a feature with guidelines that are not enforceable.

Link to comment

If geocaching is a game, what does it matter if people are visiting the caches or not? They're simply cheating themselves by not being able to enjoy the experience of finding the cache. Also, isn't the log kinda made to keep people from cheating? You could always go and check the log to see if it has been signed. Some people don't have smartphones, so how would they be able to log a verify found? :huh:

Link to comment

If geocaching is a game, what does it matter if people are visiting the caches or not? They're simply cheating themselves by not being able to enjoy the experience of finding the cache. Also, isn't the log kinda made to keep people from cheating? You could always go and check the log to see if it has been signed. Some people don't have smartphones, so how would they be able to log a verify found? :huh:

 

You obviously haven't read the posts above, again... If people don't have a smart phone they can use a code they copy from the container when they log the find on their computer. And if they choose not to participate that's up to them. Kind of like some people skip Premium only caches because they don't have a premium account. Or they skip night caches because they don't have a flashlight

 

And about cheating, you contradicted yourself so I have no answer for your statement/question. You said what does it matter if people are visiting caches, yet there is a logbook logging rule. If it didn't matter you wouldn't have to log the find in the cache. Lol.

Link to comment

Thank you team tisri for your criticism. Since this is a Feature Discussion and Suggestion forum, I just wanted to share an idea. :blink:

 

Nobody said it was considered "lots of people". But relatively speaking more people here seem to think it's a bad idea than a good idea. If you want to speculate what the people who haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other think go ahead, but don't be surprised if others speculate differently. Well you did, "If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start" The "More people here" you are referring to, it's just this thread right? the dozen or so people out of how many cachers? Thats like taking a survey from 15 people in a 100,000 population city and calling a decision.

 

Here's a radical idea. How about looking at how your proposed solution will improve the game in practical ways? By providing another option for the CO. If the CO doesn't want it, like yourself, you don't check the box. Choice. Kind of like you can choose to make a multi-cache or traditional cache right now.... choice. If you don't like verified caches, you just filter it out so you don't even see them. Like some people filter out puzzle caches or multi-caches right now.

 

Seriously, what will this idea achieve? Redundant, see above.

 

Adding another way to verify a find introduces more development work for the sake of saving people writing on a log book. In other words it creates work for no benefit - if people can't be bothered to sign a log they don't get a find. Statement. Noted.

 

It won't resolve any arguments over who got FTF unless there's another code to take away. Multiple ways of logging a cache just muddy the water. You will be able to filter out these types of caches so you won't even see them in your list. Kind of like blocking channels on your cable box. So it won't even affect you as you would most certainly filter them out and won't even see them. I don't get how there will be an argument over FTF when it goes to the first to physically log, then log it online using the verification code? or Smartphone if one has it. There would only be 1 way of logging a cache so I don't know how to answer your question.

 

If there's a log book the first person to write in the log book is the FTF. If there's a log book and a barcode to scan then the first person to write in the book will claim FTF and the first person to scan the barcode will also claim FTF. If the person scans the code, then he must sign the book also per Geocaching rules. Log the find in the logbook. Regarding FTF, I was only saying that because someone could see a new cache pop up and just hit "Found It" to claim FTF as it is right now. If the CO never routinely verifies the logbook as I'm sure most CO's don't... it won't be caught.

 

Who gets to be the referee when the inevitable squabbles break out over who was really first? How is the current system set up when there is a dispute over a log that wasn't signed but claimed online? The First to Log the find in the book and log it online gets it? No Brainer?

 

Having a barcode won't provide any extra proof that someone was even there so it still won't provide a validated find. At present I can find a cache and write your name in it and tell you at the end of the day which caches you found. With barcodes I can send you a list of the caches you found with their validation codes so you know which verified finds you can log. So it doesn't improve anything there. True amongst friends, but that can happen now anyway with the logging as you described. But it will make it much more difficult. If you wanted to claim one of my caches that I enabled as Verify code, how would you get the code if none of your friends have found it? Of of your friends would have to go find it then distribute it out to his friends. The circle is very small. Plus I maintenance my caches often so that would be caught the traditional way anyway.

 

The only thing I can see it does provide is a way for people to log a find with even less effort than it presently takes, With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

and frankly I don't want to see the game moving towards a smartphone-based activity Not a smartphone based activity so I have no answer. Many times it has been mentioned a smartphone is not needed.

 

where the idea is just to beep a code and move on fast. If we're going to do that we might as well just upload a GPX track log to a site and let it automatically write "TFTC" against any cache if we passed within about 50 feet of it. Redundant again so I'll copy and paste: With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

So now you've got some constructive criticism, I'd be interested in what benefits you think a barcode would actually offer. Redundant again, see second answer towards the top.

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

Hope the quote tags come out as I intend them to here.

 

Nobody said it was considered "lots of people". But relatively speaking more people here seem to think it's a bad idea than a good idea. If you want to speculate what the people who haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other think go ahead, but don't be surprised if others speculate differently. Well you did, "If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start" The "More people here" you are referring to, it's just this thread right? the dozen or so people out of how many cachers? Thats like taking a survey from 15 people in a 100,000 population city and calling a decision.

 

I'd intended that as a more generic statement. Even so when only some people express a preference the silent people are effectively excluded. It's much like the way an election counts the percentage of people who voted as opposed to the percentage of people who could have voted. If you get three votes, I get two votes, and 99,995 people stay home then you win the election even if I can support my claim that 99,000 of the people who stayed home would have voted for me.

 

Here's a radical idea. How about looking at how your proposed solution will improve the game in practical ways? By providing another option for the CO. If the CO doesn't want it, like yourself, you don't check the box. Choice. Kind of like you can choose to make a multi-cache or traditional cache right now.... choice. If you don't like verified caches, you just filter it out so you don't even see them. Like some people filter out puzzle caches or multi-caches right now.

 

It's another option but what purpose does it serve? The "provide another option" is pointless unless it's an option that adds value somehow. Otherwise we might as well have a tick box so the CO can specify that their film pot is one of the fancy white ones with a black lid that were always used to hold Fuji professional grade slide film. It means people can decide to only find the regular black film pots if they prefer. It's a choice, nobody has to check it if they don't like it. At best what you're describing is an additional logging requirement, at worst it's a totally redundant change especially if people still have to sign the physical log book as you suggested later on.

