Status:Not Validated Member

[+biscas]

I want to contact a member, but is not a validated member. It appears

 

E-Mail Address:The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

 

Why he could start logging without validated the email?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I want to contact a member, but is not a validated member. It appears

 

E-Mail Address:The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

 

Why he could start logging without validated the email?

You may find the answer to your question (and others) here http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=317127&view=getnewpost&hl=&fromsearch=1

[+K13]

I want to contact a member, but is not a validated member. It appears

 

E-Mail Address:The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

 

Why he could start logging without validated the email?

 

Just delete their log. That may get their attention and they will contact you. Otherwise, there isn't anything I have heard for you to do.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Why he could start logging without validated the email?

He would have started geocaching without reading any of the requirements. Namely, responding to the (automatic) email to verify the email address, when joining.

 

Not having done that, it is reasonable to expect he read nothing else, either.

 

EDIT to add: It is possible that the automated email was grabbed by his spam filter and he never "received" it. But, that just harkens back to reading about joining geocaching.com.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[jholly]

I want to contact a member, but is not a validated member. It appears

 

E-Mail Address:The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

 

Why he could start logging without validated the email?

 

Just delete their log. That may get their attention and they will contact you. Otherwise, there isn't anything I have heard for you to do.

How would that get his attention? Without validated email none of the system generated messages, like log deletion, will be sent. All he can do is puzzle over why his find count suddenly decreased.

[+Touchstone]

I guess I'd need a bit more of the story, like why you need to contact them. If they found the cache/signed the log, I'd leave it alone. There's worse sins out there than not going through the account validation process.

[GrandPotentate]

I encountered the same thing and needed to contact the user because they were posting pictures of all of their finds with the caches very close to where they were hidden. Since I couldn't email them asking them to remove the pictures that gave away the location of the caches that they found, I just archived the log entries and will explain my reasoning once they contact me asking why.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I encountered the same thing and needed to contact the user because they were posting pictures of all of their finds with the caches very close to where they were hidden. Since I couldn't email them asking them to remove the pictures that gave away the location of the caches that they found, I just archived the log entries and will explain my reasoning once they contact me asking why.

 

See quote below. Also, you can delete a photo without deleting the log.

 

How would that get his attention? Without validated email none of the system generated messages, like log deletion, will be sent. All he can do is puzzle over why his find count suddenly decreased.

[cezanne]

There's worse sins out there than not going through the account validation process.

 

I think that a working e-mail address is fundamental.

For example, I have encountered more than once that someone took out a trackable without knowing what he took out (key ring etc mentioned in the log). How can you tell them what they need to do if they are not reachable?

 

The status nonvalidated can also occur if someone's mail address changed and messages like the Groundspeak newsletter get bounced for a certain number of times. Such cachers can even own a number of caches.

 

Cezanne

[+biscas]

I guess I'd need a bit more of the story, like why you need to contact them. If they found the cache/signed the log, I'd leave it alone. There's worse sins out there than not going through the account validation process.

 

the member is http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=8f84a168-3755-4353-a9a8-162a71b5d7cf

the reason, is that all the logs that he made, is fácil (easy). So i don't want delete a log, because he probabilty made found the cache, but is a standart log, and i want tell him, that geocaching is more that found a cache

[+Touchstone]

It looks as if many of their log entries are one or two words, which leads me to conclude that their using a smart phone to find caches. I don't own many urban hides, but the ones I have had, or the ones on my Watchlist tend to have fairly short Find logs.

 

Just a guess, but they probably signed up through one of the smart phone apps just to get their feet wet, and check out this sport.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Touchstone

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

the reason, is that all the logs that he made, is fácil (easy). So i don't want delete a log, because he probabilty made found the cache, but is a standart log, and i want tell him, that geocaching is more that found a cache

It's rather bad form to call a fellow cacher out like that. I see at lesst one log that wasn't "facil", just "feito". Viver e ser tolerante.

[Clan Riffster]

If they found the cache/signed the log, I'd leave it alone.

Yup. Not sure what the motivation to delete the log is all about. If they found the cache, the fact that they didn't provide an email address does not somehow invalidate that find.

[+larryc43230]

If they found the cache/signed the log, I'd leave it alone.

Yup. Not sure what the motivation to delete the log is all about. If they found the cache, the fact that they didn't provide an email address does not somehow invalidate that find.

And leaving a one-word log is also no justification for deleting a log. Personally, I think it should be, but I don't make the rules.

