GEOCACHING.COM GEOCHECKER

[Fledermaus]

WHY IS GC REQUIRING ME TO ACTIVATE THE "NATIVE" GEOCHECKER ON ALL OF MY MYSTERY GEOCACHES???

SOME USE CERTITUDE FOR A GOOD REASON AND THERE ARE SOME WHERE GC'S DOES NOT WORK CORRECTLY!!!

CAN SOMEONE GIVE ME A LOGICAL ANSWER THAT IS WITHOUT THE TYPICAL GC RHETORIC FULL OF GUIDELINES AND ETC.?

I HAVE 175 MYSTERY GEOCACHES, WITH 16 THAT HAVE BEEN ARCHIVED.

GC MAKES ME SICK BY DEMANDING THAT I ACTIVATE THEIR CHECKER FOR ALL OF THEM WITH ONLY A LIMIT ONE MONTH TO MODIFY THEM.

YES, I KNOW WHAT CAPITALS MEAN!!!

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Fledermaus

[+MNTA]

Finally! Its the caches that don't have a checker that are the problem. So glad.

 

Think about it. They are going to reference their database in the checker. Eliminates problems and more importantly no checkers.

[+StefandD]

Still, I totally dislike the "native" checker due to the reCAPTCHA process, which requires me to select (parts of) silly pictures every time I use it, and prefer Certitude at all times.

[+barefootjeff]

28 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Think about it. They are going to reference their database in the checker. Eliminates problems and more importantly no checkers.

 

What about puzzles where the solution isn't the coordinates of the final? There are ones that give a keyword that you put into something like Certitude to get the coordinates, or even ones like my Mango Droid puzzle (GC7J902) where the solution to the puzzle gives the coordinates of a physical waypoint (in this case the mango droid R2E2) which you then have to use to locate the final (the Jedi mistress Skye Lukewarmer). For that one, I used geocheck.org, which also has the option of providing additional hints and photos when the correct coordinates are entered.

[+Team Canary]

Where did this come from? There are lots in Sydney and most owners have not got this email.

 

But I like the idea. 
 

The official checker stops lying about the GZ location. A few of those nearby. 
 

You can still use other means to try and solve the puzzle. Solutions in other parts of the world, keywords, etc.

 

Not sure if you can have a waypoint as the solution with this. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Team Canary

[Fledermaus]

What is next, the outlawing of Certitude.org, Geocheck.org etc.???

GC did the same kind of action, when they "pushed out" the independent websites providing attributes of geocaches.

There is a "Rat in the woodpile", over in this area and I will ferret it out!

 

Just for the record, I was told by a Reviewer the following:

 

"Because you own a lot of mystery caches, we will give you a month to get them all up to date with the checker and make sure it works with all of your puzzles. If you finish sooner than that, let me know and I'll check them, and there will be no need to bother you about it in a month's time."
Thank you,
Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

Reviewer's name withheld.

 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

20 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Not sure if you can have a waypoint as the solution with this. 

 

No, you can't, it only checks against the final coordinates.

[Fledermaus]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Finally! Its the caches that don't have a checker that are the problem. So glad.

 

Think about it. They are going to reference their database in the checker. Eliminates problems and more importantly no checkers.

Please explain in a little more detail as to "referencing their database in the checker" and to what problems are you referring?

[Fledermaus]

1 hour ago, StefandD said:

Still, I totally dislike the "native" checker due to the reCAPTCHA process, which requires me to select (parts of) silly pictures every time I use it, and prefer Certitude at all times.

I cannot even use my favorite browser, i.e. TOR, without encountering the dreaded reCAPTCHACRAP.

It probably doesn't matter what you like, it is what tptb like and what makes the registers go ching ching ching!

[+Team Canary]

23 minutes ago, Fledermaus said:

What is next, the outlawing of Certitude.org, Geocheck.org etc.???

GC did the same kind of action, when they "pushed out" the independent websites providing attributes of geocaches.