 

Seriously, what will this idea achieve? Redundant, see above.

 

Not redundant at all, I still don't see the change accomplishes anything.

 

It won't resolve any arguments over who got FTF unless there's another code to take away. Multiple ways of logging a cache just muddy the water. You will be able to filter out these types of caches so you won't even see them in your list. Kind of like blocking channels on your cable box. So it won't even affect you as you would most certainly filter them out and won't even see them. I don't get how there will be an argument over FTF when it goes to the first to physically log, then log it online using the verification code? or Smartphone if one has it. There would only be 1 way of logging a cache so I don't know how to answer your question.

 

If there's a log book the first person to write in the log book is the FTF. If there's a log book and a barcode to scan then the first person to write in the book will claim FTF and the first person to scan the barcode will also claim FTF. If the person scans the code, then he must sign the book also per Geocaching rules. Log the find in the logbook. Regarding FTF, I was only saying that because someone could see a new cache pop up and just hit "Found It" to claim FTF as it is right now. If the CO never routinely verifies the logbook as I'm sure most CO's don't... it won't be caught.

 

If someone claims FTF without signing the log book the chances are the person who does sign the log book first will stake their own claim. If it matters to them they can prove they signed it first by going back out and taking a picture, or asking the next finder to take a picture. Or they can figure they'll claim the FTF and don't care if an armchair cacher also claims it. First to log isn't always the first to find, it's easy to see how one person using a conventional GPS could find a cache and sign it, then while they were still out a smartphone cacher could find the same cache, sign it second and log it online first.

 

Who gets to be the referee when the inevitable squabbles break out over who was really first? How is the current system set up when there is a dispute over a log that wasn't signed but claimed online? The First to Log the find in the book and log it online gets it? No Brainer?

 

See above. Either way it's hard to see Groundspeak undertaking development effort to attempt to automatically referee who got FTF. Counting FTFs is an unofficial game within their game.

 

Having a barcode won't provide any extra proof that someone was even there so it still won't provide a validated find. At present I can find a cache and write your name in it and tell you at the end of the day which caches you found. With barcodes I can send you a list of the caches you found with their validation codes so you know which verified finds you can log. So it doesn't improve anything there. True amongst friends, but that can happen now anyway with the logging as you described. But it will make it much more difficult. If you wanted to claim one of my caches that I enabled as Verify code, how would you get the code if none of your friends have found it? Of of your friends would have to go find it then distribute it out to his friends. The circle is very small. Plus I maintenance my caches often so that would be caught the traditional way anyway.

 

It sounds like the only benefit, if we can call it that, of the idea is that it makes armchair caching more difficult. It seems like a hassle imposed on everyone else to filter out the odd armchair cacher.

 

I suspect most people don't really care if someone wants to claim a cache without ever having been there. If someone claims a cache that's fairly run-of-the-mill (the kind of 1/1.5 rated cache behind a tree near the station) without actually finding it then it's not like anyone is likely to even notice. If it's a more demanding cache the owner can verify the log book if they are so inclined and delete logs that don't match up. Or they can let them stand. For all there's some irritation within some groups that people log caches from their armchair I can only imagine the complaints if people do take an age to find an elusive 5/5 cache only to open the box and find the verification code has been rendered illegible by a bit of water ingress, meaning they can't log it. Or they get home and find they lost the piece of paper they used to write down the verification code.

 

A couple of years back I found a cache that had been found once in the previous year. I'd hoped to claim the cache as a qualifier for a local resuscitator cache (a challenge where you have to find a cache that hadn't been found for a year or more to qualify). When I got to the cache there was a TB still in it that had been there for more than a year and no sign that the previous finder had been there. So I raised a query with the owner, they deleted the log, and I got my qualifier. Had the owner not been interested and the owner of the resuscitator cache not wanted to recognise my efforts, what of it? I still found the first cache, my enjoyment of the cache wasn't diminished in any way, and if I wanted the resuscitator cache I could go and look for another cache to resuscitate.

 

The only thing I can see it does provide is a way for people to log a find with even less effort than it presently takes, With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

and frankly I don't want to see the game moving towards a smartphone-based activity Not a smartphone based activity so I have no answer. Many times it has been mentioned a smartphone is not needed.

 

where the idea is just to beep a code and move on fast. If we're going to do that we might as well just upload a GPX track log to a site and let it automatically write "TFTC" against any cache if we passed within about 50 feet of it. Redundant again so I'll copy and paste: With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

Personally I don't go and look for many caches that are simple film-pot-at-base-of-post type hides because when I'm out and about I'm usually moving through an area either in the car or on the bike and have increasingly little inclination to interrupt my journey to look for a film pot. Some people like that kind of hide so I accept that people play the game in different ways and simply ignore the ones I probably won't like. That said sometimes I'll use a cache - any cache - as a checkpoint on a bike ride to encourage me to do some extra miles rather than cutting short if conditions aren't very good, so I leave all the caches I can find in my pocket queries.

 

That's a different situation to having some caches that you can just sign and move on and some caches where you have to sign them, find the code, make a note of the code, and move on. If the verification code is a number it means I need to write it down and keep track of which code goes with which cache (i.e. it introduces extra work for benefits which are questionable at best). If it's a barcode/QR code I need to carry a camera with me which adds more hassle for the same questionable benefit. Ultimately if a part of logging a regular cache involves having to record some information inside the cache using a camera/smartphone the inevitable tendency will be to figure that since the barcode verifies the find there's no point having a log book as well, and the logical progression is that the log book disappears.

 

If you want to play games where you scan the QR code and your location is verified at the time you scan it, there's a game just like that already out there. You don't need to sign the log book (there isn't even a log book to sign), you just beep the QR code and the app does everything else for you. Sometimes you find the QR tags associated with that game inside geocaches, if the owner plays both games. So you've got another potential complication, if someone scanned the wrong code and thought they had verified their find.

 

So now you've got some constructive criticism, I'd be interested in what benefits you think a barcode would actually offer. Redundant again, see second answer towards the top.

