Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
TwistedCube

Adventure Lab Caches

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

To imagine that retiring a web option will stop that activity against the spirit of caching is to hugely underestimate the effort some people will take to subvert the game .

 

Oh for sure. Cheaters will cheat. But by making it harder for AvgJoe to cheat, it makes it easier to identify ProJoe when cheating, and harsher action could also be taking. Not saying that's what's going to happen, but the argument can also be made that just because something you try to thwart will continue to happen afterwards doesn't mean to never thwart anything. If it's known that attempting to stop something antagonistic is happening, it will have the effect of at the very least reducing its occurrences and clarifying the intended experience, and the hammer can come down harder on those who still, despite the obvious efforts, aim to circumvent the system.

Just because something bad can still happen doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it from happening.

 

2 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

The only way to keep the spirit at least partly alive is to have a physical container at the end with a log to sign, and a C.O. with control over it who can remove the most egregious online logs if they wish ..

All in all, better to just build a Wherigo. Excuse me, I have an idea ,  must go out and take my GPS for a walk round a local park  ...

 

Oh I don't disagree some would say that that is what geocaching is all about anyway - finding physical containers. But we do have virtuals, earthcaches, webcams. Somewhere along the lifetime of geocaching those new idea mechanics "worked" and now thrive.  I think HQ is still testing waters with various ideas to find out what can "work" to introduce and promote as another thriving aspect to the hobby.  MZ got off the ground and they're making their mobile QR game work. Could people still cheat there? Don't doubt it, but something about their game mechanic likely makes people feel it's not "worth" spoofing location. So for lab caches to work, even though phone location can still be spoofed without the app knowing, the trick is for HQ to find the right balance so cheaters/hackers won't feel it's worth all that effort just to claim them (all while also not being caught of course). It's a dilemma all users and internet-based services (especially online games) have to deal with.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, igator210 said:

 

Once upon a time, Kodak was the largest employer in my city with over 60,000 people employed locally. But because they decided not to evolve as time marched along, they now employee around 1,000 locally. Kodak invented the digital camera, but stuck to film.

Is all change good? no. But just because a company did something once upon a time, doesn't mean they can't do something new now.

Groundspeak isn't forcing anyone to do the AL Caches. They can be skipped. There are plenty of Traditional caches in the world.

Do you think that the « market » for physical geocaches is shrinking to a point that GS should embrace the “all virtual, app only” way to survive ? (the Kodak analogy)
If it is the case, let me tell you that this new market is already crowded (Waymarking, munzee, pokemon and other developers of virtual and augmented reality games or experiences,  you name them), and that they can provide a much better user experience that what GS is offering with ALC.
Then, the leader of tomorrow is probably already born.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, p0cy said:

Let’s continue to argue.

Or we could discuss.

 

9 hours ago, p0cy said:

How will HG prevent people attending mega event to share codes of ALC ?

It sounds like they're making it so the shared codes are useless unless you actually go to the designated location with the app.

 

9 hours ago, p0cy said:

Quite frustrating (already for mega, tomorrow for every ALC) to not have the opportunity to experience the ALC because you cannot go to a specific place in a (very) limited timeframe.

This isn't Pokemon. You don't "Gotta Catch 'Em All".

 

9 hours ago, p0cy said:

Why did HQ decide to retire virtual caches ?

Here's an excellent summary:

 

TLDR: No one liked hearing that their babies were ugly, and the volunteer reviewers didn't like telling anyone that their babies were ugly.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't buy this explanation that reviewers didn't like virtuals but I have no personal experience of that time. Without virtuals they got power trails instead.

Practically all different cachetypes were copied from another hobby including virtuals. Adventure Lab mostly resembles the original virtual type and with mandatory GPS usage they are more a Geocache than a Virtual or a Webcam cache.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I don't buy this explanation that reviewers didn't like virtuals but I have no personal experience of that time.

Well, glad that was cleared up :P

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Adventure Lab mostly resembles the original virtual type and with mandatory GPS usage they are more a Geocache than a Virtual or a Webcam cache.

