A Not Validated Member

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I have another situation where I would like to be able to contact a Not Validated Member who has never visited the website. The first one was in connection with one of my Travel Bugs--I wanted to be able to educate them in logging procedures. Now I would like to be able to educate someone in writing cache logs--specifically that logging spoiler comments and pictures is not usually appreciated. I think I am going to delete the logs, and hope that they contact me, but since they won't get the email notice of deletion and don't look at their profile page they probably won't ever know that they lost 2 of their 5 Finds.

I sure wish that geocaching.com would not accept logs from Not Validated Members. Instead they could just get a message that they have to validate their account before they can post logs.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

Not a getting started issue, moving to a more appropriate forum

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I'd like to take it one step further, and require a validated email address before releasing any coordinates of our creations (let alone in bulk by the hundreds of thousands), but that ship has sailed...

Edited January 20, 2014 by Viajero Perdido

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

Not a getting started issue, moving to a more appropriate forum

I disagree. This is very much a getting started issue(or at least a website feature)-only the person getting started is not the OP, rather a person the OP is trying to help. By implementing a procedure to not allow unvalidated members-who are usually new cachers, we are able to help them by messaging them.

Or at least I see it as trying to help the newbs. If it was just about the OP's cache, the OP could delete and forget about the log.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

Did the finder sign the log?

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

Did the finder sign the log?

Not signing the log is not the only reason for deletion. Deletion is allowed for posting spoilers.

2.If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

Did the finder sign the log?

Not signing the log is not the only reason for deletion. Deletion is allowed for posting spoilers.

2.If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I think it's bold of Groundspeak to offer up our caches to people who do not have to be held accountable. unless they are going to reimburse me for the one cache I know is missing thanks to a Not Validated Member.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

I don't really care about the spoilers on these particular caches; I myself have posted spoiler photos of the whole series. I just want to let the NVM know that this is not a generally accepted practice before they post spoilers on a cache where the owner does care.

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

I don't really care about the spoilers on these particular caches; I myself have posted spoiler photos of the whole series. I just want to let the NVM know that this is not a generally accepted practice before they post spoilers on a cache where the owner does care.

That's just it NanCycle, many of us do care. I have deleted logs and asked that the finder not leave instructions to trespass across a golf course as a short-cut to one of my now archived listings. Let the NVM's complain @ contact Groundspeak, I paid my membership fees to play here. :laughing:

Posted January 20, 2014 · January 20, 2014

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

I don't really care about the spoilers on these particular caches; I myself have posted spoiler photos of the whole series. I just want to let the NVM know that this is not a generally accepted practice before they post spoilers on a cache where the owner does care.

That's just it NanCycle, many of us do care. I have deleted logs and asked that the finder not leave instructions to trespass across a golf course as a short-cut to one of my now archived listings. Let the NVM's complain @ contact Groundspeak, I paid my membership fees to play here.

Oh I don't disagree with you, and I do have other caches where I wouldn't want spoilers posted. And you, other COs, my other caches--these are all reasons why I want to educate the NVM. The fact that I don't care about those specific logs is the only reason that I haven't deleted them already.

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

I don't really care about the spoilers on these particular caches; I myself have posted spoiler photos of the whole series. I just want to let the NVM know that this is not a generally accepted practice before they post spoilers on a cache where the owner does care.

That's just it NanCycle, many of us do care. I have deleted logs and asked that the finder not leave instructions to trespass across a golf course as a short-cut to one of my now archived listings. Let the NVM's complain @ contact Groundspeak, I paid my membership fees to play here.

Oh I don't disagree with you, and I do have other caches where I wouldn't want spoilers posted. And you, other COs, my other caches--these are all reasons why I want to educate the NVM. The fact that I don't care about those specific logs is the only reason that I haven't deleted them already.

