[FEATURE] Secret code for caches

[+wuliwup]

Again and again I have logs from cachers in my listings, which have never found them (sometimes I check the content of the physical logbooks, after I have replaced it in the cache).

What do you think about the idea, that caches should have a "secret code" additionally like the codes of travelbugs? Such a code, which has to be entered on Geocaching.com before writing the log, would prevent these fiddlings.

Edited March 6, 2014 by wuliwup

[+T.D.M.22]

Nope. You said a code, just like on travel bugs. Well just like travel bugs they will-not can the will be shared. And it wouldn't be fair to me that I can't log a find because you forgot to put the code in, or it got lost or wore off.

[+kunarion]

Again and again I have logs from cachers in my listings, which have never found them (sometimes I check the content of the physical logbooks, after I have replaced it in the cache).

What do you think about the idea, that caches should have a "secret code" additionally like the codes of travelbugs? Such a code, which has to be entered on Geocaching.com before writing the log, would prevent these fiddlings.

It would be best to have two secret codes, just in case people find out what the first code is. Perfect!

[+kunarion]

I found some "Lab Caches" last year. Each had a log book to sign, but also secret code. Type it to log the "Find".

 

Again and again I have logs from cachers in my listings, which have never found them (sometimes I check the content of the physical logbooks, after I have replaced it in the cache).

Whoever suggested that is right. Look at the signatures to verify finds. That's a lot better than having a secret code.

 

I still fully support nose prints. You can't fake a nose print.

Edited March 6, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

If it's that important to you, then continue checking the physical logs. Most of us aren't concerned about false finds, so we don't want to deal with writing down codes and having them confirmed just to make it easier for you to check up on everyone.

[+Harry Dolphin]

No one's mentioned it yet? Secret Codes are banned as an ALR.

[+Walts Hunting]

This come up every so often and is soundly defeated. It would complicate things to much to have to send a code to the CO for every cache. For instance how would I enter 50 or more codes for the caches I do in a day.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Instead of a secret code, how about a QR code to be scanned...

[+ngrrfan]

Instead of a secret code, how about a QR code to be scanned...

Uh... my gps doesn't scan QR codes.

 

Besides, can you say ALR???

[+Don_J]

Instead of a secret code, how about a QR code to be scanned...

 

Probably not the direction that you want to take this thread.

 

Code word caches were banned years before ALR caches were banned

[+ivanidea]

Instead of a secret code, how about a QR code to be scanned...

 

And have the smartphone verify you are actually at the location?

 

Sounds familiar

 

[team tisri]

Again and again I have logs from cachers in my listings, which have never found them (sometimes I check the content of the physical logbooks, after I have replaced it in the cache).

What do you think about the idea, that caches should have a "secret code" additionally like the codes of travelbugs? Such a code, which has to be entered on Geocaching.com before writing the log, would prevent these fiddlings.

 

Proof of finding is the log book. If you want to verify that people who claimed a find actually found it, check the log book.

 

If you put a secret code in the cache the code will be shared. It's only a question of time before someone posts it in their log, and once the code is out there any benefit it might once have offered is lost. You also generate problems with people having to note down all the codes, and mixing up which code went with which cache. Then you'll have problems with caches that don't have a code.

 

The more pressing reason it won't happen is because fundamentally you're asking for the site to be recoded so you don't have to check logs against the log book.

[+funkymunkyzone]

And have the smartphone verify you are actually at the location?

 

Sounds familiar

At least someone got it... Hehe

[+Tassie_Boy]

To the OP:

 

As good an idea as this may be in some form there is a group in this community that makes a lot of noise whenever the word "code" is used. It's almost impossible to get your voice heard above them.

 

 

To those screaming "ALR ALR ALR!!!!!":

 

The ALR rule is just that, a rule put in place by Groundspeak. Rules are made, Rules are modified and Rules are revoked. If GS were to implement such a system then they revoke or more likely modify the ALR rule. I thought I heard that Lab caches had some sort of code to log.

[+Harry Dolphin]

To the OP:

 

As good an idea as this may be in some form there is a group in this community that makes a lot of noise whenever the word "code" is used. It's almost impossible to get your voice heard above them.

 

 

To those screaming "ALR ALR ALR!!!!!":

 

The ALR rule is just that, a rule put in place by Groundspeak. Rules are made, Rules are modified and Rules are revoked. If GS were to implement such a system then they revoke or more likely modify the ALR rule. I thought I heard that Lab caches had some sort of code to log.

 

Yes! Violates rules is a terrible thing for people to say! Hey! There are rules against this! Codes used to exist. They were eliminated. There was a good reason for this (or at least Groundspeak thought so.) I would not hold my breath waiting for GS to change a rule like this. Sign log, get smiley. Anything else is an ALR.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Harry Dolphin

[+Walts Hunting]

We are loud and profuse because it is a bad idea that has been brought up many times and the problems it would cause are well discussed.

[+dprovan]

As good an idea as this may be in some form there is a group in this community that makes a lot of noise whenever the word "code" is used. It's almost impossible to get your voice heard above them.

Let me say it as quietly as I can: the reason it's not a good idea is that it assumes we're all liars unless we can prove our finds, while most of us prefer to play in a community where everyone is considered honest unless evidence suggests otherwise.

