Jump to content

User Validation


gmj3191
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I'm in a number of forums and FB groups in Australia, and regularly see issues and hear about problems affecting hundreds and probably thousands of geocachers.

We are suffering from a number of issues which also seem to be affecting geocachers around the world.

The problems centre around bogus cachers who

- vandalise caches

- post nasty logs of a disgusting, abusive, racist or vulgar nature

- post logs pointing to ad sites or phishing sites

 

We feel much of this problem could be alleviated if Groundspeak reinstated the validation of email addresses before admitting new geocachers into the system.

 

We feel it is just too easy now to to get an id in the system, and malicious users and robot users are running rampant.

 

Please consider this matter and help us clean up the problems affecting the whole Geocaching community.

Edited by gmj3191
Link to comment

Implementing a valid email check would at least show that Groundspeak can actually do something rather than doing nothing which seems to be the current course.

 

Apart from filtering logs for links and bad language checks I would also like to see an easy to use "REPORT USER" function in Web, App and Email (found it notifications etc) so it is easier to report and for GS to see what is happening out there.

 

Whist we cannot change a persons initial behavior it would be nice to make them accountable for it.

Link to comment

I wholeheartedly agree with gmj3191 (which doesn't happen very often).

 

Email validation to achieve an account works perfectly well on almost every other site. Whilst it won't be a miracle cure that will alleviate all the woes that gmj3191 mentions above, it will undoubtedly slow the problem down. Currently, it is way to easy for bots to create accounts on geocaching.com at the moment and this has been glaringly exposed with the influx of these logs advertising gcpro. With an email verification process and some sort of captcha verification, this kind of thing would be slowed to a trickle overnight. Call me a conspiracy theorist though, I feel that the reason this won't be implemented isn't because "it's more complicated than that", but more because implementing it would slow down the uptake on the precious free intro app that everybody loves so much!

Link to comment

Implementing a valid email check would at least show that Groundspeak can actually do something rather than doing nothing which seems to be the current course.

 

Response from Admin in another thread:

 

FWIW, our folks are taking this very seriously. We know it's annoying (believe me, it's annoying for us, too), and we're working to address it.

 

Apart from filtering logs for links and bad language checks I would also like to see an easy to use "REPORT USER" function in Web, App and Email (found it notifications etc) so it is easier to report and for GS to see what is happening out there.

 

I'm not sure about the App, but here's the appropriate avenue to report a User:

 

Contact Us

 

But as stated in one or more threads, the issue has been amply reported already.

 

Whist we cannot change a persons initial behavior it would be nice to make them accountable for it.

 

Like a fake email account is going to make someone more accountable?

 

Not to be a fanboy or anything, but I thought the response from Groundspeak was pretty swift. By the time I saw the email notification on one of my Listings, the Log had been removed and the offending account had been locked. I would have to say I got my PM's worth of service right there.

Link to comment

@Touchstone

 

In my area we have had an utter biblical flood of vulgar logs, logs posted with porn in them, logs threatening harm to geocachers, logs threatening rape to geocachers. Not one or two logs.... literally hundreds of them. I would love to send you a copy if you want to see them but they are not suitable for the public forum.

 

Now these people were able to create a flood of accounts using the intro app which requires no actual email address. No recording of details... NOTHING. I tested it myself and I can log a cache with a new unverified account within 30 seconds. One can report and get a user locked but it only takes another 30 seconds to make a new account and away they go again.

 

Things like Unique device identifiers needs to be recorded so that specific devices (mobiles, tablets etc) can be locked out of the system. Prevented from creating, viewing, logging anything on those devices. It would be very expensive for a person to keep it up if they have to get a new phone to do it from each time.

 

Of course the most persistent person would probably figure a way around it in the long term, but at least they would have to put some actual effort in.

 

Offering a suggestion like below

 

I'm not sure about the App, but here's the appropriate avenue to report a User:

 

Contact Us

 

Is not particularly helpful when you receive dozens and dozens of these logs. A report user button would make it alot more efficient than micro managing each log one by one. Its a big data world and a big data solution is needed.