There is a "Rat in the woodpile", over in this area and I will ferret it out!

 

Just for the record, I was told by a Reviewer the following:

 

"Because you own a lot of mystery caches, we will give you a month to get them all up to date with the checker and make sure it works with all of your puzzles. If you finish sooner than that, let me know and I'll check them, and there will be no need to bother you about it in a month's time."
Thank you,
Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

Reviewer's name withheld.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like one Reviewer is on a mission. 
 

No one around here has received that email, yet. 

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Sounds like one Reviewer is on a mission. 
 

No one around here has received that email, yet. 

 

I wonder if it was dated the 1st of April...

[+Royal Oak]

This reviewer has certainly not heard anything.

 

I see it as a good idea, as long as other checkers can be used as well. Check a word on a third party checker and then the on site checker is also available but doesn't need to be used.

 

What problems?

1) It will stop CO's lying about final locations to get a cache past the reviewer (Yes, it does happen.)

2) If a final location is updated, the additional waypoint (hidden) will have to be updated as well.

 

It should stop the following type of email from a CO, failing to have their cache published, due to proximity issues, "The Final location of that cache is not where you say it is. I have found it".

[+StefandD]

These problems are also present (perhaps even more) at cache types like multi, Wherigo and letterbox.
Do they also get a mandatory checker?

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Fledermaus said:

Just for the record, I was told by a Reviewer the following:

 

"Because you own a lot of mystery caches, we will give you a month to get them all up to date with the checker and make sure it works with all of your puzzles. If you finish sooner than that, let me know and I'll check them, and there will be no need to bother you about it in a month's time."
Thank you,
Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

Reviewer's name withheld.

Instead of ranting in all-caps in the forums, you have better options:

• Ask the reviewer, why should do this when there is no public guideline saying so.
• If the reviewer doesn't reply (or you disagree with his answer), contact HQ about the issue.

[Keystone]

52 minutes ago, StefandD said:

These problems are also present (perhaps even more) at cache types like multi, Wherigo and letterbox.
Do they also get a mandatory checker?

 

There are no announced plans to expand the built-in Geocaching.com Checker to other cache types.  In addition, the OP does not own any Wherigo caches or Letterbox Hybrid caches.  The quoted request relates to the OP's Mystery Caches, and nothing further.

[+thebruce0]

It could well be something a reviewer has decided on a user-specific level due to how people have conducted themselves (directly or indirectly). I don't think it's something they're disallowed to do, and even then I'd think they could defend the strategy to HQ if there were complaints. 

As mentioned requiring the native checker doesn't ruin any puzzles, it just means that once you determine the final coordinates (by whatever puzzle) you can actually verify them.

We still have some people put out puzzles here with zero checker. The only reasonable concern I could see is the older "when I was your age" complaint about checkers in general where part of the 'adventure' was possibly not knowing if you had the right coordinates until you checked them first hand. *shrug*

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As mentioned requiring the native checker doesn't ruin any puzzles, it just means that once you determine the final coordinates (by whatever puzzle) you can actually verify them.

I've found puzzles caches where the puzzle produced multiple sets of coordinates, and part of the puzzle cache was figuring out which of those coordinates were correct. A mandatory solution checker would indeed spoil that aspect of the puzzle.

 

I've also found puzzle caches where the final location was not described with coordinates. Yes, the cache met the requirements for GPS usage, but not for the final location. For such caches, a solution checker is pointless at best.

 

And of course, there are keyword puzzles where the third-party checker provides the final coordinates when the keyword from the puzzle solution is entered. The built-in solution checker is pointless at best.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I've found puzzles caches where the puzzle produced multiple sets of coordinates, and part of the puzzle cache was figuring out which of those coordinates were correct. A mandatory solution checker would indeed spoil that aspect of the puzzle.