 

--Larry

[+biscas]

The found is probabilty sure, but lets think that i want to contact him if he have a TB and dont drop? Or if i want contact him for another reason?

I found that registry by smartphones,Groundspeak dont check email.

[Clan Riffster]

The found is probabilty sure, but lets think that i want to contact him if he have a TB and dont drop?

Or if i want contact him for another reason?

Then I would say you are out of luck.

If Groundspeak doesn't have their email address linked with their account, they'll never see your deletion.

[+Bogart and Bacall]

Yeah, I would suggest that an unvalidated email address cacher can look up caches, find them, but not be able to log them until the address verification has been completed.

 

I read a log by a newbie (3 finds) that was very negative (e.g. this was a big waste of time....). I wanted to encourage him/them, and suggest looking at the recent logs (this cache had about 6-8 prior DNF's) and take that into consideration etc.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Bogart

[+wmpastor]

the reason, is that all the logs that he made, is fácil (easy). So i don't want delete a log, because he probabilty made found the cache, but is a standart log, and i want tell him, that geocaching is more that found a cache

It's rather bad form to call a fellow cacher out like that. I see at lesst one log that wasn't "facil", just "feito". Viver e ser tolerante.

Of course, some would argue that "TFTC" is bad form....but I agree with others that it's not a reason to delete a log.

Edited November 24, 2013 by wmpastor

[4wheelin_fool]

The frustration should not be directed to the logger, rather GS for creating that conundrum. Delete his log for no reason and he may turn into a muggle.

Edited November 24, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TriciaG]

For the record, the OP said he did NOT want to delete the log. Perhaps we're being too hard on him for something he didn't say?

[+Glenn]

Yeah, I would suggest that an unvalidated email address cacher can look up caches, find them, but not be able to log them until the address verification has been completed.

 

I read a log by a newbie (3 finds) that was very negative (e.g. this was a big waste of time....). I wanted to encourage him/them, and suggest looking at the recent logs (this cache had about 6-8 prior DNF's) and take that into consideration etc.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Bogart

 

Why does Groundspeak give anonymous smart phone users special access? If I try to access the web site without logging in I can see the cache page but not the coordinates of the cache. App users without a valid email address should be treated the same way. Either that or have the app capture their phone number and display that in place of their username until they validate their email address.

 

One of the things that keep me at Geocaching.com when other geocaching sites came along was Groundspeaks apparent belief that it was important for the cache owner to be able to contact those who visit the caches that are listed at geocaching.com. Groundspeak even went an extra step and made audit logs of page viewers available to those who list their caches as PMO. After reading the rash of current threads on this topic I'm begging to think that Groundspeak doesn't think that it is important for cache owners to be able to contact those who log a visit to a cache. I think this is big mistake.

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Why does Groundspeak give anonymous smart phone users special access? If I try to access the web site without logging in I can see the cache page but not the coordinates of the cache. App users without a valid email address should be treated the same way. Either that or have the app capture their phone number and display that in place of their username until they validate their email address.

 

One of the things that keep me at Geocaching.com when other geocaching sites came along was Groundspeaks apparent belief that it was important for the cache owner to be able to contact those who visit the caches that are listed at geocaching.com. Groundspeak even went an extra step and made audit logs of page viewers available to those who list their caches as PMO. After reading the rash of current threads on this topic I'm begging to think that Groundspeak doesn't think that it is important for cache owners to be able to contact those who log a visit to a cache. I think this is big mistake.

 

+1,000,000

[+biscas]

I received the answer from Groundspeak

 

Hello!

 

Thank you for writing in about this. Sometimes there can be a glitch in our system where emails are not validated. I have gone ahead and validated this players email, so you should now be able to contact him.

 

Best,

 

Jane

 

the player, is now contactable

[+Traditional Bill]

I received the answer from Groundspeak

 

Hello!

 

Thank you for writing in about this. Sometimes there can be a glitch in our system where emails are not validated. I have gone ahead and validated this players email, so you should now be able to contact him.

 

Best,

 

Jane

 

the player, is now contactable

 

It's nice to see the system at work. :-D

[+cerberus1]

I received the answer from Groundspeak

 

Hello!

 

Thank you for writing in about this. Sometimes there can be a glitch in our system where emails are not validated. I have gone ahead and validated this players email, so you should now be able to contact him.

 

Best,

 

Jane

 

the player, is now contactable

 

 

It's nice to see the system at work. :-D

Odd, I don't remember "glitches" mentioned in another thread with a similar issue with unvalidated members.