 

With respect I still don't think you've offered any benefit other than the chance to stop armchair cachers and the extra work it would require from Groundspeak and legitimate finders to gain that very marginal benefit is, in my opinion at least, totally out of proportion to the problem.

Link to comment

 

With respect I still don't think you've offered any benefit other than the chance to stop armchair cachers and the extra work it would require from Groundspeak and legitimate finders to gain that very marginal benefit is, in my opinion at least, totally out of proportion to the problem.

 

This is, to me, what most of the feature suggestions boil down to.

 

Whether or not a suggestion is a "good idea" and more specifically whether Groundspeak will consider implementing it should be a comparison of the benefit or value that it adds and the costs of having it implemented. When measuring the benefits one should consider that this is a game played worldwide with very diverse environments and many different preferences for how the game should be played. Just as an example, a feature suggestion which primarily benefits those that play the FTF game, is not going add any value to someone living in a country where very few caches are being placed or for the many that don't care to play the FTF game. The costs can also be measured in many ways. It might might add more complexity, confusion, or introduce a hurdle (i.e. just uncheck a box) for those that have no interest in using the feature. A feature which adds to an already existing problem (i.e. cheating) is still a cost. Most importantly, the costs in terms of develop time by Groundspeak or other additional support activities (i.e. responding to FTF disputes) have to considered. Groundspeak has a finite amount of development and support resources. They can't implement every decent suggestion made here. Recent history has shown that even suggestions which have overwhelmingly favorable support in this forum aren't getting implemented. Any resources that GS devotes to implementing or supporting a suggestion are resources that could be spent on some other suggestion. For just that reason, there are a lot of suggestions which will *not* get support here, simply because it could take away time and effort that could be put towards something that one might deem to be a better suggestion.

Link to comment

Thanks for all the replies. I think we are at a road block here due to differing opinions. There is no right or wrong here so I don't want to go on infinitely round and round. At some point we have to recognize that you believe a certain way and I believe a certain way and those beliefs collide. Example: I believe I offered up great benefits and reasons, you don't believe I have.

 

Luckily for us in the USA for now, we can openly express our beliefs and have a public debate about them. Thanks for the opportunity to see other points of view.

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

If geocaching is a game, what does it matter if people are visiting the caches or not? They're simply cheating themselves by not being able to enjoy the experience of finding the cache. Also, isn't the log kinda made to keep people from cheating? You could always go and check the log to see if it has been signed. Some people don't have smartphones, so how would they be able to log a verify found? :huh:

 

You obviously haven't read the posts above, again... If people don't have a smart phone they can use a code they copy from the container when they log the find on their computer. And if they choose not to participate that's up to them. Kind of like some people skip Premium only caches because they don't have a premium account. Or they skip night caches because they don't have a flashlight

 

And about cheating, you contradicted yourself so I have no answer for your statement/question. You said what does it matter if people are visiting caches, yet there is a logbook logging rule. If it didn't matter you wouldn't have to log the find in the cache. Lol.

Okay, you've caught me. I didn't read all of the posts. I still think that people would be cheating themselves more than anyone else by not going to a cache. :P

Link to comment

There is a very simple way for a finder to "verify that they found the cache." They can take a picture of the logbook, possibly with the container, showing their sign in, and post that with the log online. This doesn't help the CO, but it is something I always do when I find a cache where there may be a question whether I really found it or not.

 

On the other hand, even though there is a significant amount of competition, and creation of websites such as www.lonelycache.com, the bottom line is that it is a game, and it really doesn't matter in any respect whether someone finds a cache or not, who was FTF, etc.

Link to comment

There is a very simple way for a finder to "verify that they found the cache." They can take a picture of the logbook, possibly with the container, showing their sign in, and post that with the log online. This doesn't help the CO, but it is something I always do when I find a cache where there may be a question whether I really found it

 

The naysayers here will say that your friend can sign your name, take a picture and send the picture to you and you can take the find. Lol.

Link to comment

There is a very simple way for a finder to "verify that they found the cache." They can take a picture of the logbook, possibly with the container, showing their sign in, and post that with the log online. This doesn't help the CO, but it is something I always do when I find a cache where there may be a question whether I really found it

 

The naysayers here will say that your friend can sign your name, take a picture and send the picture to you and you can take the find. Lol.

As has been discussed above, there is no foolproof method. Fortunately, the consequences of an armchair log are significantly less dire than having someone steal your identity.

Link to comment

I know people don't like change and new ideas (or maybe the ones protesting are cheating? LOL.. JUST KIDDING!!!)

 

Thats just human nature. Currently, Geocaching.com is king of caching sites. But nothing lasts forever.... Kmart was the retail king once, Sears was the king of department stores, MySpace was the king of Social Media, so on and so forth. Those that don't approve of new ideas can always ignore them and not participate... but this is what Google is doing so well. They are trying tons of new things constantly and most people don't even realize it. Only a few really make it to prime time, but I think they learn from failed projects and gain valuable information. Here is what I'm talking about: http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products/

 

Geocaching.com must constantly throw up new ideas and collect data on what works, what doesn't, encorporate what works into future ideas, etc...

 

If it remains the same with no change as most people want, something bigger and better will come around to take it's place... like Target walking all over Kmart because Kmart failed to change with the times...

Link to comment

And just how would I scan the barcode with my flip phone?

 

Although I work at the bleeding edge of technology, I have 4 cell phones to maintain and, so far, cannot justify putting out hundreds of dollars each month to get "smart" phones with data plans times 4. I use my cell phone for a phone, I use my GPSr for a GPSr, and I use this notebook PC for everything else. Although it has a built-in camera, I'm not about to carry it around to geocaches to have it scan a bar code (even though it can do it).

Link to comment

You don't scan any barcode with your flip phone. If you had read some of the replies in this thread, that's been discussed already. For those without smartphones you use a verification code. And for those that don't want to participate, you can still log the cache found without the verification badge being added. Or you just won't be able to log the find at all depending on the setting set by the CO. I think you are like the 3rd person to ask that same question. Lol.

Link to comment

There is a very simple way for a finder to "verify that they found the cache." They can take a picture of the logbook, possibly with the container, showing their sign in, and post that with the log online. This doesn't help the CO, but it is something I always do when I find a cache where there may be a question whether I really found it

 

The naysayers here will say that your friend can sign your name, take a picture and send the picture to you and you can take the find. Lol.