 

Except they have no active owner, so no first-hand review of finder activity, let alone moderation of said activity. I would say they are somewhere between the Virtual cache type, the Wherigo (without a container), and the defunct Geocaching Challenges.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Except they have no active owner,

 

Owners are not needed. If reviewers will keep the Adventures in a good shape, creators could focus on creating more and better Adventures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Owners are not needed. If reviewers will keep the Adventures in a good shape, creators could focus on creating more and better Adventures.

 

Owners will still be needed, they will just have a more limited set of responsibilities. A number of the current set of Adventure Labs Caches appear to be in museum's (or something similar, like an arboreturm). Museum's have a habit of changing signage and displays. The owner will be needed to keep up on any such changes that affect the cache. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

The cache owner sets a cache for you to have a specific experience. If you somehow circumvent that experience you are not following the spirit of the cache, or giving the owner due respect. Not keeping sight of this might be the reason for the marked decline in new caches we have seen over the last year in the UK, it certainly has caused several setters I know personally to give up hiding new ones.

 

So, I have found seven multicaches without finding the first stage.  Find cache, sign log, log find.  Certainly not what the COs expected.  Not the experience the CO was expecting.  But, I found the cache, and signed the log.  That is all that is required.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

So, I have found seven multicaches without finding the first stage.  Find cache, sign log, log find.  Certainly not what the COs expected.  Not the experience the CO was expecting.  But, I found the cache, and signed the log.  That is all that is required.  

Yep. 

Since we started this hobby and I got a better idea on hide styles,  I found over a dozen multi finals bushwhacking in the woods while hunting.  

"That looks to be a likely spot..."     No GPSr, certainly no trades (grouse feathers with swag probably not good) , but signed that log.

After the second, I started taking my GPSr JIC there wasn't one there, and I can mark that spot for a possible future hide.     

Telling the story in my log, haven't had one CO delete yet...   :)

Share this post


Link to post

Why does not Groundspeak just say

1. were a good idea at the start
2. did not become as expected
3. why release virtual again and continue to offer lab caches
4. Virtual are the much better lab caches
5. Create the possibility to create virtual caches again. The lab caches can then be set
6. The people who are allowed to create at Mega or Giga Event Labs could do this with Virtual Caches
-> Problem solved and lab caches in the moth box

 

Failure as an opportunity in the lab caches

 

Much worse is the case with event caches and the D/T rating at many events

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

So, I have found seven multicaches without finding the first stage.  Find cache, sign log, log find.  Certainly not what the COs expected.  Not the experience the CO was expecting.  But, I found the cache, and signed the log.  That is all that is required.  

 

I did this few days ago without intention. Luckily I found the final before the start. Logged it found because there is no special guidance in the guidelines about this situation.

 

8 hours ago, evilernie74 said:

The people who are allowed to create at Mega or Giga Event Labs could do this with Virtual Caches

 

Virtuals must be planned to last at least 3 months. Too long for an event without exception to guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, evilernie74 said:

The people who are allowed to create at Mega or Giga Event Labs could do this with Virtual Caches

 

I thought one of the reasons that Lab caches are logged the way they are is to avoid the need for a CO to validate the finds.  Imagine having to check 1000+ submissions in the week or two after a Mega event.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:
19 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

So, I have found seven multicaches without finding the first stage.  Find cache, sign log, log find.  Certainly not what the COs expected.  Not the experience the CO was expecting.  But, I found the cache, and signed the log.  That is all that is required.  

 

I did this few days ago without intention. Luckily I found the final before the start. Logged it found because there is no special guidance in the guidelines about this situation.

 

Likewise, I'm not against logging a cache found if I only found the final (same with finding puzzle caches I haven't solved myself). BUT, in some cases, I understand that the CO intended the cacher to have a certain experience. So I might opt to not log a cache that, so that I can do it properly. Or with puzzles if I don't know how it's solved, or I want to learn how it's solved, I'll add it to a list of such caches so I can return to them.

 

To me logging a cache just because I found the final location and skipped everythings else often feels... incomplete. So my personal ethic is to keep note of that. Both for my own sake to return to it (closure!) or because I know in some cases the CO could feel 'cheated' (for lack of a better term) by people who just pass around coordinates and never get the potentially fun and rewarding intended experience. Yep ultimately they're just cheating themselve by missing out, but I know how that feels as a CO. So as a finder, I wouldn't want to bite my thumb at them just because I can. :P  You put work into your cache - so I'd love to experience it the right way (even though I really did technically already find the cache itself).

 

Which is why it's so baffling that people would choose to log Lab Caches without actually doing the lab caches, especially from across the world.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I got one of these Adventure Caches and released it yesterday after refining and testing. I woke up to find while we were all sleeping a bunch of cachers in Germany and elsewhere completed my Adventure in BC Canada by using the web player and not actually completing the adventure. Yeah - what a let down. 

 

 On the opening page of the adventure I actually gave first to find credit for the cachers who actually did the adventure as it was intended. 

 

Part of the experiment is that my Adventure lab be public so I can't even keep it private and share the adventure with locals. Knowing what I do now I would have shared it first then made it public later .

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 5beatriff said:

I got one of these Adventure Caches and released it yesterday after refining and testing. I woke up to find while we were all sleeping a bunch of cachers in Germany and elsewhere completed my Adventure in BC Canada by using the web player and not actually completing the adventure. Yeah - what a let down.  

 

Have you learned how did this happen? Did the finders get help from locals or was it unnecessary to "find" it?

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2019 at 9:34 PM, Ahern Clan said:

Except if the web-based player is still on as is the case for my Adventure Lab Cache that has seen 216 participants log over 1,000 geocache finds in 24 hours. Most seem to be from Germany.

... and ...

1 hour ago, 5beatriff said:

I woke up to find while we were all sleeping a bunch of cachers in Germany and elsewhere completed my Adventure in BC Canada by using the web player

(emphasis by me)

... *sigh* :( .

 

Anyway ... I`m definitely curious if the phenomenon, that lab caches is logged within hours by lots of cachers from around the world (ok, mainly Germany), declines noticeably if/when the Web Player is retired. I will at least see it with my own, which I'm not planning to make public as long as the Web Player is still active.

 

One of the hints for lab cache creators says "Create a “find code” that can only be determined by visiting the location (not available on the internet)". Last Sunday, I visited my planned location to look for ideas what find codes I could ask for, which can not be easily found on the web. It turns out to be much more difficult than I expected. Find something interesting in the world, and you can be sure that someone has posted a photo on the web. Or a text from an info board is available verbatim on the web. Add the fact, that you probably have an infinite number of tries to enter the correct find code for each lab cache, I'm not surprised that find codes are usually discovered quickly without visiting the location.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

One of the hints for lab cache creators says "Create a “find code” that can only be determined by visiting the location (not available on the internet)". Last Sunday, I visited my planned location to look for ideas what find codes I could ask for, which can not be easily found on the web. It turns out to be much more difficult than I expected. Find something interesting in the world, and you can be sure that someone has posted a photo on the web. Or a text from an info board is available verbatim on the web. Add the fact, that you probably have an infinite number of tries to enter the correct find code for each lab cache, I'm not surprised that find codes are usually discovered quickly without visiting the location.

 

Around here, it's pretty easy to find letters and numbers on power poles and survey markers along service roads - it's the sort of thing I've often used for virtual waypoints in multis. These are unlikely to be found on the internet unless you luck out with it being readable on Google street view.

 

image.png.e64cbd13ad4d821398788b2b6cf0c0eb.png

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, 5beatriff said:

I got one of these Adventure Caches and released it yesterday after refining and testing. I woke up to find while we were all sleeping a bunch of cachers in Germany and elsewhere completed my Adventure in BC Canada by using the web player and not actually completing the adventure. Yeah - what a let down. 

 

 On the opening page of the adventure I actually gave first to find credit for the cachers who actually did the adventure as it was intended. 

 

Part of the experiment is that my Adventure lab be public so I can't even keep it private and share the adventure with locals. Knowing what I do now I would have shared it first then made it public later .

 

I would delete all the German logs.  They didn't find your cache, they only entered a code.  I believe that Appeals would side with you on this deal, in an effort to rein in the undesired behavior they are trying to prevent.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Around here, it's pretty easy to find letters and numbers on power poles and survey markers along service roads - it's the sort of thing I've often used for virtual waypoints in multis. These are unlikely to be found on the internet unless you luck out with it being readable on Google street view.

 

image.png.e64cbd13ad4d821398788b2b6cf0c0eb.png

one of my code words was inside  the newly renovated museum. One other was just a couple millimetres big and very hard to see. Still ... it took very little time to get it 

Share this post


Link to post

I was curious, and tried to find out, how it can be that new Adventure Lab caches get so many armchair logs within hours of their publication, apparently no matter if the "location restriction" is activated or not.

  • First, and this didn't really surprise me :( , there is a big German FB group specializing in finding out and openly sharing lab cache find codes. As I'm writing this, dozens or hundreds of active users try to find the codes of the very latest Adventure Labs by internet research.
  • Second, and this did surprise me, is that there is a big loophole in the location restriction! It can be circumvented easily without such means as "GPS faking" on the smartphone. There is even a "live verification" of the find code as you type it, showing on-the-fly if its correct or not. This makes brute-forcing of find codes (e.g. when asked for a number) extremely fast, because there is no need to check every guess by actually sending it off. For obvious reasons I won't go into more details, but I filed a bug report with GS.
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

I was curious, and tried to find out, how it can be that new Adventure Lab caches get so many armchair logs within hours of their publication, apparently no matter if the "location restriction" is activated or not.

  • First, and this didn't really surprise me :( , there is a big German FB group specializing in finding out and openly sharing lab cache find codes. As I'm writing this, dozens or hundreds of active users try to find the codes of the very latest Adventure Labs by internet research.
  • Second, and this did surprise me, is that there is a big loophole in the location restriction! It can be circumvented easily without such means as "GPS faking" on the smartphone. There is even a "live verification" of the find code as you type it, showing on-the-fly if its correct or not. This makes brute-forcing of find codes (e.g. when asked for a number) extremely fast, because there is no need to check every guess by actually sending it off. For obvious reasons I won't go into more details, but I filed a bug report with GS.

 

Thank you for sending in the bug report. As I mentioned in my email response, we will followup ASAP to fix this issue. I wanted the other geocachers reading this forum thread to know that we are following up on the loophole.

 

Cindy / Frau Potter

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Frau Potter said:

 

Thank you for sending in the bug report. As I mentioned in my email response, we will followup ASAP to fix this issue. I wanted the other geocachers reading this forum thread to know that we are following up on the loophole.

 

Cindy / Frau Potter

Idem for me, I got the chance to make 5 labcaches and before he came online, he was already logged.
The FTF was done by virtual cachers that were not even on site.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Borderke izzy said:

Idem for me, I got the chance to make 5 labcaches and before he came online, he was already logged.
The FTF was done by virtual cachers that were not even on site.

Delete the false finds. Let Appeals deal with the issue of people claiming a find on a geocache they didn't visit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

Delete the false finds. Let Appeals deal with the issue of people claiming a find on a geocache they didn't visit.

My understanding is that the creator has no control over the logs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, The Jester said:

My understanding is that the creator has no control over the logs.

 

That's right, the creator can not delete "logs".

 

The "Finder" can only delete for itself, but remains in the statistics list, which can see the creatior.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

If a cache owner (creator) can't delete these blatantly false logs, what's the point of creating one? Just to reward the low-life cheaters. They are ruining the experience for all others, just to make their false statistics look better to their other low-life cheating buddies. They must feel so proud of themselves.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, K13 said:

... They are ruining the experience for all others, ...

 

 

Why that? The experience remains the same, there is no change through logs. Logs only change the count of finds of the loggers.

 

btw: Logging a lab cache is only entering the find code.

That Labcache creators can not delete logs is a fact, not my idea. 

Maybe because of previously "... no special logging requirements other than entering the find code."?

Edited by Team KarlZink
more appropriate term

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, K13 said:

If a cache owner (creator) can't delete these blatantly false logs, what's the point of creating one?

They're talking about lab caches, it's a completely different 'logging' system than standard caches.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

Logs only change the count of finds of the loggers.

 

And my opinion is cache find counts of arm-chair loggers are about as meaningless as had GS given them the rights to go into their profiles and change their Lab Cache find count themselves.  The whole idea of this hobby is to get out and actually cache, no matter what type of cache it is, container or no container.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

And my opinion is cache find counts of arm-chair loggers are about as meaningless as had GS given them the rights to go into their profiles and change their Lab Cache find count themselves.  The whole idea of this hobby is to get out and actually cache, no matter what type of cache it is, container or no container.

 

There are cache owners who may have different idea of the game. For example a Multi-cache owner may have the false idea that the player starts from the posted coordinates and follow directions to the final coordinates. It is easy to notice that many finders have not visited the posted coordinates at all and not followed any directions in the cache descriptions. In the worst case they have visited the final coordinates using a shortcut thru a private property.

 

If the idea of the geocaching is really to find the final position ONLY then I have no oblications to log virtals by finding the final code ONLY. I don't understand why fighting against this cheating mentality is important only with one neglible cache type but not with others more important cache types? The effect to the cache creators is the same in both cases when they realizes this situation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

There are cache owners who may have different idea of the game. For example a Multi-cache owner may have the false idea that the player starts from the posted coordinates and follow directions to the final coordinates. It is easy to notice that many finders have not visited the posted coordinates at all and not followed any directions in the cache descriptions. In the worst case they have visited the final coordinates using a shortcut thru a private property.

 

If the idea of the geocaching is really to find the final position ONLY then I have no oblications to log virtals by finding the final code ONLY. I don't understand why fighting against this cheating mentality is important only with one neglible cache type but not with others more important cache types? The effect to the cache creators is the same in both cases when they realizes this situation.

 

I get what you’re saying, but I do think there’s a big difference between armchair logging and somehow finding a shortcut to a cache.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

There are cache owners who may have different idea of the game. For example a Multi-cache owner may have the false idea that the player starts from the posted coordinates and follow directions to the final coordinates. It is easy to notice that many finders have not visited the posted coordinates at all and not followed any directions in the cache descriptions. In the worst case they have visited the final coordinates using a shortcut thru a private property.

 

If the idea of the geocaching is really to find the final position ONLY then I have no oblications to log virtals by finding the final code ONLY. I don't understand why fighting against this cheating mentality is important only with one neglible cache type but not with others more important cache types? The effect to the cache creators is the same in both cases when they realizes this situation.

The idea of geocaching is more than determining the final location. All of Geocaching involves visiting the location. Once there, some of it involves finding & signing a log, some of it involves providing answers to questions about something at that location.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

 

I get what you’re saying, but I do think there’s a big difference between armchair logging and somehow finding a shortcut to a cache.

Also, there is a difference between finding a shortcut and distributing that shortcut all over the web. It's one thing to go through the trouble (or fun ;) ) to turn a multi into a puzzle by trying to solve the final coordinates from your couch (I admit that I have done this a few times). That creates one find "not the way the owner intended". But it's something entirely different IMHO to share the final coordinates in the next FB group etc. - thus possibly creating dozens of short-cutters (is that a word??) who didn't even invest the time and effort to find that shortcut.

 

The big problem with lab caches in particular is that there is (a) no physical logbook (making armchair logging possible in the first place) and (b) no way for the CO to remove even the most obvious armchair logs (e.g. only a few hours after publish, by someone from the other side of the ocean). This has apparently led to a relatively wide-spread belief, that it's perfectly fine to armchair-log every lab cache in sight - because you almost certainly get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, K13 said:

The idea of geocaching is more than determining the final location. All of Geocaching involves visiting the location. Once there, some of it involves finding & signing a log, some of it involves providing answers to questions about something at that location. 

 

I would say it's the difference between geocaching being marketed as a 'treasure hunt' vs a 'scavenger hunt'. The former implies to goal is to find the treasure at the end of the rainbow, the latter implies the goal is to enjoy the hunt and steps along the way.  I hate the 'treasure hunt' metaphor. Yeah it gets more attention, but it gives the wrong idea.  Everyone's in this together - finder and hider. The hider wants to provide an experience for finders to enjoy in the process of locating the final container.  The only reason finding and signing the final container is the minimum requirement is because it's the only reasonably verifiable aspect of the hobby that can be used to settle inevitable (unfortunately) disputes.  That rule doesn't nullify the rest of the intent of the experience, even if it's relegated to the "spirit" of geocaching.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Also, there is a difference between finding a shortcut and distributing that shortcut all over the web.

 

Agreed.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

It's one thing to go through the trouble (or fun ;) ) to turn a multi into a puzzle by trying to solve the final coordinates from your couch (I admit that I have done this a few times).

 

Know what you mean...

 

I solved this one from the comfort of my own home (using Google StreetView) before visiting Dubrovnik last summer:

 

https://coord.info/GC6DDY5

 

It became an obsession.  I could have walked up and down those streets for two days solid, and still have spent less time to get to the solution!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

The adventure lab just released in our area will take 1338 kms of driving to complete, yet these cheaters, the top 10 all being from Germany and Netherlands, have done it in 39 mins done to under 5 mins.   Most of the answers could not be gained through google maps, or google search,  3 of them are not even in view of google streets, and 2 are such obscure items to take note of that it would be near impossible to get the answer without being on site, besides having the on site logging requirement, most being set at 100 meters.  Yet 2 hours after the adventure went active, 3 Germans had logged them all.   

 

Can't see these lasting for very long.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes the remote logging issue is well known, and HQ is making efforts to reduce false logs of lab caches. The hope is the restriction to the mobile app will greatly reduce them.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes the remote logging issue is well known, and HQ is making efforts to reduce false logs of lab caches. The hope is the restriction to the mobile app will greatly reduce them.

A great step would be to allow CO to delete the false logs. I don't understand why GS didn't put that feature when they know that they're so many cheaters out there.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Probably a similar reason they didn't allow the same for Geocaching Challenges. One of the biggest downfalls, imo. But it probably cut out all the potential for disputes. ...by not having an effective system to crack down on invalid logging. It exchanged one issue for another. And if nothing's done on that front, it could well lead to a similar demise. Hope not tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I just invented a solution :D

 

Make Adventure Lab finds private. If  CO can not see who found the adventure or even know how many players have logged the adventure, there is no problems at all.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

I just invented a solution :D

 

Make Adventure Lab finds private. If  CO can not see who or even know how many players have logged the cache there is no problems at all.

 

This may be the best idea!

If these low-life cheaters can't point to their Lab Cache Find  Code Entered total in their stats page and brag to their buddies, they would likely not bother with the cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, K13 said:

 

This may be the best idea!

If these low-life cheaters can't point to their Lab Cache Find  Code Entered total in their stats page and brag to their buddies, they would likely not bother with the cheating.

 

Yes.... it is pointless to cheat if you have no prize.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

How would the creator of the Adeventure Lab decide if a cacher was there or not? There is no proof.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

How would the creator of the Adeventure Lab decide if a cacher was there or not? There is no proof.

 

There are clues. A cacher that hasn't found a single other cache type in a region, but claims dozens of Lab caches in that region, is someone that hasn't been there.

But, once geofencing is fully established, hopefully it will cut down on these people that virtually visit anther region.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, igator210 said:

But, once geofencing is fully established, hopefully it will cut down on these people that virtually visit anther region.

 

If we begin this journey by verifying codes at the client side it will be a long long way to checking satellite position data (NMEA) at the server side. It is possible but is it worth of all effort it requires?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Probably a similar reason they didn't allow the same for Geocaching Challenges. One of the biggest downfalls, imo. But it probably cut out all the potential for disputes. ...by not having an effective system to crack down on invalid logging. It exchanged one issue for another. And if nothing's done on that front, it could well lead to a similar demise. Hope not tho.

 

I wonder if they'll lead to the same demise as geocaching challenges, but not because of how owners can (or can't) manage logs, but how those that seek them out view them. 

 

When geocaching challenges came out, they became yet another commodity that could be counted rather than look at them from the perspective that someone has issued a challenge, and logging a completion isn't just to count how many challenges one has completed but an opportunity to describe how the challenge was completed.  For a "find and take a picture of a waterfall" challenge,  the goal for many was just to get a picture of any waterfall, rather than put in some effort to find one that is really impressive.  

 

When lab caches first came out it provided an opportunity to created a game piece that was unique, and perhaps more interesting that what is possible give the constraints of existing cache types.  What happened?  Lab caches became a commodity just like geocaching challenges.  Adventure Lab Caches are counted and are part of user statistics.   Instead of appreciating the unique experience they provide, they're just going to be counted and shown on a leader board so that one geocacher can show that they have more unique experiences that the number of unique experiences engaged in by their "friends".

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I wonder if they'll lead to the same demise as geocaching challenges, but not because of how owners can (or can't) manage logs, but how those that seek them out view them. 

 

When geocaching challenges came out, they became yet another commodity that could be counted rather than look at them from the perspective that someone has issued a challenge, and logging a completion isn't just to count how many challenges one has completed but an opportunity to describe how the challenge was completed.  For a "find and take a picture of a waterfall" challenge,  the goal for many was just to get a picture of any waterfall, rather than put in some effort to find one that is really impressive.  

 

When lab caches first came out it provided an opportunity to created a game piece that was unique, and perhaps more interesting that what is possible give the constraints of existing cache types.  What happened?  Lab caches became a commodity just like geocaching challenges.  Adventure Lab Caches are counted and are part of user statistics.   Instead of appreciating the unique experience they provide, they're just going to be counted and shown on a leader board so that one geocacher can show that they have more unique experiences that the number of unique experiences engaged in by their "friends".

 

Except the low-life cheaters' experience is nothing more than finding the code and entering it. Hardly a unique experience among their 'friends'. 

It really bites that these 'finds' of the 'cachers' who didn't go to the location for the experience can't be deleted by the creator of that unique experience.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Judique Flyer said:

The adventure lab just released in our area will take 1338 kms of driving to complete, yet these cheaters, the top 10 all being from Germany and Netherlands, have done it in 39 mins done to under 5 mins.   Most of the answers could not be gained through google maps, or google search,  3 of them are not even in view of google streets, and 2 are such obscure items to take note of that it would be near impossible to get the answer without being on site, besides having the on site logging requirement, most being set at 100 meters.  Yet 2 hours after the adventure went active, 3 Germans had logged them all.   

 

Can't see these lasting for very long.

For me, this shows that the implementation of ALC is flawed and that GS should add some physical logging requirement (logbook, picture,...).

Something completely virtual obviously attracts virtual logging, no matter how hard you are trying ti prevent it. (I'm not judging whether virtaul logging is acceptable or not, nor the reasons why some people are making virtual logging. But virtual logging is a fact. Or we accept it, or we ask for changing the implementation of ALC)

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, arisoft said:

I just invented a solution :D

 

Make Adventure Lab finds private. If  CO can not see who found the adventure or even know how many players have logged the adventure, there is no problems at all.

That could indeed be a solution.

But for me, it is against the spirit of openness of geocaching. And my fear that the private feature could be restricted to paying members or organizations.

Geocaching is and should remains a collaborative activity (I mean every geocacher is equal and can place a cache or find one) , not a restricted or commercial activity. My personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

×