Who has completed my AL?

[+Boomshanka]

This might have been raised before... but could GCHQ please add the cacher name to the completion stats so that we can see who has completed the AL (beyond the 10 named cachers on the Leadership board)?

[Jaleco]

This would be very helpful! I hope it's a feature they'll add in the future. 

[+Lynx Humble]

18 minutes ago, Jaleco said:

This would be very helpful! I hope it's a feature they'll add in the future. 

Well in fact it's a feature they removed for stupid reasons....

 

 

[+chilihouse]

That would be tremendously helpful. I can’t see any reason why only the first 10 names should be shown - after all, we can see all the names on all other cache types, so why not on ALS?

[+Boomshanka]

The privacy aspects (presumably GDPR) doesn't make sense... whilst you could argue that cacher's nicknames are Pseudonymous data, there is an inconsistency here to have the first 10 cachers' nicknames identified, but none after that. All cacher's who log a find on a conventional cache are identified, so there's another inconsistency with the AL situation. I'd be really interested to hear specific case law as to why the cacher ID drops off on ALs after the first 10 due to privacy concerns, something doesn't stack up.

[+ecanderson]

4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Well in fact it's a feature they removed for stupid reasons....

 

 

Stupid indeed.  With that logic, they should only be publishing the last 10 logs for caches, too.

 

[+Boomshanka]

7 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

Stupid indeed.  With that logic, they should only be publishing the last 10 logs for caches, too.

 

It would be the first 10 logs on a cache... and then the find counter just going up after that with no details of who or what... well, maybe... if the finder decided to add a log voluntarily. It does seem a little strange... and a bit frustrating after going to the effort of setting the AL.

[Jaleco]

7 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Well in fact it's a feature they removed for stupid reasons....

 

I think I can guess why this is happening to Adventure Labs and not other types of caches: ALs register the completion of locations imidiately and therefore, if the owner is allowed to see this information he can follow the players with quite good accuracy which of course could have security implications. However, I don't think it makes sense to be able to still check the first 3 to finish the locations. For Instance, when I published my AL, I asked for a friend to test it and I was very far away, at home on my computer, seeing them completing the stages instantly. There's no option to log it later when you're home unless you cheat. Bad intentioned people could use this as a weapon.

 

I'm not aware of the privacy protection law details, but I'd say a possible solution would be to create some sort of delay between completion of locations and that information being available to the owner. Another easier solution would be to allow logging later. 

 

(These are just guesses, I don't know what I'm talking about)

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Jaleco

[+ecanderson]

The owner would still know 'instantly' for 10 cachers, yes?  So ???

[+Lynx Humble]

7 minutes ago, Jaleco said:

I'm not aware of the privacy protection law details, but I'd say a possible solution would be to create some sort of delay between completion of locations and that information being available to the owner. Another easier solution would be to allow logging later.

Not sure how allowing logging later would be easier with the verification process.

 

I 100% agree that Groundspeak should explore the delay option by giving the players the following option :

 

Log Now

Log in X hours/days

Log at midnight

Play anonymously (that option doesn't give a +1) 

 

 

[Jaleco]

3 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I 100% agree that Groundspeak should explore the delay option by giving the players the following option :

 

Log Now

Log in X hours/days

Log at midnight

Play anonymously (that option doesn't give a +1) 

 

 

 

That sounds great! However, about the last option, I'm not so sure. In that case shouldn't there be that option for all cache types as well? 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Jaleco

[+Lynx Humble]

2 minutes ago, Jaleco said:

 

That sounds great! However, about the last option, I'm not so sure. In that case shouldn't there be that option for all cache types as well? 

With those privacy law including GDPR I found surprising that Groundspeak didn't have to do that for all cache types. Because right now just by cliking on your profile I know that you live in Portugal.

 

Currently players that want to stay anonymous need to maintain a notepad with all their finds.

[+Boomshanka]

That's an interesting point about real-time location 'tracking' with the current system, I'd not considered that. I think the delayed update to the completion stats spreadsheet would overcome the issue and can't be that difficult to do, say a midnight rollover.

 

Edit: but then anyone logging real-time via the app on a 'normal' cache would have the same issue.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Boomshanka

[Jaleco]

2 hours ago, Boomshanka said:

but then anyone logging real-time via the app on a 'normal' cache would have the same issue.

 

Sure, but we have the option not to do so, while on ALs we don't since we need to be within the set distance in order to answer the question. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Jaleco

[+ecanderson]

Heck - I owned a D4.0 right outside my office window for a couple of years.  Went out and introduced myself to a number of cachers - knew some, met some new ones.  No software tweak would ever have fixed that.  If you're out caching, you have to assume someone will know.

[+Hügh]

On 7/17/2020 at 7:15 AM, Boomshanka said:

The privacy aspects (presumably GDPR) doesn't make sense... whilst you could argue that cacher's nicknames are Pseudonymous data, there is an inconsistency here to have the first 10 cachers' nicknames identified, but none after that. All cacher's who log a find on a conventional cache are identified, so there's another inconsistency with the AL situation. I'd be really interested to hear specific case law as to why the cacher ID drops off on ALs after the first 10 due to privacy concerns, something doesn't stack up.