[+Chief301]

Again, sounds like a solution in search of a problem. We already have a tried and tested, relatively foolproof method of confirming finds. It's low tech but it works. ALR arguments aside, why complicate things if you don't have to?

[+tozainamboku]

 

To those screaming "ALR ALR ALR!!!!!":

 

The ALR rule is just that, a rule put in place by Groundspeak. Rules are made, Rules are modified and Rules are revoked. If GS were to implement such a system then they revoke or more likely modify the ALR rule. I thought I heard that Lab caches had some sort of code to log.

Maybe Lab caches indicate that Groundspeak is considering such a method for online logs. But that would mean ignoring a long history of just why these rules were put into place to begin with.

 

I won't go into details, but history showed that codeword caches tended to cause more disputes and not solve the problems they claimed to be trying to solve.

 

In general, I believe TPTB would prefer that we used the honor system when dealing with found logs. Instead of assuming that every online log is bogus and requiring proof in order to stand, in this game the idea is to assume that people are legitimately reporting their cache finds. This being the internet, from time to time we get someone who logs caches they haven't even gone to look for, let alone found. Generally, something in the logs will raise suspicions. Perhaps someone has checked the physical log and can use that as evidence that an online log is bogus. If you can collect evidence that an online log is bogus it should be deleted. Some times we see online logs that pretty much admit the cache wasn't found, or perhaps that the finder didn't want to make the effort to retrieve the cache and sign the log. Cache owners are already allowed to delete such logs.

 

I believe that Groundspeak is unlikely to allow codewords, given their experience of how this results in cache owners deleting what Groundspeak and most geocachers would consider legitimate finds, and may actually encourage more illegitimate finds.

 

Many people will find these caches and either not notice that there is a codeword to copy, or they might forget the codeword or have copied it down wrong. Codewords can be shared so they actually may encourage more bogus logging. My understanding is that there has been rampant sharing of codewords for some Mega-Event lab caches. And we know that couch-potato logging of virtual caches was a problem when someone found the verification question online.

 

Certainly, smartphone technology might be used to scan a QR code in the cache, but remember there are still a few of us senior citizens who use a standalone GPS and log the finds from a computer at home.

[+Don_J]

 

To those screaming "ALR ALR ALR!!!!!":

 

The ALR rule is just that, a rule put in place by Groundspeak. Rules are made, Rules are modified and Rules are revoked. If GS were to implement such a system then they revoke or more likely modify the ALR rule. I thought I heard that Lab caches had some sort of code to log.

Maybe Lab caches indicate that Groundspeak is considering such a method for online logs. But that would mean ignoring a long history of just why these rules were put into place to begin with.

 

I won't go into details, but history showed that codeword caches tended to cause more disputes and not solve the problems they claimed to be trying to solve.

 

In general, I believe TPTB would prefer that we used the honor system when dealing with found logs. Instead of assuming that every online log is bogus and requiring proof in order to stand, in this game the idea is to assume that people are legitimately reporting their cache finds. This being the internet, from time to time we get someone who logs caches they haven't even gone to look for, let alone found. Generally, something in the logs will raise suspicions. Perhaps someone has checked the physical log and can use that as evidence that an online log is bogus. If you can collect evidence that an online log is bogus it should be deleted. Some times we see online logs that pretty much admit the cache wasn't found, or perhaps that the finder didn't want to make the effort to retrieve the cache and sign the log. Cache owners are already allowed to delete such logs.

 

I believe that Groundspeak is unlikely to allow codewords, given their experience of how this results in cache owners deleting what Groundspeak and most geocachers would consider legitimate finds, and may actually encourage more illegitimate finds.

 

Many people will find these caches and either not notice that there is a codeword to copy, or they might forget the codeword or have copied it down wrong. Codewords can be shared so they actually may encourage more bogus logging. My understanding is that there has been rampant sharing of codewords for some Mega-Event lab caches. And we know that couch-potato logging of virtual caches was a problem when someone found the verification question online.

 

Certainly, smartphone technology might be used to scan a QR code in the cache, but remember there are still a few of us senior citizens who use a standalone GPS and log the finds from a computer at home.

 

I don't do it often, but when I see a what I think is a unique Geocoin at an an event, I'll write down the code with the idea that I'll log a Discover after I get home. More times than not, I get the code wrong. If I had to write down a code for every cache I found in order to log it, I'd probably stop looking for caches. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle. I feel that my integrity amongst my peers is all I need to log a cache.

[+TheHarleyRebel]

If you think about it, the numbers a fake to the person who logged it, so they are just cheating themselves.

[+funkymunkyzone]

...

...

+1 to both of you.

 

As a cache owner with >400 cache hides, I absolutely would not want the hassle of monitoring code word finds.

 

Imagine when someone finds a cache, signs the log but writes the code down wrong. If the code word requirement is part of the logging form, inevitably I'm going to get a load of "We found the cache but wrote the code down wrong, what is it so we can log it?" emails.... Now where do I draw the line - do I hand it out to people I know and not people i don't? Do I make people that I know wouldn't cheat go back and write the code down again (and basically be a jerk about it)?

 

No... too many problems. That pandora's box is best left well and truly locked.