Link to comment

@Touchstone

 

In my area we have had an utter biblical flood of vulgar logs, logs posted with porn in them, logs threatening harm to geocachers, logs threatening rape to geocachers. Not one or two logs.... literally hundreds of them. I would love to send you a copy if you want to see them but they are not suitable for the public forum.

 

Now these people were able to create a flood of accounts using the intro app which requires no actual email address. No recording of details... NOTHING. I tested it myself and I can log a cache with a new unverified account within 30 seconds. One can report and get a user locked but it only takes another 30 seconds to make a new account and away they go again.

 

Things like Unique device identifiers needs to be recorded so that specific devices (mobiles, tablets etc) can be locked out of the system. Prevented from creating, viewing, logging anything on those devices. It would be very expensive for a person to keep it up if they have to get a new phone to do it from each time.

 

Of course the most persistent person would probably figure a way around it in the long term, but at least they would have to put some actual effort in.

 

Offering a suggestion like below

 

I'm not sure about the App, but here's the appropriate avenue to report a User:

 

Contact Us

 

Is not particularly helpful when you receive dozens and dozens of these logs. A report user button would make it alot more efficient than micro managing each log one by one. Its a big data world and a big data solution is needed.

 

Yes, I had a similar experience a few years ago. The porn bot and fake accounts logged quicker than I could delete them. :ph34r: Finally Groundspeak took care of deleting them, but if not I would have just left and let the company worry about it, it's their problem and not ours. <_<

Link to comment
In my area we have had an utter biblical flood of vulgar logs, logs posted with porn in them, logs threatening harm to geocachers, logs threatening rape to geocachers. Not one or two logs.... literally hundreds of them. I would love to send you a copy if you want to see them but they are not suitable for the public forum. by one. Its a big data world and a big data solution is needed.

I agree with previous posters that the copies must be sent here instead: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request

 

If that gets no positive results, a "big data solution" won't matter.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
I agree with previous posters that the copies must be sent here instead: http://support.Groun....php?pg=request

 

If that gets no positive results, a "big data solution" won't matter.

 

I should add a note to all the above. Groundspeak and our local reviewer were kept in the loop through our spate of dodgy logs and activities. Whilst slow to begin with once they realized what was going on they were really good an supportive.

 

However it must be said that the micro management of each issue was an issue in its own right.

 

Would it not be better for the system to be able to reject logs and suspend suspicious activity/logging instead of relying on a human to do it? If at least for the purposes of data collection to better fight these issues in the future which is inevitable.

Link to comment
I agree with previous posters that the copies must be sent here instead: http://support.Groun....php?pg=request

 

If that gets no positive results, a "big data solution" won't matter.

 

I should add a note to all the above. Groundspeak and our local reviewer were kept in the loop through our spate of dodgy logs and activities. Whilst slow to begin with once they realized what was going on they were really good an supportive.

 

However it must be said that the micro management of each issue was an issue in its own right.

 

Would it not be better for the system to be able to reject logs and suspend suspicious activity/logging instead of relying on a human to do it? If at least for the purposes of data collection to better fight these issues in the future which is inevitable.

I think there are some pretty good filtering systems set up. Yet these issues still must be done on a case-by-case basis. I hope TPTB aren't waiting to see if vulgar logs, or threats of harm get worse, but I haven't seen what you describe commonly occurring. If I did, if things seem to be staying the same or getting worse, I'd pull my caches until things calm down. Nobody at GS have enforcement plans for what those people do to your caches, sites and containers.

 

This seems more than a Geocaching issue, although, unless your town is known for its debauchery, families may visit your caches not knowing there were online threats, and now with cache logs cleaned, the offenders may feel the need to up the ante. Have you contacted the local authorities? Law enforcement organizations can track people down even if fake credentials are used.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I'm in a number of forums and FB groups in Australia, and regularly see issues and hear about problems affecting hundreds and probably thousands of geocachers.

We are suffering from a number of issues which also seem to be affecting geocachers around the world.

The problems centre around bogus cachers who

- vandalise caches

- post nasty logs of a disgusting, abusive, racist or vulgar nature

- post logs pointing to ad sites or phishing sites

 

We feel much of this problem could be alleviated if Groundspeak reinstated the validation of email addresses before admitting new geocachers into the system.

 

We feel it is just too easy now to to get an id in the system, and malicious users and robot users are running rampant.

 

Please consider this matter and help us clean up the problems affecting the whole Geocaching community.

Link to comment

I wholeheartedly agree with gmj3191 (which doesn't happen very often).

 

Email validation to achieve an account works perfectly well on almost every other site. Whilst it won't be a miracle cure that will alleviate all the woes that gmj3191 mentions above, it will undoubtedly slow the problem down. Currently, it is way to easy for bots to create accounts on geocaching.com at the moment and this has been glaringly exposed with the influx of these logs advertising gcpro. With an email verification process and some sort of captcha verification, this kind of thing would be slowed to a trickle overnight. Call me a conspiracy theorist though, I feel that the reason this won't be implemented isn't because "it's more complicated than that", but more because implementing it would slow down the uptake on the precious free intro app that everybody loves so much!

 

I agree with you day1976. 100%.

Link to comment

@Touchstone

 

In my area we have had an utter biblical flood of vulgar logs, logs posted with porn in them, logs threatening harm to geocachers, logs threatening rape to geocachers. Not one or two logs.... literally hundreds of them. I would love to send you a copy if you want to see them but they are not suitable for the public forum.

 

Now these people were able to create a flood of accounts using the intro app which requires no actual email address. No recording of details... NOTHING. I tested it myself and I can log a cache with a new unverified account within 30 seconds. One can report and get a user locked but it only takes another 30 seconds to make a new account and away they go again.

 

Things like Unique device identifiers needs to be recorded so that specific devices (mobiles, tablets etc) can be locked out of the system. Prevented from creating, viewing, logging anything on those devices. It would be very expensive for a person to keep it up if they have to get a new phone to do it from each time.

 

Of course the most persistent person would probably figure a way around it in the long term, but at least they would have to put some actual effort in.

 

Offering a suggestion like below

 

I'm not sure about the App, but here's the appropriate avenue to report a User:

 

Contact Us

 

Is not particularly helpful when you receive dozens and dozens of these logs. A report user button would make it alot more efficient than micro managing each log one by one. Its a big data world and a big data solution is needed.

 

Well said Fergzter.

Link to comment

I also agree that a validated email address for each user would go a long way to reducing the incidence of the problems described in this thread. Geocaching.com is the only site, of many that I am familiar with, that does not require a validated email address.

 

However, there would be another benefit as well. I have seen a couple of examples on our caches where a finder's log indicated a beginner's inexperience or misunderstanding, (such as inadvertently giving away spoiler information) and wanted to contact them with advice. This proved impossible when the user had no email address available.

Link to comment
However, there would be another benefit as well. I have seen a couple of examples on our caches where a finder's log indicated a beginner's inexperience or misunderstanding, (such as inadvertently giving away spoiler information) and wanted to contact them with advice. This proved impossible when the user had no email address available.
BTDTGTTS

 

Deleting the spoiler log (or other inappropriate log) is a very blunt instrument for communicating with new geocachers.

Link to comment
Email validation to achieve an account works perfectly well on almost every other site...With an email verification process and some sort of captcha verification, this kind of thing would be slowed to a trickle overnight. Call me a conspiracy theorist though, I feel that the reason this won't be implemented isn't because "it's more complicated than that", but more because implementing it would slow down the uptake on the precious free intro app that everybody loves so much!

 

So.....it really could be all about the numbers!

 

I agree. The lack of validation in this day and age is quite curious.

Edited by JeepinOregon
Link to comment

Two observations:

 

1. How is validation going to change people's behavior?

 

It is much more difficult for an individual (not a bot) to get a new email account. Once their email account is blocked by Groundspeak, what are their options? The ease of being abusive is reduced.

 

2. What makes you think validation couldn't be automated in a bot?

 

It can be. Anything can be. It is about making it more difficult to be massively malicious, not about making it impossible.

 

Austin

Link to comment

Validation can help, but not eliminate, this problem. But once scripted away, then validation doesn't help at all.

 

What would help would be challenge/response questions, like a captcha, every 10 logs or so. You wouldn't likely want to put this in for premium members as it would be unlikely that somebody would pay $30 just to send out spam.

 

But if you did this for non premium, it would be an inconvenience for logging.

 

It's a careful balance to play, between making members happy, and keeping spammers out.

Link to comment

... like a captcha, every 10 logs or so. You wouldn't likely want to put this in for premium members as it would be unlikely that somebody would pay $30 just to send out spam.

 

But if you did this for non premium, it would be an inconvenience for logging.

 

It's a careful balance to play, between making members happy, and keeping spammers out.

The problem isn't with it being too easy to log caches, it's with it being too easy to create an account, so just put the captcha on the account creation.

Link to comment

@Touchstone

 

In my area we have had an utter biblical flood of vulgar logs, logs posted with porn in them, logs threatening harm to geocachers, logs threatening rape to geocachers. Not one or two logs.... literally hundreds of them. I would love to send you a copy if you want to see them but they are not suitable for the public forum.

 

Now these people were able to create a flood of accounts using the intro app which requires no actual email address. No recording of details... NOTHING. I tested it myself and I can log a cache with a new unverified account within 30 seconds. One can report and get a user locked but it only takes another 30 seconds to make a new account and away they go again.

 

Things like Unique device identifiers needs to be recorded so that specific devices (mobiles, tablets etc) can be locked out of the system. Prevented from creating, viewing, logging anything on those devices. It would be very expensive for a person to keep it up if they have to get a new phone to do it from each time.

 

Of course the most persistent person would probably figure a way around it in the long term, but at least they would have to put some actual effort in.

 

Offering a suggestion like below

 

I'm not sure about the App, but here's the appropriate avenue to report a User:

 

Contact Us

 

Is not particularly helpful when you receive dozens and dozens of these logs. A report user button would make it alot more efficient than micro managing each log one by one. Its a big data world and a big data solution is needed.

 

Where we are it is a criminal offence to make the threats you describe. Something along the lines of (paraphrasing), using a conveyance, in this case electronic, to threaten harm. It would/should be reported to the appropriate authority.

Link to comment

Validation can help, but not eliminate, this problem. But once scripted away, then validation doesn't help at all.

 

What would help would be challenge/response questions, like a captcha, every 10 logs or so. You wouldn't likely want to put this in for premium members as it would be unlikely that somebody would pay $30 just to send out spam.

 

But if you did this for non premium, it would be an inconvenience for logging.

 

It's a careful balance to play, between making members happy, and keeping spammers out.

 

But as I understand it, there is currently ZERO protection since validation isn't mandatory. So how is that a "balance" at all?

Link to comment
Where we are it is a criminal offence to make the threats you describe. Something along the lines of (paraphrasing), using a conveyance, in this case electronic, to threaten harm. It would/should be reported to the appropriate authority.

 

Just to update, it was reported to the Authorities. But I need to leave it at that. Hopefully everyone understands why.

Link to comment

After the issues raised here and from other posts, surely it would make sense to require a valid email account as a requirement for registering a team.

 

Having been in education for many years we wonder about having a filter system applied to logs (where certain words and phrases would prevent the log from being posted).

If this could be done it would certainly catch many offensive logs before they see the light of day.

 

Surely in this age of technology there should be an easy technical solution.

Link to comment

After the issues raised here and from other posts, surely it would make sense to require a valid email account as a requirement for registering a team.

 

Having been in education for many years we wonder about having a filter system applied to logs (where certain words and phrases would prevent the log from being posted).

If this could be done it would certainly catch many offensive logs before they see the light of day.

 

Surely in this age of technology there should be an easy technical solution.

I believe this might be the ultimate solution and I have to re-quote this:

 

Surely in this age of technology there should be an easy technical solution.

Edited by HCompleto
Link to comment

What would go a long way to solving this would be requiring a valid "paid" e-mail address, one where an ISP somewhere knows your personal details. You could still use a free e-mail address on the site, but Groundspeak would have the real e-mail address on file for every user.

 

Nowadays many people do not get email addresses from their ISPs. Google Fiber for one I know wouldn't provide a paid address.

 

I personally have a paid address but TBH captcha on signup would slow down this far more effectively whilst still letting in legit cachers.

Link to comment

Two observations:

 

1. How is validation going to change people's behavior?

 

2. What makes you think validation couldn't be automated in a bot?

 

Q1: It might not, but it's worth a try because it confirms a valid email address & thus helps with communication and it reduces the feeling of anonymity that a scofflaw thrives on.

 

Q2: This is a routine technical matter for the IT hamsters. Many Internet interactions require using those enter-the-letters-hidden-in-the-picture tests. They effectively keep bots out. There's jubilation at headquarters that the forum's nightly spam bot ads have been thwarted, so yes, bots can be outsmarted with vigilance.

Link to comment
However, there would be another benefit as well. I have seen a couple of examples on our caches where a finder's log indicated a beginner's inexperience or misunderstanding, (such as inadvertently giving away spoiler information) and wanted to contact them with advice. This proved impossible when the user had no email address available.
BTDTGTTS

 

Deleting the spoiler log (or other inappropriate log) is a very blunt instrument for communicating with new geocachers.

Precisely! That's why a valid email address would help, by allowing email contact.

Link to comment
However, there would be another benefit as well. I have seen a couple of examples on our caches where a finder's log indicated a beginner's inexperience or misunderstanding, (such as inadvertently giving away spoiler information) and wanted to contact them with advice. This proved impossible when the user had no email address available.
BTDTGTTS

 

Deleting the spoiler log (or other inappropriate log) is a very blunt instrument for communicating with new geocachers.

Precisely! That's why a valid email address would help, by allowing email contact.

Use the new Message Center. That's one of its purposes - to contact those without emails.

 

What would go a long way to solving this would be requiring a valid "paid" e-mail address, one where an ISP somewhere knows your personal details. You could still use a free e-mail address on the site, but Groundspeak would have the real e-mail address on file for every user.

PAID email address? I haven't paid for an email address in over 10 years. I would have no clue how to get one. I don't think my ISP even provides one. :unsure:

Link to comment

I also agree that a validated email address for each user would go a long way to reducing the incidence of the problems described in this thread. Geocaching.com is the only site, of many that I am familiar with, that does not require a validated email address.

 

However, there would be another benefit as well. I have seen a couple of examples on our caches where a finder's log indicated a beginner's inexperience or misunderstanding, (such as inadvertently giving away spoiler information) and wanted to contact them with advice. This proved impossible when the user had no email address available.

Maccamob touched on a very important other side of the coin: supporting and helping legit new players. There are lot of new cachers with non-authenticated accounts, hence no way to communicate to them: congratulating for their first find, providing hints and guidance on caching practice when they seem to need it (e.g. taking a trackable without really knowing how they work).

Having the account authenticated and a comms channel available (whether messages or emails) would be a big help in keeping the game neat in each community. To add to this, GS could perhaps collate "top 5" points to know as part of the activation ("This is how the game works, read more here... and now you can activate...") to reduce the occurrence of trivial mistakes.

Link to comment

Validation can help, but not eliminate, this problem. But once scripted away, then validation doesn't help at all

Oh well let them script away and put a captcha on top of the registration. At the moment geocaching.com is an easy target for spam-bots and if you leave it this way, it only gets worse.

 

I'm paying my premium membership so someone is developing the site and taking care of things. Right now I got the feeling someone is refusing to do their job.

 

Cheers

Link to comment

Validation can help, but not eliminate, this problem. But once scripted away, then validation doesn't help at all

Oh well let them script away and put a captcha on top of the registration. At the moment geocaching.com is an easy target for spam-bots and if you leave it this way, it only gets worse.

 

I'm paying my premium membership so someone is developing the site and taking care of things. Right now I got the feeling someone is refusing to do their job.

 

Cheers

What do you base that on? Are you still receiving erroneous log entries? The last report of these fake accounts was more than a day ago, as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Having been in education for many years we wonder about having a filter system applied to logs (where certain words and phrases would prevent the log from being posted).

If this could be done it would certainly catch many offensive logs before they see the light of day.

 

This comes from an English-only mindset. It is important to think globally.

Link to comment

Validation can help, but not eliminate, this problem. But once scripted away, then validation doesn't help at all

Oh well let them script away and put a captcha on top of the registration. At the moment geocaching.com is an easy target for spam-bots and if you leave it this way, it only gets worse.

 

I'm paying my premium membership so someone is developing the site and taking care of things. Right now I got the feeling someone is refusing to do their job.

 

Cheers

What do you base that on? Are you still receiving erroneous log entries? The last report of these fake accounts was more than a day ago, as far as I can tell.

 

It has stopped and re-started before. The perpetrator will keep coming back because it is still easy. The reality is, 5 years ago when I got my account it should have already had recaptcha on it.

 

Nope, not doing their job. Much rather create features nobody wants.

Link to comment

 

 

We feel much of this problem could be alleviated if Groundspeak reinstated the validation of email addresses before admitting new geocachers into the system.

 

Could the reason that they are ignoring us on this issue be advertising dollars? If so, this thread is a futile gesture.

 

...all you need to do is to get people to click on something, anything and there's a new ad... Who can blame them for making that easy to do?

Link to comment

Looking at this from the other direction, what is the justification for not validating a new login by checking that they have a valid email address and that they're not a robot, especially considering most other legitimate organisations do this?

- It allows a slightly easier account creation.

- It might allow the overall numbers of cachers to be boosted by non motivated short term visitors who don't really contribute to the game

- ...... can't really think of anything else.

 

The impacts of verifying users are :

- If you really want to join, you still will.

- Having to create a temporary email address to join will put off some malicious users

- Having a modern capcha type account creation check will put off the robots

- Having an email address will allow new cachers to receive guidance from experienced cachers

- Valid email addresses will assist to track down missing trackables, or query the circumstances around logs which need investigation by the CO

- Valid email addresses will allow cachers to ask COs about their caches, or placement techniques, or other valid communication.

 

There are very few arguments against validating your user base, and many reasons why its beneficial.

It definitely won't fix the problems 100%, but it will help and have many excellent side benefits.

 

It is hard to see why anybody would argue against it.

Malicious or salacious logs can still be reported to Groundspeak, that doesn't affect the argument either way.

Link to comment

There are very few arguments against validating your user base, and many reasons why its beneficial.

 

You are certainly correct! Unfortunately for us, GS's reason for going this route is more important than any and all good arguments combined. The want for increased monetary gain is just too strong a driving force.

Link to comment

I'm surprised Groundspeak have not done this already a simple email verification is no hindrance for a mobile or desktop user who was just downloaded the app since they have email access on whatever device they are using.

 

Until Groundspeak realise they are missing out on important marketing information they will not bother as it too much work, in the real world no matter what company you are dealing with they want your email address so they can then remind you of the services they offer whether it be banks, insurers, supermarkets or charities, one of the first questions they ask is for your email.

 

So until Groundspeak pick up on the fact that they can't flood unregistered users with emails about the premium service they offer it will not happen.

Link to comment

 

 

We feel much of this problem could be alleviated if Groundspeak reinstated the validation of email addresses before admitting new geocachers into the system.

 

Could the reason that they are ignoring us on this issue be advertising dollars? If so, this thread is a futile gesture.

 

...all you need to do is to get people to click on something, anything and there's a new ad... Who can blame them for making that easy to do?

 

Except that the vast majority of users without validated email are intro app users who are not exposed to advertising material

Link to comment

Validating an email address and providing a captcha before creating an account adds 30 seconds to any new users experience in setting up a Geocaching account. But these two steps alone would make it a LOT more difficult to create the kind of spamming accounts that we have seen recently. Adequate filtration logs (in many languages) would stop a lot of the bullying and threatening behavior that has been reported many times on these forums.

 

There is no doubt that implementing these wouldn't fix these problems 100%, but as many have said before, they would go a long long way into doing so. If Groundspeak don't implement these important measures, it is probably time to ask ourselves why they won't?