I agree with MPH that nothing says that this is not a generally accepted practice to a NVM that you can not contact better than deleting the log until the NVM gets the point, and I also understand your point. This needs made public and GS needs made more aware of our disgust as cache owners and basic members. We are held accountable as cache owners, we have standards to follow. We take all the risks and GS gets to run a business from our hobby. They are turning away basic members with the NVM's, look at the months long thread about the Intro App. GS did promise to make bigger and better mistakes when challenges were removed, I almost upgraded to PM to take part in challenges. I have followed the other thread and GS is well aware they made a mistake with the NVM's but say they are a small company and it will take time to work out a fix. I'm sure they are workin' on it. :anibad:

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Did the finder sign the log?

Not signing the log is not the only reason for deletion. Deletion is allowed for posting spoilers.

2.If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

Hmmm...maybe some sharp suits are at work. Get in tons of n00bs, & give the veterans incentive to go pmo, which in turn encourages the n00bs that stay to become paying members. Maybe we seriously underestimated the shrewdness of the bigwigs!

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Did the finder sign the log?

Not signing the log is not the only reason for deletion. Deletion is allowed for posting spoilers.

2.If the geocacher has failed to meet logging requirements, please explain your concerns. Politely email the log owner before or immediately after you delete their log. If their log or photos contain spoilers, invite them to edit the log. If you have deleted the log already, invite them to re-log without the spoiler.

I viewed the log and spoiler posted by the not a validated member. Groundspeak has a problem as far as we cache owners are concerned. If it were my cache, I would have already deleted it. I am glad to see your post here in the forums, hopefully the Groundspeak Lackeys see it too. This not a validated member stuff is getting out of hand. I made all of my listings PMO and the last 19 of 20 published within 20 miles of me are PMO. Is that Groundspeaks plan to be a pay to play site? That may not go over well, but I'm already on board the PMO bus.

Hmmm...maybe some sharp suits are at work. Get in tons of n00bs, & give the veterans incentive to go pmo, which in turn encourages the n00bs that stay to become paying members. Maybe we seriously underestimated the shrewdness of the bigwigs!

Please don't include me in with your "we". I'm only upset that I have had to archive some listings because of the actions of some noobs trashing the place in a 30 yard radis. :mad:

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

I switched my caches to premium member in attempt to block out casual finders.

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Would it make it better if you made your cache a "members only" cache? That way, only actual paying members will have access to them.

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Would it make it better if you made your cache a "members only" cache? That way, only actual paying members will have access to them.

It would only be better for the company but if you have more PMO geocaches in turn you will have less caches avalible to basic members and that hurts the idea of the Intro App to attract more members that will try geocaching and maybe one day become a paying member. One of the founders of Groundspeak, Jeremy Irish, has always stated that this site will never be a pay to play site and will remain free to basic members like myself. Groundspeak is not the only free geocache listing service and there are more than a few GPS related games out there to play. I do see this site moving in the direction of paying members only and our household has one paying member already. The rest of us that are basic members are aware of the back doors left open by Groundspeak so we may log PMO caches that we find along with paying members. Now if those doors were to close, it would not be good for basic members and I don't think Groundspeak would ever shut us out completly. :unsure:

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Would it make it better if you made your cache a "members only" cache?

There is no such setting. There's "Premium members only", which is different. (Groundspeak themselves used to refer to "members only" caches, which just added to the confusion.)

Nowadays we have three kinds of users: premium members, members (eg, validated email), and everyone else. And thanks to the phone app, the non-validated email loophole, and GPS units being factory pre-loaded with coordinates by the hundreds of thousands, the locations of all our hard work are being leaked out to the third group, the world at large.

It's time for a "members only" setting. Groundspeak, are you listening?

Actually, it was time years ago.

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

I think it's bold of Groundspeak to offer up our caches to people who do not have to be held accountable. unless they are going to reimburse me for the one cache I know is missing thanks to a Not Validated Member.

Agreed.

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

It's time for a "members only" setting. Groundspeak, are you listening?

