Authentication Code in logbooks to prevent false found logs

[+MeisterDiebe]

Hey guys,

 

this might be a topic that has been discussed before - if so, please link me there because we couldn't find any yet - if not, please let us explain the current problem with "spam" logs and our idea of an "Authentication Code" feature.

 

Problem of "Spam logs" - Founds logs without proper entries in the logbooks:

Over last months "spam"-logs became more and more popular at caches that we were searching for. People trolling the GC community register new accounts, log cache founds without ever being there, without cache owners checking real entries in their logbooks and those on the website you end up searching for caches which sometimes weren't found over last weeks or months, but were logged by plenty spam accounts.

 

The idea of an "Authentication Code" within the logbooks:

The solution could be pretty easy: Simply let cache owners put an authentication code within their logbook that is needed to be able to log a found as found.

Posting DNF, Notes, NA, NM - entries could still be able to be posted without.

 

Just to be able to log a cache as FOUND you would need to enter the given authentication code.

 

We are looking forward for your answers and if that has been discussed anywhere before.

 

Thanks & best regards from Germany,

MeisterDiebe

[+T.D.M.22]

Been discussed before. Among other things, people would share the code, thus allowing false finds, which ends up wasting everybody's time.

[+on4bam]

As people tend to share mystery coordinates, multi final coordinates, TB codes, they will just share that code too. Those wanting to cheat will, no matter what.

Maybe some electronic logging system at the cache location could work. Every cacher should have his own "bank card" with PIN code that has to be inserted when finding the a cache.

[+Mausebiber]

Not within the Rules of Groundspeak. If someone logs a found and you doubt it, you have to check the logbook and, if you cannot find a logentry, delete the online log. Any additional tasks for geocacher have to be optional.

[+Walts Hunting]

So after a bike ride finding 40 or more caches I have to have written down each password correctly linking it to the particular cachE instead of storing one log in gsak and with one click living all. Not gonna happen.

 

The false log percentages is so small that it doesn't really merit attention.

[+on4bam]

So after a bike ride finding 40 or more caches I have to have written down each password correctly linking it to the particular cachE instead of storing one log in gsak and with one click living all. Not gonna happen.

 

That's why camera's are invented. The last few years I take a picture of all waypoints (tags) or other info we encounter (it saved us time not having to go back after entering coords with 1 erroneous number). Same goes for TBs discovered.

 

The false log percentages is so small that it doesn't really merit attention.

 

I doubt that. Especially on "easy" series and trails the number can be high as people "do" them and log them all when they get home not remembering (or wanting to remember) the ones that were missing.

[+hillbillypajeeps]

so we need to waste room on the tiny log sheets on a nano for an authentication code, or, the co has to run out and replace the log it every time it becomes unreadable?

[+Walts Hunting]

So after a bike ride finding 40 or more caches I have to have written down each password correctly linking it to the particular cachE instead of storing one log in gsak and with one click living all. Not gonna happen.

 

That's why camera's are invented. The last few years I take a picture of all waypoints (tags) or other info we encounter (it saved us time not having to go back after entering coords with 1 erroneous number). Same goes for TBs discovered.

 

The false log percentages is so small that it doesn't really merit attention.

 

I doubt that. Especially on "easy" series and trails the number can be high as people "do" them and log them all when they get home not remembering (or wanting to remember) the ones that were missing.

 

I still go with who wants to have to look through 50 pictures to log the caches you did that day. Would increase my log time from five minutes tops to probably an hour. Not going to happen.

[+on4bam]

I still go with who wants to have to look through 50 pictures to log the caches you did that day. Would increase my log time from five minutes tops to probably an hour. Not going to happen.

 

I got 48 pictures on the caches I did last Friday. I didn't need them for the logs but used them, together with the data from my GPS to do the bookkeeping in GSAK for the 5 caches we found. This took me more than an hour (adding the WPs, variables, answers to the earthcache. Logging these 5 caches also took more than 5 minutes. I respect the time/effort/money CO's put into these caches and like to show my appreciation with a decent log instead of an automated "TFTC". It's all part of the game. Even on days we log more than 20 we add individual logs to the day's template.

It doesn't take a lot of time to view a picture on the second screen anyway.

[+MeisterDiebe]

Been discussed before. Among other things, people would share the code, thus allowing false finds, which ends up wasting everybody's time.

 

Can you please me link me that? Would be very pleased to read and check that previous discussion.

If CO wouldn't need to check for false logs themselves anymore while cachers would need to use an authentication code, the "wasted" time would just move from the duty of an CO to the loggers.

 

so we need to waste room on the tiny log sheets on a nano for an authentication code, or, the co has to run out and replace the log it every time it becomes unreadable?

 

same goes for this comment - so far, CO need to run out to check for false logs anyway (what most just don't do unfortunately).

 

The false log percentages is so small that it doesn't really merit attention.

 

Depending on the cache & route, it's probably around 10-20% I'd guess..?

 

I'd be happy to note & enter such a code later to log the caches to improve the QUALITY of logs & caches.

Unfortunately, the current situation is that most CO just don't care at all, so it's almost impossible to tell if/when caches have been found the weeks/months before.

[+dprovan]

Yeah, discussed to death, but here are what I consider the interesting points:

 

• It wouldn't actually help, both because the codes can be shared, and because people will still file bogus logs even without knowing the code since they don't particularly care whether any one log is deleted. In most cases someone filing a bogus log won't even notice a code is required.
  
• The extra burden to resolve the problem of people behaving badly is put on the people behaving well.
  
• Bogus logs are fairly uncommon, so all the extra work of saving the codes, sending them in to the CO, and the CO checking them is unwarranted to detect a bad log or 2 in each year.
  
• Who cares? Undetected bogus logs don't hurt anyone in themselves, and the times they do have a negative impact, such as when they make it look like a missing cache isn't missing, they're usually obvious enough that a secret code isn't necessary to detect them.
  
• It's been tried. Early on, this was allowed, and now it isn't. I wasn't around, so I can't say why they are no longer allowed, but the point is that if they had proved to be as useful as you're imagining them to be, we'd still be using them.
  

[+cerberus1]

Not within the Rules of Groundspeak. If someone logs a found and you doubt it, you have to check the logbook and, if you cannot find a log entry, delete the online log. Any additional tasks for geocacher have to be optional.

I agree and it's pretty simple.

The CO, as part of maintenance, is supposed to check (if in doubt) that some form of your sig is on that log.

As per Groundspeak guidelines, anything else required to get that smiley is optional.

 

With trackable codes often passed around at events, with few ever seeing the item that they've logged, and some folks even sharing coords to mystery and multi finals (sheesh...), I don't feel "authentication" codes would prevent many false logs.

[+on4bam]

[*]Bogus logs are fairly uncommon, so all the extra work of saving the codes, sending them in to the CO, and the CO checking them is unwarranted to detect a bad log or 2 in each year.

 

I can guarantee it's more than 2 a year. In a thread on a local forum a poster saw 3 where the cachers said in their logs they couldn't open the cache because of a faulty lock and thus couldn't sign the logbook, they logged a found anyway on 2 of the 12 caches of the series.

2-3 weeks back a missing cache was logged by previous cachers (mentioned in their foundlog.. container gone). One week earlier, 22 cache series with one cache missing (taken by neighbors?) logged by 3 people even though the CO only replaced the cache afterwards.

 

It annoys me that people log missing caches as founds because when preparing to go out it seems all is well on a series where you have to collect codes along the way to be able to find the bonus only to see that not all codes can be found and thus missing the bonus.

[+MeisterDiebe]

Yeah, discussed to death, but here are what I consider the interesting points:

 

• It wouldn't actually help, both because the codes can be shared, and because people will still file bogus logs even without knowing the code since they don't particularly care whether any one log is deleted. In most cases someone filing a bogus log won't even notice a code is required.
  
• The extra burden to resolve the problem of people behaving badly is put on the people behaving well.
  
• Bogus logs are fairly uncommon, so all the extra work of saving the codes, sending them in to the CO, and the CO checking them is unwarranted to detect a bad log or 2 in each year.
  
• Who cares? Undetected bogus logs don't hurt anyone in themselves, and the times they do have a negative impact, such as when they make it look like a missing cache isn't missing, they're usually obvious enough that a secret code isn't necessary to detect them.
  
• It's been tried. Early on, this was allowed, and now it isn't. I wasn't around, so I can't say why they are no longer allowed, but the point is that if they had proved to be as useful as you're imagining them to be, we'd still be using them.
  

 

You wouldn't need to send the code to the CO and he wouldn't need to check it if there was a simply Code-Box at GC.com (like spam-prevention on websites) where to enter the Code that is written within the logbook before you'd be able to log a cache as FOUND.

 

If that has been discussed before, please be so kind to share the link.

 

but the point is that if they had proved to be as useful as you're imagining them to be, we'd still be using them.

 

Given that you wouldn't need a thread to discuss features at all - because you would have had them already if they made sense..

 

It annoys me that people log missing caches as founds because when preparing to go out it seems all is well on a series where you have to collect codes along the way to be able to find the bonus only to see that not all codes can be found and thus missing the bonus.

 

Exactly. This.

Edited May 4, 2015 by MeisterDiebe

[+ecanderson]

It annoys me that people log missing caches as founds because when preparing to go out it seems all is well on a series where you have to collect codes along the way to be able to find the bonus only to see that not all codes can be found and thus missing the bonus.

Heck - it's annoying enough to be looking for ANY cache, much less with any 'special codes', that by rights should have already been flagged with several DNF entries. I'm prepared to ignore a few consecutive DNFs on difficult caches, but as a finder OR as a CO, if I see a string of DNFs on a 1.0 or 1.5 difficulty cache, that's a very helpful, big, red flag.

[+niraD]

Here's the oldest thread (from 2005) that I found discussing this issue:

No Log Caches: Why are password caches not allowed?

[+MeisterDiebe]

Here's the oldest thread (from 2005) that I found discussing this issue:

No Log Caches: Why are password caches not allowed?

 

Thanks for the link, but the discussion is about a complete different topic actually

 

What we suggest is to have a Code within each cache in ADDITION to the normal logging procedure.

 

Means:

1) you find a cache. you write your name into it as usual.

2) you note the code that is written by the CO within the logbook.

3) you log your cache as found at the GC website. BUT - in order to be able to log it as FOUND you will need to enter the Code of the cache otherwise the website wouldn't allow you to do so.

[+on4bam]

3) you log your cache as found at the GC website. BUT - in order to be able to log it as FOUND you will need to enter the Code of the cache otherwise the website wouldn't allow you to do so.

 

As well as TB codes, mystery coords, final coords for multi's are shared, that code would shared too. I don't think there's a fool proof/hack proof solution.

[+dprovan]

You wouldn't need to send the code to the CO and he wouldn't need to check it if there was a simply Code-Box at GC.com (like spam-prevention on websites) where to enter the Code that is written within the logbook before you'd be able to log a cache as FOUND.

I'm not sure why you think typing the code into a code box would be significantly easier than sending it, but if your proposal is to automate this, then I'm even less interested because it makes it impossible for the CO to give slack to someone with a legitimate reason for not having the code.

 

Yeah, sure, you could add yet another layer to allow the CO to override the system, but that just piles onto the point of whether this is really worth it.

 

If that has been discussed before, please be so kind to share the link.

To find a previous thread, I'd have to search in exactly the same way you can search for yourself. I don't have any recollection of any keywords that would make my search more fruitful than yours. Anyway, I just mention that it's been discussed to death before in passing, I'm not saying we can't discuss it again.

 

but the point is that if they had proved to be as useful as you're imagining them to be, we'd still be using them.

Given that you wouldn't need a thread to discuss features at all - because you would have had them already if they made sense..

I'm not saying we shouldn't be having this discussion, I'm just pointing out that there is some experimental evidence that it isn't as useful as you might think.

 

It annoys me that people log missing caches as founds because when preparing to go out it seems all is well on a series where you have to collect codes along the way to be able to find the bonus only to see that not all codes can be found and thus missing the bonus.

Exactly. This.

Yeah, that's bad, but it can happen for many reasons, so I feel no particular need to reduce the number of times it happens for this particular reason. Notice that although on4bam gave a few examples, the examples involved people saying in the log that they failed to actually sign the log, so anyone reading the logs, including the CO, can tell they were false finds even without a confirmation code.

 

You're adding a feature that will sometimes make caches in perfectly good shape unfindable if the special code becomes unreadable. I think problem you're creating, unreadable codes, will be much more common than the problem you're trying to solve: actual confusion caused by false finds.

 

To me, that's enough, before I even think of the number of times I wouldn't notice that there's a code to write down. I have enough trouble remembering the write the codes down when I know I'm doing a series that requires intermediate codes for a final bonus cache. From where I sit, just one time of me going to log a cache only to discover I needed a completion code I didn't collect would, in terms of annoyance, overwhelm all of the times in my entire caching career when I've been annoyed by false finds.

[+T.D.M.22]

Been discussed before. Among other things, people would share the code, thus allowing false finds, which ends up wasting everybody's time.

 

Can you please me link me that? Would be very pleased to read and check that previous discussion.

If CO wouldn't need to check for false logs themselves anymore while cachers would need to use an authentication code, the "wasted" time would just move from the duty of an CO to the loggers.

 

 

The wasted time I refer to is the time it takes for us to log those caches. The time it takes to design, test, and put to work the whole system (for 2 million caches) to prevent false logs, which really doesn't prevent false logs after all (see my first post.)

[+geodarts]

I don't log Wherigos on that site using the completion code and I doubt that I would log a cache if a code were required. I am not that well organized.

 

Part of me, though, thinks it might be interesting if a code were used on repetitive trails - if I chose to do one, it is likely that the container would soon be taken down the road so an authentication code might be the only way to prove I was there. Somehow, though, I don't think it would be popular, either as an option or requirement. Perhaps it would be easier to use QR codes. Oh wait . . .

[+on4bam]

Notice that although on4bam gave a few examples, the examples involved people saying in the log that they failed to actually sign the log, so anyone reading the logs, including the CO, can tell they were false finds even without a confirmation code.

 

These were examples for just the last few cache outings we did and I gave them just to prove that people log founds even though they didn't find them. Most of the time however, they log TFTC and if you don't happen to have done the caches yourself you wouldn't know.

 

I remember a trail along a canal we once did. Most of the caches were hidden in a small hole in the ground with a piece of wooden flooring on top. They were easy finds less than a meter from the path. We had 10 DNFs on that trail because the hole was empty and thus it was clear the cache was missing. People before and after us that day logged founds on them.

 

 

I contacted one of the cachers (just for fun ) and asked where he found one of our DNFs and he said he found a QRcode (munzee) and thought that was the cache

[+on4bam]

I don't log Wherigos on that site using the completion code and I doubt that I would log a cache if a code were required. I am not that well organized.

 

I log Wherigo's with their code but we recently did one that didn't provide a code. I do have a screenshot saying "congratulation on finishing this Wherigo" but no code...

[+niraD]

I log Wherigo's with their code but we recently did one that didn't provide a code. I do have a screenshot saying "congratulation on finishing this Wherigo" but no code...

I haven't had a problem with Wherigo cartridges not giving me a completion code. But I have had a problem with Wherigo cartridges giving me an invalid completion code. Eventually I figured out that I needed to enter only the first 15 characters of the code I was provided.

[+The A-Team]

The false log percentages is so small that it doesn't really merit attention.