 

Presumably the same naysayers would say that your friend can sign your name, take a picture, write down the extra verification details, send it all to you and you can take the find?

Link to comment

I really don't see a problem with this except people just don't like change. There have been many changes or additions to options over the last decade. Just like Premium Caches, when they added that... I bet some people went nuts. But hey, if you don't like it, filter out premium caches.

 

If you don't like the idea o verified caching, filter it out. These same people that whine are the people that sit and watch a show complaining how dumb it is.... Just change the channel! It's called .... Choice? Lol

Link to comment

I really don't see a problem with this except people just don't like change. There have been many changes or additions to options over the last decade. Just like Premium Caches, when they added that... I bet some people went nuts. But hey, if you don't like it, filter out premium caches.

 

If you don't like the idea o verified caching, filter it out. These same people that whine are the people that sit and watch a show complaining how dumb it is.... Just change the channel! It's called .... Choice? Lol

I think I understand why, at least for a part of the smartphone/social network crowd, development of a new game based on the activity of geocaching but where the find has some kind of verification might have some appeal. As it stands now, geocaching is primarily a non-competive leisure activity. Setting up some sort of competition, whether with formal events or leveraging smartphone technology, will have a appeal to those who want a competitive version of geocaching. And I agree this can be done so that those who enjoy the less structured non-competitive activity we now have can continue just as we always have.

 

I see several problems with your proposed implementation.

 

Just as you could opt out of verifying your finds, a cache onwer could also opt out of including the verification code in their cache. Sure Groundspeak could impose a rule that you have to have a verification code to get a cache published, but what will happen with the 2,000,000+ caches already placed. I would bet that most owners will not want to be bothered with adding verification to their caches. And my guess is that many cachers will still want to place caches without codes because they have no interest in their cache being part of the competitive game.

 

At least initially there will be very few caches to find that will have a verification code. It isn't clear that the number of verifiable finds will reach the critical mass need to support a new game. People who want to verify something would be better off playing that other game whose name cannot be mentioned.

 

There will be maintenace issues as codes go missing from caches or become unreadable/unscanable. What do you do as a player of the verification game if you find the cache but the code is missing?

Link to comment

You haven't been reading either I guess. Wy would it be mandatory to have a verification code to get published? Is it mandatory for a cache to be premium only to get published? Or mandatory to be a multi-cache to get published? No, it's the CO's choice. And it's competitive to a certain degree with find counts and milestones.

Link to comment

Lol. I just don't see cheating as rampant as you do I guess. Not too many cachers know thousands of friends that go caching to cheat with.

 

I'm just open to new ideas. I know new ideas are difficult though, it's like an invasion on what you are used to.

 

It's nothing to do with an invasion on what I'm used to, a new idea needs to present an improvement in the game that's at least proportionate to any disruption it might cause (in terms of changes to the game and changes to the technical bits behind the game).

 

Why do we need a "verified found" option if not to weed out the people who log finds that can't be verified (i.e. people who are cheating)? As I've said before (and don't recall getting a clear answer to my concerns) the way I see it this idea has many downsides:

 

1. It will require development work to implement

2. It will create disputes over who was FTF (if one person signs the log and another records a barcode but doesn't sign the log)

3. It will create confusion as without a new cache type or attribute nobody will know which caches have this new Additional Logging Requirement

4. It will create issues if a verification code is required but has gone missing despite the cache being present

5. It will do nothing to prevent people signing logs for their friends

 

All it will do is prevent armchair cachers from logging finds, and you said yourself you don't see cheating as a rampant problem so it's not like that's a major issue to be dealing with. So on that basis I still don't see any more than a marginal benefit where a small number of cheaters are concerned, and the change represents disproportionate disruption to the game for the sake of a few people who are really sad enough to cheat to get some yellow smiley faces on a map.

Link to comment

Oh, and if the code goes missing (it would be like now if the log goes missing?) you would still be able to log the find but with maintenance needed. Without the verification code, you just won't get the count towards the verified find count.

 

It would just add another fun element to those who CHOOSE to participate. Those who don't like it... Can change the channel lol.

Link to comment
At least initially there will be very few caches to find that will have a verification code. It isn't clear that the number of verifiable finds will reach the critical mass need to support a new game. People who want to verify something would be better off playing that other game whose name cannot be mentioned.

 

I have to agree with this. If you play the other Game That Must Not Be Named (GTMNBN) you get to verify your find right there and then as your smartphone checks your GPS location against the GPS location recorded for the item you just found. Sure, someone could take their friend's smartphone along or write some convoluted application to fake a bluetooth GPS signal (which probably wouldn't be all that hard for anyone so inclined), but cheating there involves more than just picking a random cache and claiming a find on it.

 

Some geocaches contain game pieces for That Other Game which seems to work fine - there's no reason you can't play two games at the same time. No need to try and combine geocaching with other game pieces.

Link to comment

Why do we need a "verified found" option if not to weed out the people who log finds that can't be verified (i.e. people who are cheating)? As I've said before (and don't recall getting a clear answer to my concerns) the way I see it this idea has many downsides:

 

1. It will require development work to implement

2. It will create disputes over who was FTF (if one person signs the log and another records a barcode but doesn't sign the log)

3. It will create confusion as without a new cache type or attribute nobody will know which caches have this new Additional Logging Requirement

4. It will create issues if a verification code is required but has gone missing despite the cache being present

5. It will do nothing to prevent people signing logs for their friends

 

All it will do is prevent armchair cachers from logging finds, and you said yourself you don't see cheating as a rampant problem so it's not like that's a major issue to be dealing with. So on that basis I still don't see any more than a marginal benefit where a small number of cheaters are concerned, and the change represents disproportionate disruption to the game for the sake of a few people who are really sad enough to cheat to get some yellow smiley faces on a map.

 

Because the verification IS NOT TO VERIFY but just add another level of "fun". How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? Lol. Dang.

 

#1 yes like any new features added as has many in Geocaching.com's history... Work and development is necessary. So are you suggesting because it takes work and development Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was when the site was created? It's changed so much over 10 years its completely different than I remember it over a decade ago.