Perhaps the fiasco is by design. After the site gets flooded with clueless noobs lacking e-mail addresses, the result is more people who make their hides Premium Members Only. Then, more people buy PMs to seek out these caches. It's sort of a clumsy way to drum up business however. :rolleyes:

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

It's time for a "members only" setting. Groundspeak, are you listening?

Perhaps the fiasco is by design. After the site gets flooded with clueless noobs lacking e-mail addresses, the result is more people who make their hides Premium Members Only. Then, more people buy PMs to seek out these caches. It's sort of a clumsy way to drum up business however.

ATV trails are big business in my area and we used to ride the reclaimed mining land for free and established trails and trail heads. Now after our free labor the free ride is over and it is members only or you need a permit. It's been a good long free ride folks, but it's time for a change. Groundspeak may even start to pay reviewers now with all this extra income. :lol:

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

Would it make it better if you made your cache a "members only" cache? That way, only actual paying members will have access to them.

While PMOCs take more work (which will disuade most people), they are available to find and log, as already noted.

They are available to anyone with the knowledge/ interest to do so.

Puzzle 'unknown caches' and puzzle 'multi's require seeing the blocked page, but those are the exceptions, and there are no hints ever for any of them. THAT is the security blanket, since it seems most cachers won't exert themselves... making a cache harder or on more difficult terrain is also good security regardless of the membership level. I suspect advertising it as a LPC or GRC is getting to be that way as well, at least as far as lifespan as well. Many quit looking for those types early on. Others save them for bad weather finds, only.

Validation and frequent verification of that validation status will be a good starting point. Validation without the checking says nothing about the status of a cacher. A valid email that is never responded to by anyone is worthless. Perhaps it's time to provide specific ID to GSpk to register. Real people tend to behave better than anonymous ones. That act might work for the less mannered PMs as well. Noobs are not the only problems... just hard to contact.

Doug 7rxc

Posted January 21, 2014 · January 21, 2014

I have another situation where I would like to be able to contact a Not Validated Member who has never visited the website. The first one was in connection with one of my Travel Bugs--I wanted to be able to educate them in logging procedures. Now I would like to be able to educate someone in writing cache logs--specifically that logging spoiler comments and pictures is not usually appreciated. I think I am going to delete the logs, and hope that they contact me, but since they won't get the email notice of deletion and don't look at their profile page they probably won't ever know that they lost 2 of their 5 Finds.

I sure wish that geocaching.com would not accept logs from Not Validated Members. Instead they could just get a message that they have to validate their account before they can post logs.

Delete the log.

I have also had problems with non validated members.

Edited January 21, 2014 by JohnnyVegas

Posted February 8, 2014 · February 8, 2014

I discovered today that the "Not Validated Member" problem has cranked up a notch. I came across someone who double-logged a cache, went to their profile, and found this on their profile: "Not Validated Premium Member"

How did someone become a Premium Member without a valid email address???

Edited February 8, 2014 by Joshism

Posted February 8, 2014 · February 8, 2014

I discovered today that the "Not Validated Member" problem has cranked up a notch. I came across someone who double-logged a cache, went to their profile, and found this on their profile: "Not Validated Premium Member"

How did someone become a Premium Member without a valid email address???

Probably got confused (as a few) on upgrading their intro app to the full app, instead becoming a pm.

Posted February 8, 2014 · February 8, 2014

Deleted rant...

Edited February 8, 2014 by cerberus1

Posted February 8, 2014 · February 8, 2014

I discovered today that the "Not Validated Member" problem has cranked up a notch. I came across someone who double-logged a cache, went to their profile, and found this on their profile: "Not Validated Premium Member"

How did someone become a Premium Member without a valid email address???

Wow!! That's a new one!

Posted February 8, 2014 · February 8, 2014

I discovered today that the "Not Validated Member" problem has cranked up a notch. I came across someone who double-logged a cache, went to their profile, and found this on their profile: "Not Validated Premium Member"

How did someone become a Premium Member without a valid email address???

Someone gifted them a membership maybe?

A Not Validated Member

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation