Jump to content

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


NimravusHSSR

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Exactly what purpose does your new idea serve if not to stop cheating? I guess we can go full circle all over again?

 

There is nothing wrong with new ideas, but the idea should serve a purpose and you can't seem to define what that purpose is? Besides, it's an old idea, at least the fallback to a code word part is. It was tried and the problems that it created were not worth the trouble. Re-branding an old idea as a new idea doesn't give you a license to disregard history.

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.

 

Yes, we all have problems with comprehension. That has to be the problem. For someone that is so excited about new ideas, you don't seem to have any tolerance for ideas that may be new to you, especially if they conflict with your current thinking. It has been explained to you many times why your new idea would be pretty much doomed from the get go, and it is not so much because people would be resistant to it, but for the fact that people would exploit it.

 

Once again, if you want a game where you run around scanning codes, it has already been created by a competitor.

Link to comment

Exactly what purpose does your new idea serve if not to stop cheating? I guess we can go full circle all over again?

 

There is nothing wrong with new ideas, but the idea should serve a purpose and you can't seem to define what that purpose is? Besides, it's an old idea, at least the fallback to a code word part is. It was tried and the problems that it created were not worth the trouble. Re-branding an old idea as a new idea doesn't give you a license to disregard history.

 

Oh darn it!!! I thought there was a break thru with post #99 lol.... but now we digress. Sigh, for the gazillionth time, its not to stop cheating.. lol. People are addicted to anything that tally's up, like say a counter (find counts). I've defined many benefits it would bring, and if you missed those posts, I don't know what to tell you.

Link to comment

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"...

 

 

Actually, my ideas are well thought out. I find your comment extremely offensive. Have fun with your new ideas...

Link to comment

Yes, we all have problems with comprehension.

The responses support your statement, thank you for acknowledging. But I would much rather enjoy it if people did comprehend it.

 

That has to be the problem.

Yes, except for Post #99, he got it. Like or Dislike, he got it.

 

For someone that is so excited about new ideas, you don't seem to have any tolerance for ideas that may be new to you, especially if they conflict with your current thinking.

I almost fell off the chair laughing because this is SO TRUE, uhm.. but since it's my idea I think its the reverse... thats exactly what I've been trying to say!

 

It has been explained to you many times why your new idea would be pretty much doomed from the get go, and it is not so much because people would be resistant to it, but for the fact that people would exploit it.

The explanations came from a either a misunderstanding of the idea or just nonsense. Nonsense meaning for example, people saying this will create a quick stop caching trend when there are ways and caches already designed purely for quickly finding and racking up points already. It's possible to create those now. Or "What if the code is missing"... well, you would then log it in the logbook and log the find online like you normally would still. And Logbooks can and have been lost before, why isn't it rampant now? So this is just for Smartphone users now? I think one funny argument was what if someone was FTF the cache, takes the code from the cache and then gives the code to someone else. Then they both try and claim FTF rights... LOL.. AGAIN, it's possible already by just altering the logbook and claiming they were FTF, why isn't it happening now? So on and so forth. So the reasons that were given why this would fail are really not valid because it can happen now and its not a problem

 

Once again, if you want a game where you run around scanning codes, it has already been created by a competitor.

Have no clue what the competitor is and have no clue what running around scanning codes will do. That has nothing to do with my idea.

Link to comment

Don J, I agree with every post you have made on this subject. I have had cell phones since the mid nineties, my first phone was a three watt bag phone. I got that phone to make phone calls and the phone I have today is to make phone calls, I have never owned a smart phone and don't want one, if I want to play with something I have two desktops, three laptops, a netbook, and a tablet. To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

Link to comment

To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

Absolutely.

 

However, as the OP points out, that hasn't prevented new ideas and extensions to the game. These include such ideas as Wherigo caches, challenge caches, Chirp caches, puzzle caches, letterbox hybrids, etc. These have have various degree of success. The majority of caches are still the traditional type where you load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

 

I truly think part of the problem is that people have suggested a verified found option of some sort for as long as I have been geocaching. In the past the issue has been "How do I stop bogus logging without having to trek out to a cache after each find to check the log book?" So when the OP put out this suggestion that is what all of us read.

 

To understand the suggestion you really have to look at the popularity of TGTMNBN as well as that of other checkin style smartphone apps. The idea is that Groundspeak could tap into this group of people by providing a way to tie geocaching to such an app. The suggestion is that this be made an option for those cache owners who choose to participate. By retaining the current guidelines for logging and including a physical log, these caches would remain in play for traditionalist. The people who use the new app, however could play that game instead of (or in addition to) tradional geocaching.

 

Perhaps there would be less objections if the new game were on a separate website and those caches that contain verification codes be listed there. Of course, today one can leverage TGTMNBN to do this by including a code for TGTMNBN in your cache and listing it on TGTMNBN website. Perhaps the suggestion should be for Groundspeak to acquire TGTMNBN :unsure:

Link to comment

Ah, I forgot about the "Check in" popularity of other platforms! Lol. Thanks for reminding me. People "Check in" with Facebook and FourSquare all the time. On FourSquare you can become the mayor of the location by being top check in. People are fascinated and attracted to competition and counters (counting finds, check ins, etc).