#2 why isn't this rampant now? One can easily take the logbook, put in a new one with their signature and claim they are FTF. Or rip out pages, etc. it's soooo rampant right now that of course it won't work.

#3 Uhm.... Lol.... Uhm.... The Attribute legend? Maybe... Look at the attribute list?

#4 that's happens, like missing logbooks. Just log the find and report as maintenance required, no change from now

#5 that's not rampant now with friends signing logbooks. Or is it? I don't know. You keep repeating this issue, but it's not even the point of this new idea. Lol. Wow.

 

The point is not to prevent cheating so most of your argument is void. It's to add another element of addiction.

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment
At least initially there will be very few caches to find that will have a verification code. It isn't clear that the number of verifiable finds will reach the critical mass need to support a new game. People who want to verify something would be better off playing that other game whose name cannot be mentioned.

 

I have to agree with this. If you play the other Game That Must Not Be Named (GTMNBN) you get to verify your find right there and then as your smartphone checks your GPS location against the GPS location recorded for the item you just found. Sure, someone could take their friend's smartphone along or write some convoluted application to fake a bluetooth GPS signal (which probably wouldn't be all that hard for anyone so inclined), but cheating there involves more than just picking a random cache and claiming a find on it.

 

Some geocaches contain game pieces for That Other Game which seems to work fine - there's no reason you can't play two games at the same time. No need to try and combine geocaching with other game pieces.

 

Are you talking about the current Geocaching.com game Wherigo? With verification system combined wi Geocaching.com? It already exists.

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

Why do we need a "verified found" option if not to weed out the people who log finds that can't be verified (i.e. people who are cheating)? As I've said before (and don't recall getting a clear answer to my concerns) the way I see it this idea has many downsides:

 

1. It will require development work to implement

2. It will create disputes over who was FTF (if one person signs the log and another records a barcode but doesn't sign the log)

3. It will create confusion as without a new cache type or attribute nobody will know which caches have this new Additional Logging Requirement

4. It will create issues if a verification code is required but has gone missing despite the cache being present

5. It will do nothing to prevent people signing logs for their friends

 

All it will do is prevent armchair cachers from logging finds, and you said yourself you don't see cheating as a rampant problem so it's not like that's a major issue to be dealing with. So on that basis I still don't see any more than a marginal benefit where a small number of cheaters are concerned, and the change represents disproportionate disruption to the game for the sake of a few people who are really sad enough to cheat to get some yellow smiley faces on a map.

 

Because the verification IS NOT TO VERIFY but just add another level of "fun". How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in? Lol. Dang.

 

#1 yes like any new features added as has many in Geocaching.com's history... Work and development is necessary. So are you suggesting because it takes work and development Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was when the site was created? It's changed so much over 10 years its completely different than I remember it over a decade ago.

#2 why isn't this rampant now? One can easily take the logbook, put in a new one with their signature and claim they are FTF. Or rip out pages, etc. it's soooo rampant right now that of course it won't work.

#3 Uhm.... Lol.... Uhm.... The Attribute legend? Maybe... Look at the attribute list?

#4 that's happens, like missing logbooks. Just log the find and report as maintenance required, no change from now

#5 that's not rampant now with friends signing logbooks. Or is it? I don't know. You keep repeating this issue, but it's not even the point of this new idea. Lol. Wow.

 

The point is not to prevent cheating so most of your argument is void. It's to add another element of addiction.

 

OK, so can you explain how finding a cache with a barcode in it is any more fun than finding a cache without a barcode in it?

Link to comment
At least initially there will be very few caches to find that will have a verification code. It isn't clear that the number of verifiable finds will reach the critical mass need to support a new game. People who want to verify something would be better off playing that other game whose name cannot be mentioned.

 

I have to agree with this. If you play the other Game That Must Not Be Named (GTMNBN) you get to verify your find right there and then as your smartphone checks your GPS location against the GPS location recorded for the item you just found. Sure, someone could take their friend's smartphone along or write some convoluted application to fake a bluetooth GPS signal (which probably wouldn't be all that hard for anyone so inclined), but cheating there involves more than just picking a random cache and claiming a find on it.

 

Some geocaches contain game pieces for That Other Game which seems to work fine - there's no reason you can't play two games at the same time. No need to try and combine geocaching with other game pieces.

 

Are you talking about the current Geocaching.com game Wherigo? With verification system combined wi Geocaching.com? It already exists.

 

No, there's another location based game out there where people scan QR codes with a smartphone that automatically records their capture of the code and awards them points. It seems naming it here is frowned upon.

Link to comment

OK, so can you explain how finding a cache with a barcode in it is any more fun than finding a cache without a barcode in it?

 

Well I have no clue how farming on Facebook in a virtual cartoon is addictive but somehow it is. My wife is addicted to anything that has to do with collecting points and such... I suppose that's why Geocaching.com has a found count and milestone system? Maybe some people will find it fun to rack up code find counts? I don't know what makes things addictive, we just have to try ideas until we find ones that stick. The ones that don't get squashed as learning experience?

 

Some people love smartphone apps, some could care less. I have friends that live on iPhone apps, and others that have android smartphones because they got it free or cheap and use it just for texting and calls.

 

I think everyone is different. I have been caching for over a decade and have found probably over a thousand caches but I have logged only 19 so far because I enjoy the hunt. I could care less about the cache count because thats so easily manipulated, doesn't mean anything to me.

 

I think Geocaching needs to be fresh and willing to try new ideas. Otherwise, eventually it will become the Kmart of caching... old and tired.

Link to comment

No, there's another location based game out there where people scan QR codes with a smartphone that automatically records their capture of the code and awards them points. It seems naming it here is frowned upon.

 

Oh, I don't know about any other caching sites except this one and the one Garmin promotes

Link to comment

No, there's another location based game out there where people scan QR codes with a smartphone that automatically records their capture of the code and awards them points. It seems naming it here is frowned upon.

 

Oh, I don't know about any other caching sites except this one and the one Garmin promotes

I think some of the reaction you are getting is because of The Game That Must Not Be Named (TGTMNBN). Your original proposal with a physical barcode and scanning with a smartphone is so close to what TGTMNBN is that someone may think you are promoting it.