Depending on the cache & route, it's probably around 10-20% I'd guess..?

I think that's a regional issue. Around here, I'd estimate it to be around 1%, if that.

 

From what the rest of the world can see, the caching culture in Germany (and perhaps more of central Europe) is somewhat unique and not always compatible with everyone else. It simply seems to be part of the local culture that what the rest of the world sees as bogus logging is seen as acceptable. Whenever I see concentrated bogus logging (ie. on certain Webcam/Virtual caches, caches where you get a souvenir, etc.), it always seems to be central Europeans doing the majority of the bogus logging. In some places, the phrase "Greetings from Germany" has become a joke and can be interpreted as a likely indicator of a bogus log.

 

What needs to happen is for some vocal and high-profile cachers from that region to stand up and speak out against such practices. If you know cachers who bogus log, share puzzle solutions, or share TB codes, try to convince them why it's bad for the game and to stop, and get them to convince their friends. Essentially, the culture needs to be gradually changed from within.

 

For the reasons discussed here and in past discussions on the topic, logging codes simply would not work. The bogus loggers would simply need to share the codes and the problem wouldn't be solved, while the honest cachers would get punished by being forced to jump through administrative hoops for no apparent gain, or may even be prevented from logging at all.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The idea of an "Authentication Code" within the logbooks:

The solution could be pretty easy: Simply let cache owners put an authentication code within their logbook that is needed to be able to log a found as found.

Posting DNF, Notes, NA, NM - entries could still be able to be posted without.

 

Just to be able to log a cache as FOUND you would need to enter the given authentication code.

 

That is considered an ALR.

[+wesi]

From what the rest of the world can see, the caching culture in Germany (and perhaps more of central Europe) is somewhat unique and not always compatible with everyone else.

Well.. yes. Europe loves dreaming of and virtually visiting foreign places, and picking up apparently available smileys along the way is sort-of accepted as a result of this wanderlust. Cheating? Maybe. The flip side of this is though that Europeans, and particularly Germans, are almost embarrassingly honest if they lose or misplace a Geocoin. I have received four! replacement coins from Germans so far, who were absolutely contrite to have lost or misplaced my coin or TB that they took from a cache. Likewise, cachers in the US have fudged up a dozen of my trackables, but I have yet to see anyone even fessing up, let alone make amends.

 

And on the topic of codes in caches: Don't. Making everything massively complicated for the 99.5% of honest people just to maybe catch the 0.5% cheaters is what the IRS do. And it wastes a lot of everyone's time. Let's keep this as a game, and not turn it into the Big Brother version of Caching. If you suspect bogus logs, hike your butt out there to your cache, check the paper log, and then contact the "finders" who just appear in the online version. No big deal.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The idea of an "Authentication Code" within the logbooks:

The solution could be pretty easy: Simply let cache owners put an authentication code within their logbook that is needed to be able to log a found as found.

Posting DNF, Notes, NA, NM - entries could still be able to be posted without.

 

Just to be able to log a cache as FOUND you would need to enter the given authentication code.

 

That is considered an ALR.

 

An ALR is defined in the guidelines as they exist today. What is being proposed (and, for the record I don't think it's a good idea) would require a change to the guidelines to allow for authentication codes in, or in lieu of logbooks.

 

If any new feature requires a change in the guidelines to be implemented, then arguing that the feature violates the guidelines isn't reason enough to object to the new feature.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

Been discussed before.

 

Some suggestions keep appearing again and again. I almost think a "sticky" is necessary for some of these.

[+EngPhil]

In some places, the phrase "Greetings from Germany" has become a joke and can be interpreted as a likely indicator of a bogus log.

Interesting! I'd never really made that connection before, but....

 

I had an obvious bogus log on one of my caches recently. The mystery final of a series comprising six multis. No corresponding find on any of the prerequisites, and the log on the final was simply

TftC greetings from Germany

A quick lunchtime stroll verified that (as expected) no such signature existed in the physical log, so the online log was of course swiftly deleted.