 

On 7/17/2020 at 1:26 PM, Jaleco said:

I'm not aware of the privacy protection law details, but I'd say a possible solution would be to create some sort of delay between completion of locations and that information being available to the owner. Another easier solution would be to allow logging later. 

 

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the feature was removed due to inter-geocacher dispute(s). Again, I'm not certain, but I'm all ears to hear what other people have to say.

 

    <Owner> XYZ cheated on my Adventure. HQ, please delete their find log.

    Geocaching HQ removes XYZ's find.

    <XYZ> Hey, HQ, why did you remove my find? I was legitamate. I entered the find code?! If you're going to delete my log, conclusively prove(1) that I used a location-spoofing app.

    Geocaching HQ reinstates the find.

    <Owner> HQ, why did you reinstate XYZ's find? They clearly cheated!

 

And so on — I'll bet that HQ just didn't want to have to resolve each and every one of these disputes with a binary yes-no verdict. Unlike with a regular Traditional, they can't just consult a physical logbook to verify(2) the "truth" — it's all digital so that just isn't possible. In addition, with (probably) dozens of fraudulent Adventure Lab finds each day, HQ just didn't want to have to expend the time investigating each accusation when their staff and volunteers have far better things to be doing.

 

-----

 

(1) On the note of "conclusive proofs" — while I agree that sometimes evidence of cheating is compelling/obvious/suspicious, even I have to admit that it's not possible to be 100% certain. Read this thread — especially my/Lynx/TmdAndGG's discussions in the latter half of the thread.

(2) Obviously it's possible to "cheat" Traditional geocaches too, by having a friend sign the log. Still, I'd argue that that's "more" conclusive than some other evidence.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Hügh
general improvements

[+ecanderson]

17 hours ago, Hügh said:

    <XYZ> Hey, HQ, why did you remove my find? I was legitamate. I entered the find code?! If you're going to delete my log, conclusively prove(1) that I used a location-spoofing app.

  

General rule there is to construct  AL questions such that armchair guessing at answers would likely be impossible (especially 5 times) , even with a location spoofing app to make answering possible.  At least that requires an accomplice to have found the answers at some point in the past, made note of them, and taken the time to pass them along. 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by ecanderson

[+baer2006]

13 hours ago, ecanderson said:

General rule there is to construct  AL questions such that armchair guessing at answers would likely be impossible (especially 5 times) , even with a location spoofing app to make answering possible. 

Sure, that can be done, and it's not particularly difficult. However...

13 hours ago, ecanderson said:

At least that requires an accomplice to have found the answers at some point in the past, made note of them, and taken the time to pass them along.

... that's how bulk armchair logs are typically generated. One finder puts the answers into FB, and then your ALC is up for grabs.

Edited July 22, 2020 by baer2006
Typo

[+ecanderson]

Even easier for all Earth caches.  Don't even need a location spoofer.  Nothing new here.

[+Hügh]

On 7/22/2020 at 1:52 PM, ecanderson said:

Even easier for all Earth caches.  Don't even need a location spoofer.  Nothing new here.

EarthCaches can require photographic proof-of-visit. Which means that simply grabbing the answers off Facebook is not enough. Someone would need to take a photo specifically for you. 
 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=296

Edited July 26, 2020 by Hügh

[+ecanderson]

Some of those caches are so old and have such huge galleries that I'd say there's a chance the CO would never know one "A personal item must be an option for those who do not want to photograph themselves" from another old one.

 

[+Hügh]

5 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Some of those caches are so old and have such huge galleries that I'd say there's a chance the CO would never know one "A personal item must be an option for those who do not want to photograph themselves" from another old one.

 

My point was that with an EarthCache it’s police-able. Because that’s what this thread seems to be about - deleting spoofed logs. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Hügh

[+Max and 99]

A question related to the topic of this thread....

On the Leaderboard, it shows how many have found each stage. I was watching as the first person was going through my five locations. I noticed that when he completed one, the bar had options for (point five)  (.5) and 1. I'm wondering about the point 5. Does this possibly mean that the person got to the location, but didn't actually answer the question? I can't think of any other reason for having a half-way mark before the find count of one for each stage.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

A question related to the topic of this thread....

On the Leaderboard, it shows how many have found each stage. I was watching as the first person was going through my five locations. I noticed that when he completed one, the bar had options for (point five)  (.5) and 1. I'm wondering about the point 5. Does this possibly mean that the person got to the location, but didn't actually answer the question? I can't think of any other reason for having a half-way mark before the find count of one for each stage.

No. The .5 label was just an artifact of how the vertical scale is computed and displayed. There is no such thing in Adventure Labs as a "half completed" stage.

[+Max and 99]

On a side note, I find the leaderboard creepy! I can see how it has benefit, but still.... do I really need to know exactly what time someone was at each stage and how long it took them between stages? Just my opinion.

[+ecanderson]

Remember that ALs run in a different lane entirely vs. geocaching guidelines, especially as regards commercial sponsorship and content.

So here's your new conspiracy theory ... As a company sponsoring an AL, what could you expect to be able to do with that information?

 

[+Max and 99]

Just now, ecanderson said:

Remember that ALs run in a different lane entirely vs. geocaching guidelines, especially as regards commercial sponsorship and content.

So here's your new conspiracy theory ... As a company sponsoring an AL, what could you expect to be able to do with that information?