[+NeverSummer]

I received the answer from Groundspeak

 

Hello!

 

Thank you for writing in about this. Sometimes there can be a glitch in our system where emails are not validated. I have gone ahead and validated this players email, so you should now be able to contact him.

 

Best,

 

Jane

 

the player, is now contactable

 

 

It's nice to see the system at work. :-D

Odd, I don't remember "glitches" mentioned in another thread with a similar issue with unvalidated members.

I'm more inclined to wonder if this is a human glitch on the user end, or a software glitch on Groundspeak's end. We need more information about this "glitch" from TPTB.

[+Semper Questio]

I received the answer from Groundspeak

 

Hello!

 

Thank you for writing in about this. Sometimes there can be a glitch in our system where emails are not validated. I have gone ahead and validated this players email, so you should now be able to contact him.

 

Best,

 

Jane

 

the player, is now contactable

 

 

It's nice to see the system at work. :-D

Odd, I don't remember "glitches" mentioned in another thread with a similar issue with unvalidated members.

I'm more inclined to wonder if this is a human glitch on the user end, or a software glitch on Groundspeak's end. We need more information about this "glitch" from TPTB.

 

I'm not really buying the "glitch" thing. That is becoming WAY too convenient of an excuse for anything even remotely technical these days.

 

I'm more inclined to believe that what we need is that no one is allowed to see or log diddly squat until they validate their email address. It may give folks some incentive to actually follow through on completing their account creation.

[Keystone]

I doubt very much that Jane intended for her response to be dissected in the Forums as definitive guidance on Groundspeak's policies and practices. Don't make too much of her helpful answer, which wsa limited to the account that was the subject of the service request.

[+thebruce0]

I did test for myself using Groundspeak's app. You can create an account via the app, supply a dummy (even non-existent) email, and begin seeking caches. The profile is created and the contact option does not exist (as the email was not validated).

 

Within the app, I tested on a cache of my own, ARCHIVED even, and posted a find log with only 'test' as the text.

 

It was successful.

 

Glitch? I'd call that a gaping hole.

Edited November 27, 2013 by thebruce0

[jholly]

I did test for myself using Groundspeak's app. You can create an account via the app, supply a dummy (even non-existent) email, and begin seeking caches. The profile is created and the contact option does not exist (as the email was not validated).

 

Within the app, I tested on a cache of my own, ARCHIVED even, and posted a find log with only 'test' as the text.

 

It was successful.

 

Glitch? I'd call that a gaping hole.

Or operating as intended.

[+niraD]

Glitch? I'd call that a gaping hole.

Or operating as intended.

Or perhaps it's just BAD (Broken As Designed)...

[+Don_J]

I doubt very much that Jane intended for her response to be dissected in the Forums as definitive guidance on Groundspeak's policies and practices. Don't make too much of her helpful answer, which wsa limited to the account that was the subject of the service request.

 

But, it was not a helpful answer. Since when can I make a service request for someone elses account? The whole point of email validation is to determine that the person who created the account is real and can be contacted if necessary. The user could have made up a phony email. He could have used his ex-girlfriends email. He could have mistyped it. To just assume that it's a good email address and that it belongs to the person that submitted it, and then manually validate it goes against the entire reason of validating the email in the first place.

 

Let's assume for arguments sake that I use my estranged girlfriend's email to create an account, not just here but everywhere else in cyberspace. I'm doing it to harass her. She gets the validation emails and ignores them. A week later, she starts getting all kinds of email from a site that she ignored the validation email on. Why, because some helpful site administrator validated her email at another users request. Am I the only one that sees how wrong this is?

 

Of course, the whole thing can be avoided if Groundspeak simply would not let people seek caches and post logs on them until they have validated an email address.

[7rxc]

Now that I've read that bit about validation glitches... I remember having to get ahold of GC when I first signed up for a basic account in 2008... via computer... the system balked at validating my email then... but it finally got fixed up. I may have to look for the communications from that time... my memory is terrible. But I do know it happened. Just not why.

 

EDIT: Checked my archives... Just for fun... it was that the URL to the validation page was corrupted. Somehow the part that starts as http etc did not.

There was a lot of unrelated characters before the ttp part. And the link didn't work at all. I did 'contact' that GC email and one ERIC was right on the job and even though I figured out the problem and worked it manually, it seemed to be fixed promptly after investigation. Perhaps that is similar to what happens today, something corrupts the link.

 

Doug 7rxc

Edited November 29, 2013 by 7rxc