 

Based on some of what I've heard, TGTMNBN has had some success in certain areas. Due to its rules it is fairly easy to place game pieces so in some areas its enthusiasts have pretty well saturated these areas. Geocaching, on the other hand, has long had a set of guidelines and a review process that limits how quickly new ideas can take hold.

 

The other issue that your proposal faces is that already there are cachers who play TGTMNBN and who put TGTMNBN's pieces inside the caches they hide. Because of Groundspeak's rule that TBTMNBN must not be named, it is generally difficult to know in advanced if a cache contains one of these pieces. Should Groundspeak want to add an option like you suggest, there may be problems in dealing with caches that alread have a TGTMNBN piece inside.

Link to comment

I think some of the reaction you are getting is because of The Game That Must Not Be Named (TGTMNBN). Your original proposal with a physical barcode and scanning with a smartphone is so close to what TGTMNBN is that someone may think you are promoting it.

 

Based on some of what I've heard, TGTMNBN has had some success in certain areas. Due to its rules it is fairly easy to place game pieces so in some areas its enthusiasts have pretty well saturated these areas. Geocaching, on the other hand, has long had a set of guidelines and a review process that limits how quickly new ideas can take hold.

 

The other issue that your proposal faces is that already there are cachers who play TGTMNBN and who put TGTMNBN's pieces inside the caches they hide. Because of Groundspeak's rule that TBTMNBN must not be named, it is generally difficult to know in advanced if a cache contains one of these pieces. Should Groundspeak want to add an option like you suggest, there may be problems in dealing with caches that alread have a TGTMNBN piece inside.

 

That makes more sense... It was rather shocking... I haven't been on the forums here in years and I thought I'd post an idea to bounce around and BAMN.... People were getting aggressive... lol.. I was like dang. It was just strange that people really don't think before they post. For example, they commented that this would promote fast park and grab style caching.... but those specifically designed like that already exist... or the comments "what if I don't have or want to use a smartphone"... Geez.. what if I don't have a GPSr? It's not fair that only people with GPS capable devices get to play! LOL...

 

I think we all forget that options already exist? For example, multi-caches. Not everyone likes them. So do they complain about multi-caches? Or do they just filter them out or ignore them? I don't understand why people are so hostile to just another option? I think your explanation helps me understand.

Link to comment

I really don't see a problem with this except people just don't like change.

 

Maybe there's a way that you can do it yourself. If the MZ people can do it, then there's a way to do it. There are lots of QR generators (e.g. delivr.com), the trick would be to find a generator that can tie the QR code to a specific location so that it can only be scanned and logged at a particular spot on the map.

Link to comment

I think some of the reaction you are getting is because of The Game That Must Not Be Named (TGTMNBN). Your original proposal with a physical barcode and scanning with a smartphone is so close to what TGTMNBN is that someone may think you are promoting it.

 

Based on some of what I've heard, TGTMNBN has had some success in certain areas. Due to its rules it is fairly easy to place game pieces so in some areas its enthusiasts have pretty well saturated these areas. Geocaching, on the other hand, has long had a set of guidelines and a review process that limits how quickly new ideas can take hold.

 

The other issue that your proposal faces is that already there are cachers who play TGTMNBN and who put TGTMNBN's pieces inside the caches they hide. Because of Groundspeak's rule that TBTMNBN must not be named, it is generally difficult to know in advanced if a cache contains one of these pieces. Should Groundspeak want to add an option like you suggest, there may be problems in dealing with caches that alread have a TGTMNBN piece inside.

 

That makes more sense... It was rather shocking... I haven't been on the forums here in years and I thought I'd post an idea to bounce around and BAMN.... People were getting aggressive... lol.. I was like dang. It was just strange that people really don't think before they post. For example, they commented that this would promote fast park and grab style caching.... but those specifically designed like that already exist... or the comments "what if I don't have or want to use a smartphone"... Geez.. what if I don't have a GPSr? It's not fair that only people with GPS capable devices get to play! LOL...

 

I think we all forget that options already exist? For example, multi-caches. Not everyone likes them. So do they complain about multi-caches? Or do they just filter them out or ignore them? I don't understand why people are so hostile to just another option? I think your explanation helps me understand.

 

I can't say I've seen anything in this thread that I'd say was aggressive. I've seen lots of people who don't think your idea is a good one (myself included) and have said why. Some of them may have missed just what you were trying to say in the first place (and if a lot of people miss the point it's possible you didn't make the point as clearly as you first thought).

 

As you've probably seen there are lots of ideas promoted here. Some of them seem like good ideas, some of them seem like they'll create work for Groundspeak and not offer any benefit. If it looks like an idea will create work but not offer a benefit it's unlikely to ever happen.

Link to comment

OK, so can you explain how finding a cache with a barcode in it is any more fun than finding a cache without a barcode in it?

 

Well I have no clue how farming on Facebook in a virtual cartoon is addictive but somehow it is. My wife is addicted to anything that has to do with collecting points and such... I suppose that's why Geocaching.com has a found count and milestone system? Maybe some people will find it fun to rack up code find counts? I don't know what makes things addictive, we just have to try ideas until we find ones that stick. The ones that don't get squashed as learning experience?

 

I don't understand why twitface is so addictive at all but it obviously is.

 

I'm not sure that "try ideas until something sticks" is a very good way to go about things, it suggests doing all sorts of random things with no particular pattern until we stumble upon something that might work, and hope that users don't get sick of the entire site along the way. Every idea that doesn't stick represents wasted development effort and irritated users.

 

Challenges are a classic example - they were a game that had the potential to be used in interesting ways but if anything Groundspeak themselves messed that one up with the launch. Their first challenge was to kiss a frog and post a picture, which made the whole thing look like it was just a sop towards people who don't want to have any real challenge but just want to snap something random with their smartphone and share it with the world. Now Challenges have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and didn't make Groundspeak look particularly good along the way. If Groundspeak continually introduce new ideas and new variations on the game and they keep falling flat they just start to look like they've lost the plot completely.

 

Some people love smartphone apps, some could care less. I have friends that live on iPhone apps, and others that have android smartphones because they got it free or cheap and use it just for texting and calls.