 

Tying in a location proximity feature would be nice. My friends and I use check ins on FB and I really don't see rampant cheating going on. Where my friend would give me his phone for the day so I can take it with me and check in at a location. Lol. Or maybe it is and I'm oblivious to it. Maybe my friend really wasn't at the Hard Rock In Vegas, he just gave his phone to his friend for a few days. It's possible I suppose.

 

But in any event, there is data showing that check ins, competitive counters are addictive and working.

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, the only difference between a "scanned find" and a traditional find is that by scanning a code you would not have to physically sign the log. Presumably, the proposal would not affect the need to write an online log, but but if you cannot be bother to sign a log, then perhaps we would see more TFTC logs or simply T.

 

I am not sure why this game has to become more like check-ins or the other game that involves codes. If someone enjoys scanning, there is a place they can do it. If someone likes to check in, there are many places where they can do it. This game need not be all things to all people and I am in no hurry to see it add something that takes the game out of the one thing that has distinguished it. In my experience, trying to expand a common denominator usually ends up on the low side of things.

Link to comment

Don J, I agree with every post you have made on this subject. I have had cell phones since the mid nineties, my first phone was a three watt bag phone. I got that phone to make phone calls and the phone I have today is to make phone calls, I have never owned a smart phone and don't want one, if I want to play with something I have two desktops, three laptops, a netbook, and a tablet. To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

 

If you just want to go caching the old fashioned way, nothing would change for you. You wouldn't even know its there, like you probably don't even pay attention currently to Wherigo geocaches that require unlock codes, computers, smartphones, etc.

Link to comment

Don J, I agree with every post you have made on this subject. I have had cell phones since the mid nineties, my first phone was a three watt bag phone. I got that phone to make phone calls and the phone I have today is to make phone calls, I have never owned a smart phone and don't want one, if I want to play with something I have two desktops, three laptops, a netbook, and a tablet. To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

 

If you just want to go caching the old fashioned way, nothing would change for you. You wouldn't even know its there, like you probably don't even pay attention currently to Wherigo geocaches that require unlock codes, computers, smartphones, etc.

 

You accuse others of not paying attention, yet it has been pointed out at least three times that you DO NOT need a code to log a Wherigo cache on the Geocaching.com website.

 

The problem with people accepting or not accepting your "new idea" is that you keep changing the parameters. One moment it's simply a separate tally for verified finds. Next, it's an optional or alternate logging method. Then, when it suits you, it's an entirely new cache type that can only be logged by scanning or submitting a code, and if we don't like it, we can simply ignore it.

Link to comment

Don J, I agree with every post you have made on this subject. I have had cell phones since the mid nineties, my first phone was a three watt bag phone. I got that phone to make phone calls and the phone I have today is to make phone calls, I have never owned a smart phone and don't want one, if I want to play with something I have two desktops, three laptops, a netbook, and a tablet. To me geocaching means using a computer to load up the GPS, go find the cache, and sign the log.

 

If you just want to go caching the old fashioned way, nothing would change for you. You wouldn't even know its there, like you probably don't even pay attention currently to Wherigo geocaches that require unlock codes, computers, smartphones, etc.

 

You accuse others of not paying attention, yet it has been pointed out at least three times that you DO NOT need a code to log a Wherigo cache on the Geocaching.com website.

 

The problem with people accepting or not accepting your "new idea" is that you keep changing the parameters. One moment it's simply a separate tally for verified finds. Next, it's an optional or alternate logging method. Then, when it suits you, it's an entirely new cache type that can only be logged by scanning or submitting a code, and if we don't like it, we can simply ignore it.

 

That's what I was thinking, this idea seems to have shifted from a way to prove the find (as if the log book wasn't good enough) to a new way of logging, to a separate type of game, to the point I'm not even sure what the idea is trying to achieve at all any more. Still, if the parameters shift often enough I'm sure it will become a good idea sooner or later.

Link to comment



I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. The OP did not express his proposal clearly in the opening post. Given similar proposals in the past, it was too easy to jump on his motivation and to make assumptions about details that were left out. Not used to the dynamics of the forum, the OP assumed the reaction was from just a bunch of naysayers to object to any change. To the degree that the OP has changed any parameters, isn't that the purpose of having forum discussion. If you have and idea on others point out problems, can't you go back and make changes to adress those problems?

On top of it all, Groundspeak forum rules about promoting commericial sites meant the most obvious example of something similar to what the OP would like could not be explicitly named. :huh:
Link to comment

I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. The OP did not express his proposal clearly in the opening post. Given similar proposals in the past, it was too easy to jump on his motivation and to make assumptions about details that were left out. Not used to the dynamics of the forum, the OP assumed the reaction was from just a bunch of naysayers to object to any change. To the degree that the OP has changed any parameters, isn't that the purpose of having forum discussion. If you have and idea on others point out problems, can't you go back and make changes to adress those problems?