 

With the ever expanding global nature of this game it baffles me why they would prefer to spend all day running around putting out little spot-fires as they occur instead, with one or two decisive actions they could squash the main fire-front. There has to be a reason why this is preferable and the only thing I can think of is to increase the number of the uptake on the precious free-app. So it would seem, after 15 years, we finally have an answer. Sorry guys, apparently it IS all about the numbers. :sad:

Link to comment

Day as you say it may be about the numbers, as in the $ numbers but surly the cost of the spot fire administration is higher than the $ made leaving the system open ? GS may ultimatly leave themselves open to litigation from users who are materially effected by some of the more malicious robot posts, as it could be successfully argued that they have provided no protection. I think the experiment of opening the system has shown it's flaws and moving to the email verification is only time.

 

Validating an email address and providing a captcha before creating an account adds 30 seconds to any new users experience in setting up a Geocaching account. But these two steps alone would make it a LOT more difficult to create the kind of spamming accounts that we have seen recently. Adequate filtration logs (in many languages) would stop a lot of the bullying and threatening behavior that has been reported many times on these forums.

 

There is no doubt that implementing these wouldn't fix these problems 100%, but as many have said before, they would go a long long way into doing so. If Groundspeak don't implement these important measures, it is probably time to ask ourselves why they won't?

 

With the ever expanding global nature of this game it baffles me why they would prefer to spend all day running around putting out little spot-fires as they occur instead, with one or two decisive actions they could squash the main fire-front. There has to be a reason why this is preferable and the only thing I can think of is to increase the number of the uptake on the precious free-app. So it would seem, after 15 years, we finally have an answer. Sorry guys, apparently it IS all about the numbers. :sad:

Link to comment

I'm surprised Groundspeak have not done this already a simple email verification is no hindrance for a mobile or desktop user who was just downloaded the app since they have email access on whatever device they are using.

 

Until Groundspeak realise they are missing out on important marketing information they will not bother as it too much work, in the real world no matter what company you are dealing with they want your email address so they can then remind you of the services they offer whether it be banks, insurers, supermarkets or charities, one of the first questions they ask is for your email.

 

So until Groundspeak pick up on the fact that they can't flood unregistered users with emails about the premium service they offer it will not happen.

There are posts around here about Groundspeak looking into this very thing. A compiled list of active members is a valuable asset to companies, and is a major reason to require email validation. I can hardly wait til Groundspeak gets in on the action. Then the threads will be about the exact same problems never solved by "the solution". And the additional problems.

Link to comment

Looking at this from the other direction, what is the justification for not validating a new login by checking that they have a valid email address and that they're not a robot, especially considering most other legitimate organisations do this?

- It allows a slightly easier account creation.

- It might allow the overall numbers of cachers to be boosted by non motivated short term visitors who don't really contribute to the game

- ...... can't really think of anything else.

 

The impacts of verifying users are :

- If you really want to join, you still will.

- Having to create a temporary email address to join will put off some malicious users

- Having a modern capcha type account creation check will put off the robots

- Having an email address will allow new cachers to receive guidance from experienced cachers

- Valid email addresses will assist to track down missing trackables, or query the circumstances around logs which need investigation by the CO

- Valid email addresses will allow cachers to ask COs about their caches, or placement techniques, or other valid communication.

 

There are very few arguments against validating your user base, and many reasons why its beneficial.

It definitely won't fix the problems 100%, but it will help and have many excellent side benefits.

 

It is hard to see why anybody would argue against it.

Malicious or salacious logs can still be reported to Groundspeak, that doesn't affect the argument either way.

 

I agree with you 100% gmj3191.

Link to comment

As an aside on the matter of threatening logs, it's been reported to authorities. Good. But what is the cause? Is it an anti-social sicko? Or perhaps irate neighbors near GZ (as has been reported in the forums several times before)?

 

Likely a small group of young adults who consistently vandalised and stole more than 80 caches (one fifth of the available caches in the area) over a 2 month period in conjunction with over 300 very, very inappropriate logs received by many, many (more than 20) inappropriate user names being created as quickly as they were being locked by GS. If they are being created in the app using a public wifi, the IP address is next to useless.

Link to comment

There is a problem and it is spoiling the game for quite a number of people. We keep on hearing that Groundspeak is doing something about it and I sincerely hope and expect that they are.

 

It is a lot like security for your house - you can never hope to keep the most determined burglar out, but you do things to dissuade most who would try. It is called Risk Management.

 

And you certainly don't leave the front door open when you know that people are already getting in.

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...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...