 

I think everyone is different. I have been caching for over a decade and have found probably over a thousand caches but I have logged only 19 so far because I enjoy the hunt. I could care less about the cache count because thats so easily manipulated, doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Lots of people live on apps of one sort or another. Personally my view is that an activity like geocaching has some scope to be totally impromptu (people asking "I wonder if there are any caches near here" and using a smartphone app to find out) and some scope for what I consider to be better quality caches left in places that require a bit of effort to reach. Too many cache-n-dash hides turn the game into a largely pointless numbers game of just grabbing endless film pots behind signs, which I find increasingly uninteresting.

 

I think Geocaching needs to be fresh and willing to try new ideas. Otherwise, eventually it will become the Kmart of caching... old and tired.

 

Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.

Link to comment

I can't say I've seen anything in this thread that I'd say was aggressive. I've seen lots of people who don't think your idea is a good one (myself included) and have said why. Some of them may have missed just what you were trying to say in the first place (and if a lot of people miss the point it's possible you didn't make the point as clearly as you first thought).

 

As you've probably seen there are lots of ideas promoted here. Some of them seem like good ideas, some of them seem like they'll create work for Groundspeak and not offer any benefit. If it looks like an idea will create work but not offer a benefit it's unlikely to ever happen.

 

I haven't seen lots of people who don't think its a good idea. Maybe 10 or so here on this thread? and the reasons they give are passive aggressive I guess... Like stating it would create armchair cachers, or quick score cachers when those caches already exist, etc etc. So they are just looking for any reason to dislike it and put it down even though their reasons why don't make sense. I think it would create a huge benefit, and yes maybe 10 or a dozen or so on this thread think it won't, doesn't mean its a bad idea just because few people here say so.

Link to comment

Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.

 

That's just ridiculousness? It's already fragmented, on the FAQ page it even states:

"Are there different types of geocaches?

Yes. There are currently over a dozen "cache types" in geocaching, with each cache type being a different variation of the game."

 

BUT it's really really easy to filter through and know exactly what you are going to find. I've never gone out to find a traditional cache and accidentally ended up at a Cache In Trash Out Event Cache... and had to pick up trash... lol... just being funny.

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

I don't understand why twitface is so addictive at all but it obviously is.

I have no idea what twitface is, but you made my point, thank you...

 

I'm not sure that "try ideas until something sticks" is a very good way to go about things,

Google does this very well, I suppose they are a failing company though...

 

it suggests doing all sorts of random things with no particular pattern until we stumble upon something that might work, and hope that users don't get sick of the entire site along the way.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all...

 

Every idea that doesn't stick represents wasted development effort and irritated users.

So new ideas must work the first time every time. Yeah... that's the way it is out there...

 

Challenges are a classic example - they were a game that had the potential to be used in interesting ways but if anything Groundspeak themselves messed that one up with the launch. Their first challenge was to kiss a frog and post a picture, which made the whole thing look like it was just a sop towards people who don't want to have any real challenge but just want to snap something random with their smartphone and share it with the world. Now Challenges have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and didn't make Groundspeak look particularly good along the way. If Groundspeak continually introduce new ideas and new variations on the game and they keep falling flat they just start to look like they've lost the plot completely.

So google must have that image too, they buy a company a week, try and squash projects all the time.... yup, Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was built when it was first conceived. Why do they even have over a dozen different cache types? they should have stuck with the traditional cache this whole time. Geocaching should have done what Kmart has done, never change and stay the same...

 

Lots of people live on apps of one sort or another. Personally my view is that an activity like geocaching has some scope to be totally impromptu (people asking "I wonder if there are any caches near here" and using a smartphone app to find out) and some scope for what I consider to be better quality caches left in places that require a bit of effort to reach.

Your view and mine differ, impasse

 

Too many cache-n-dash hides turn the game into a largely pointless numbers game of just grabbing endless film pots behind signs, which I find increasingly uninteresting.

This option already exists, why isn't it rampant and destroying your idea of caching?

 

Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.

Already answered this one

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.

 

That's just ridiculousness? It's already fragmented, on the FAQ page it even states:

"Are there different types of geocaches?

Yes. There are currently over a dozen "cache types" in geocaching, with each cache type being a different variation of the game."

 

BUT it's really really easy to filter through and know exactly what you are going to find. I've never gone out to find a traditional cache and accidentally ended up at a Cache In Trash Out Event Cache... and had to pick up trash... lol... just being funny.

 

It's easy from the cache types to figure what you're going to find. A traditional cache means the box is at the coordinates. A multi means it isn't there but something else probably is and you gather information from one or more intermediate stages. A puzzle means you solve the puzzle. A Wherigo means you use a player to follow a prescribed route to find the box. An event means you sit around drinking beer and talking to other cachers.

 

Adding the barcode or whatever other "verified find" method now means some caches will have it and some won't so you need to be able to filter them based on whatever preference you might have. The last thing you'd want to do is make the effort to hunt down a 5/5 multi only to find you could only log it using the "verified find" method when you didn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, or you lost the code on the way back, or some such.

Link to comment

I don't understand why twitface is so addictive at all but it obviously is.

I have no idea what twitface is, but you made my point, thank you...

 

I'm not sure that "try ideas until something sticks" is a very good way to go about things,

Google does this very well, I suppose they are a failing company though...

 

I suspect Google spends at least some time thinking through whether something is a good idea, rather than just a new idea, before implementing it.

 

it suggests doing all sorts of random things with no particular pattern until we stumble upon something that might work, and hope that users don't get sick of the entire site along the way.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all...

 

Every idea that doesn't stick represents wasted development effort and irritated users.

So new ideas must work the first time every time. Yeah... that's the way it is out there...

 

At least the majority of ideas that make it to implementation should be reasonably good ideas. Otherwise you spend a lot of time integrating something new only to then spend more time taking it apart when if fails.

 

Challenges are a classic example - they were a game that had the potential to be used in interesting ways but if anything Groundspeak themselves messed that one up with the launch. Their first challenge was to kiss a frog and post a picture, which made the whole thing look like it was just a sop towards people who don't want to have any real challenge but just want to snap something random with their smartphone and share it with the world. Now Challenges have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and didn't make Groundspeak look particularly good along the way. If Groundspeak continually introduce new ideas and new variations on the game and they keep falling flat they just start to look like they've lost the plot completely.