 

On top of it all, Groundspeak forum rules about promoting commericial sites meant the most obvious example of something similar to what the OP would like could not be explicitly named. :huh:

 

Normally I'd say that an idea evolving from a mediocre or even bad idea into a good idea is a good thing although here I rather get the impression that the OP posted something that made little sense, then tried to "clarify" in a way that came across as if nobody had got the point of what they were trying to say and kept changing it along the way.

 

In simple terms it's like me proposing the solution we need is a big red ball and you suggesting that whatever solution we have needs to be green, to which I respond by accepting we need green and therefore wondering if a big green ball would work. Contrast that to you suggesting that red doesn't work for any number of good reasons and me then insisting that you're not understanding my proposal because a big green block would solve the problem, and when you said that my idea was too big I came back and said you weren't understanding my proposal because a small green block would solve the problem, all the while never being entirely clear just what the problem actually was.

 

Groundspeak rules about The Game That Must Not Be Named certainly don't help, especially when that's almost exactly what the OP seems to be proposing.

Link to comment

I feel the same way about this as I do the nearly identical (sans angst, though, for the most part) thread in this very forum, so I'll just quote myself and save some retyping.

 

Maybe instead of throwing one more thing on the pile for the programmers at Groundspeak, we just return to integrity, with a dash of peer pressure or ostracism thrown in for enforcement. We'll take people's word about their logs unless they give us reason to think otherwise, at which point we are free to snicker, whisper about them at events, and post about them on the forums.

Link to comment

I feel the same way about this as I do the nearly identical (sans angst, though, for the most part) thread in this very forum, so I'll just quote myself and save some retyping.

 

Maybe instead of throwing one more thing on the pile for the programmers at Groundspeak, we just return to integrity, with a dash of peer pressure or ostracism thrown in for enforcement. We'll take people's word about their logs unless they give us reason to think otherwise, at which point we are free to snicker, whisper about them at events, and post about them on the forums.

 

Yes. Geocaching is about using a GPSr to find a cache. Sign the log. Log it on-line, if you care to.

ALRs are prohibited (though they used to be permitted.) Geocaching is NOT about reading codes with your dumb phone to log a find. That would be an ALR. And that is a different game. Sorry. I do not have a dumb phone. But the ALR requirements would prohibit that anyways. Will the OP next request a video from Google Glasses of he cacher dancing a jig?

This is geocaching. Find cache. Sign log. That is all that is required.

Link to comment

Ah... I sense much hate with this one. Lol.

 

Google goggles integration would be awesome! Scan with your glasses! I will be the first to buy google glasses, can't wait!

 

"This is Geocaching. Find cache. Sign log"... Sorry to tell you if you didn't know but Geocaching.com has much more to offer than just "Find cache. Sign log" If that's your cup of tea, then stick with it.

 

This won't affect you one bit, as I'm sure other types of "non-traditional" caches are not bothering you currently such as puzzle caches, Letterbox caches, Wherigo caches, event caches, virtual caches, webcam caches, location less caches which are not Find Cache and log it style. Are you suggesting Geocaching.com eliminate everything but Traditional caches?

Edited by NimravusHSSR
Link to comment

Everything has a lifespan. Look what happened to IBM, Kmart, MySpace, Sears, etc etc. Once iconic giants, now laughing stocks with newer, fresher entities emerging. Who would have thought Facebook would eventually crush mySpace? At the peak of mySpace days, if anyone would have suggested FB taking over... They would have been laughed out of town.

 

So should we go back to when geocaching first started? No change. Status quo... Like Maglite, never change, wither away....

Link to comment

I was listening to NPR a couple of days ago and they were doing a story where the reporter asked his iPhone to to hand him a pen so he could write something down. Siri replied, "I don't understand that. Would you like me to search the Internet".

 

I think the story was to point out that there are somethings a smartphone can't do (yet). But when I heard the question my reaction was: why ask Siri for a pen? Siri could have recorded your comments and played them back later, Or even understood that what you wanted was to jot down a reminder to yourself, and Seri could have put a reminder in you calendar to do that. Nobody with any sense would ask Siri for a pen.

 

After coming back to this thread though, I realized that you could be at a cache with your smartphone and no pen. Now you want to ask Siri to sign the log for you. The OP's suggestion makes sense. I don't have a pen but I have a smartphone, there should be an accepted way to log the cache with your smartphone instead of a pen.

 

The most obvious way, IMO, would be to take a picture of the log sheet and post it with your log. The photo could have EXIF data to show it was taken at the cache site and at a particular day and time. If it's a puzzle, however, you might want to remove the location data from your picture, or just email the picture to cache owner so it won't be used as a spoiler.

Edited by tozainamboku
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...