 

I cannot for the life of me think of what these people get out of this....

[+on4bam]

I cannot for the life of me think of what these people get out of this....

 

An extra point on the findscounter and being known as a cheater.

[+Bear and Ragged]

3) you log your cache as found at the GC website. BUT - in order to be able to log it as FOUND you will need to enter the Code of the cache otherwise the website wouldn't allow you to do so.

 

As well as TB codes, mystery coords, final coords for multi's are shared, that code would shared too. I don't think there's a fool proof/hack proof solution.

 

And then the situation that the CO finds the code has been shared, and changes the code.

 

You found the cache before the code was changed, but log later... The site now has a new code number to allow you to log...

 

(And those that change username/split teams etc, that backlog finds.)

[+Harry Dolphin]

The idea of an "Authentication Code" within the logbooks:

The solution could be pretty easy: Simply let cache owners put an authentication code within their logbook that is needed to be able to log a found as found.

Posting DNF, Notes, NA, NM - entries could still be able to be posted without.

 

Just to be able to log a cache as FOUND you would need to enter the given authentication code.

 

That is considered an ALR.

 

An ALR is defined in the guidelines as they exist today. What is being proposed (and, for the record I don't think it's a good idea) would require a change to the guidelines to allow for authentication codes in, or in lieu of logbooks.

 

If any new feature requires a change in the guidelines to be implemented, then arguing that the feature violates the guidelines isn't reason enough to object to the new feature.

 

Ah. I must have missed mention of 'change in guidelines.'

Back when I used to geocache a lot... Used to try for ten to twenty a weekend... Been a while... We would bring along a Palm, and record the name and code for each cache we found. Lots of typos with my fins, so we recorded both, and any critical comments. If we had to type in a code, and make sure we got it correct, we would give up geocaching. That's not geocaching, mind-controlling COs. Geocaching is about finding the cache and signing the log. Not about spending a lot of time triple checking the super secret code to make sure we got it right.

I can find better things to do with my time to have fun.

[+Team Monkeyboy]

If requiring electronic proof of visiting the cache is important to you, play that other game with the QR codes. There's already a way to verify that someone has logged a legitimate find - see if they've signed the log.

[+Team Monkeyboy]

If requiring electronic proof of visiting the cache is important to you, play that other game with the QR codes. There's already a way to verify that someone has logged a legitimate find - see if they've signed the log.

 

There's already a cache type that requires a verification code... Lab Caches.

[+The A-Team]

There's already an experimental, temporary, pseudo-cache type that requires a verification code... Lab Caches.

Fixed it for ya

[+niraD]

There's already an experimental, temporary, pseudo-cache type that requires a verification code... Lab Caches.

Fixed it for ya

I think "experimental" is fair, since they're described that way on the Geocache Types page. And "temporary" is fair, in that so far, they have all been temporary. But given that they appear on the Geocache Types page, I'm not sure they're "pseudo-caches".

[+The A-Team]

There's already an experimental, temporary, pseudo-cache type that requires a verification code... Lab Caches.

Fixed it for ya

I think "experimental" is fair, since they're described that way on the Geocache Types page. And "temporary" is fair, in that so far, they have all been temporary. But given that they appear on the Geocache Types page, I'm not sure they're "pseudo-caches".

I consider them pseudo-caches for the following reasons:

• They're included in some of the stats, but not all of them.
  
• They can't be looked up using any of the same tools as the "real" cache types (ie. the map, searches, lists, apps, etc.).
  
• Their GPX files are fairly different from those of the "real" cache types (ie. "0" for coordinates, D/T, and owner; a number of elements not present; multiple Labs in one GPX/no separate GPXs for individual Labs; etc.).
  
• They don't have GC codes.
  
• They don't have a visible logbook of finders' logs.
  

They're really more closely related to the extinct "Geocaching Challenges" than the "real" cache types due to their separation from most of the website.