So google must have that image too, they buy a company a week, try and squash projects all the time.... yup, Geocaching.com should have stayed the way it was built when it was first conceived. Why do they even have over a dozen different cache types? they should have stuck with the traditional cache this whole time. Geocaching should have done what Kmart has done, never change and stay the same...

 

If the best you can do is reduce things to strawmen I can't be bothered to reply.

 

Lots of people live on apps of one sort or another. Personally my view is that an activity like geocaching has some scope to be totally impromptu (people asking "I wonder if there are any caches near here" and using a smartphone app to find out) and some scope for what I consider to be better quality caches left in places that require a bit of effort to reach.

Your view and mine differ, impasse

 

Too many cache-n-dash hides turn the game into a largely pointless numbers game of just grabbing endless film pots behind signs, which I find increasingly uninteresting.

This option already exists, why isn't it rampant and destroying your idea of caching?

 

It is, which is why I've found six caches in two months when I used to routinely find 20-30 or more per month. I got bored of film pots behind signs.

 

Fresh and trying new ideas is all well and good but those ideas really need to have a bit more behind them than "well let's give it a go and see what happens". Otherwise the game can end up becoming so badly fragmented that nobody knows just what they should expect when they go to hunt something.

Already answered this one

 

You still haven't come up with any reason why your proposal would make the game more fun other than a generic comment that other people find things fun that you don't understand. Would you find it more fun to find caches with barcodes and verification codes in them? If so, perhaps you could explain how you'd find it more fun. If not, then it seems all you've got in your idea is a random thought that some unspecified people might find it more fun even if you can't explain why.

Link to comment

It's easy from the cache types to figure what you're going to find. A traditional cache means the box is at the coordinates. A multi means it isn't there but something else probably is and you gather information from one or more intermediate stages. A puzzle means you solve the puzzle. A Wherigo means you use a player to follow a prescribed route to find the box. An event means you sit around drinking beer and talking to other cachers.

 

Adding the barcode or whatever other "verified find" method now means some caches will have it and some won't so you need to be able to filter them based on whatever preference you might have. The last thing you'd want to do is make the effort to hunt down a 5/5 multi only to find you could only log it using the "verified find" method when you didn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, or you lost the code on the way back, or some such.

 

You would filter it out using attributes, or the same way you would a traditional, multi, etc.... And if someone doesn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, then they can still log the find but not get the verification count added until they remember to bring something suitable to record the verification code.. lol. Losing the code? well I don't know what to say about that one, what if someone lost their GPSr on the way to the cache and had no way to find it, what if what if.

 

See, this is what I'm talking about. We can go on and on about what if... what if I go to a cache and I didn't see that it's 12 miles round trip. Or what if I go to find a cache and I forget to bring my GPSr, or what if I go find the cache and the logbook and pencil is missing.. how do I log it then? What if I go to find a trackable and it's not in the cache... what if I go to find a cache and forget why I'm driving? what if what if what if... we can do this all day long...

Link to comment

You still haven't come up with any reason why your proposal would make the game more fun other than a generic comment that other people find things fun that you don't understand. Would you find it more fun to find caches with barcodes and verification codes in them? If so, perhaps you could explain how you'd find it more fun. If not, then it seems all you've got in your idea is a random thought that some unspecified people might find it more fun even if you can't explain why.

 

I have mentioned lots of reasons, just not ones you agree with. I can say you still haven't come up with any reasons why this wouldn't add more fun to the game other than you don't like the idea and don't want to take the effort in filtering or skipping this type of cache, in which case you are just saying you don't like the idea just because...

Link to comment

Adding the barcode or whatever other "verified find" method now means some caches will have it and some won't so you need to be able to filter them based on whatever preference you might have. The last thing you'd want to do is make the effort to hunt down a 5/5 multi only to find you could only log it using the "verified find" method when you didn't have anything suitable to record the verification code, or you lost the code on the way back, or some such.

Maybe I misunderstood NimravusHSSR suggestion. I understood that if the cache were listed on Geocaching.com anyone could sign the physical log and log the find online. However, if you found a cache with a verification code you would provide the codes - either through a smartphone app or by a a special box in the online log form - and get a "verified" find. There would be two types of finds. Verified and unverified. All caches would allow unverified log, only caches that registered a verification code would be able to get a verified find.

 

I'm somewhat intereted in knowing how much demand is actually out there for a verified find. Clearly TGTMNBN has gotten some traction along with other location based/checkin style apps. So I suppose that this sort of thing appeals to some people just as playing virtual farmer on Facebook appeals to some people. Currently Geocaching.com is doing quite well with the more informal method of signing logs. That doesn't mean new idea shouldn't be explored, but there should be some evidence that this change is going to attract a significant number of users.

Link to comment

Maybe I misunderstood NimravusHSSR suggestion. I understood that if the cache were listed on Geocaching.com anyone could sign the physical log and log the find online. However, if you found a cache with a verification code you would provide the codes - either through a smartphone app or by a a special box in the online log form - and get a "verified" find. There would be two types of finds. Verified and unverified. All caches would allow unverified log, only caches that registered a verification code would be able to get a verified find.

 

I'm somewhat intereted in knowing how much demand is actually out there for a verified find. Clearly TGTMNBN has gotten some traction along with other location based/checkin style apps. So I suppose that this sort of thing appeals to some people just as playing virtual farmer on Facebook appeals to some people. Currently Geocaching.com is doing quite well with the more informal method of signing logs. That doesn't mean new idea shouldn't be explored, but there should be some evidence that this change is going to attract a significant number of users.

 

Hallelujah.....Hallelujah.... (with the choir in the background and sun rays peeking out of the clouds...).... LOL

 

FINALLY, Like or Dislike aside... someone that finally got what I was saying.... And it would be more of a Scanned Find and Traditional Find since technically the logbook is supposed to be there for verification. This just might add another element people can enjoy. Those who don't just log traditional finds...

 

I think the word "Verified" threw people in a frenzy... I should have used "Scanned" logging vs Traditional logging. Would have saved 17 days and 99 posts... lol!!!!

Edited by NimravusHSSR
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...