True, though part of me wonders if some reviewers would publish those now; difference being it could be considered 'misleading' to have people spend time going to a wrong location under the impression/hope it's correct. But I think it'd be covered by case-by-case judgment by the reviewer. If the CO defends why the listing would be ruined with a mandatory checker, it could be allowed. *shrug*

We have a shroedinger themed cache in the region that has you taking a location A or B choice from a coordinate location to find the cache (within 1-200m or so); and if/when you find it you can place it back at either A or B for the next person.  Perhaps in that case a defense could be made to have the checker verify the starting point as the 'final' with the requirement that finding instructions apply from that point.

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I've also found puzzle caches where the final location was not described with coordinates. Yes, the cache met the requirements for GPS usage, but not for the final location. For such caches, a solution checker is pointless at best.

The workaround for that would be to provide a 3rd party checker that takes the keyword or fuzzy coordinates and then provides the accurate final coordinates that were added as a hidden waypoint in the listing, to satisfy the native checker. Some puzzle caches already do that. 

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

And of course, there are keyword puzzles where the third-party checker provides the final coordinates when the keyword from the puzzle solution is entered. The built-in solution checker is pointless at best.

Well it seems frivolous, but it automates updating the corrected coordinates and it's a final verification that it IS the final coordinates (as far as the reviewers are aware).

 

 

Based on the context, I would think that the issue wasn't so much the type of puzzle but a concern with the user(s) by the reviewer, so the reviewer could make the judgment as to whether a specific outlier puzzle could be classified as one of the above where the native checker would ruin it. Otherwise it seems more like a 'consequence' to the CO that's only at worst neutral to the experience for the rest of the community.

Edited April 4, 2023 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

True, though part of me wonders if some reviewers would publish those now; difference being it could be considered 'misleading' to have people spend time going to a wrong location under the impression/hope it's correct.

As far as that goes, I don't see how it's any different from a multi-stage puzzle where some of the stages are optional (e.g., where there are multiple sequences of stages that end at the same final location).

 

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But I think it'd be covered by case-by-case judgment by the reviewer.

What part of the original post indicates that there is any "case-by-case judgment" involved?

 

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

We have a shroedinger themed cache in the region that has you taking a location A or B choice from a coordinate location to find the cache (within 1-200m or so); and if/when you find it you can place it back at either A or B for the next person.

I've done a Monty Hall problem cache where the whole point of the cache is that you don't know whether the prize is behind door 1, door 2, or door 3 (that is, whether the final is the container at waypoint 1, the container at waypoint 2, or the container at waypoint 3). I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of caches that don't fit the "do the thing, get the coordinates" model. After all, part of the purpose of the mystery/puzzle cache type is that it serve as a "staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category."

 

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The workaround for that would be to provide a 3rd party checker that takes the keyword or fuzzy coordinates and then provides the accurate final coordinates that were added as a hidden waypoint in the listing, to satisfy the native checker.

What part of the original post indicates that a third party checker might be an acceptable option?

 

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Otherwise it seems more like a 'consequence' to the CO that's only at worst neutral to the experience for the rest of the community.

Has Groundspeak updated their solution checker? The last time I looked into it, Groundspeak's checker had significant flaws and limitations compared to the third party checkers. Forcing the use of an inferior tool is not neutral.

[+Max and 99]

8 hours ago, Fledermaus said:

WHY IS GC REQUIRING ME TO ACTIVATE THE "NATIVE" GEOCHECKER ON ALL OF MY MYSTERY GEOCACHES???

SOME USE CERTITUDE FOR A GOOD REASON

No one will see the official checker if they use the official app to view the cache. The attributes won't even show it's there to view on the website.

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

As far as that goes, I don't see how it's any different from a multi-stage puzzle where some of the stages are optional (e.g., where there are multiple sequences of stages that end at the same final location).

In that example each 'lead' takes you to the final, as opposed to leads that take you to where the cache is not.

 

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

What part of the original post indicates that there is any "case-by-case judgment" involved?

I was going solely based on:

"WHY IS GC REQUIRING ME TO..."

"Because you own a lot of mystery caches, we will give you..."

"This reviewer has certainly not heard anything..."

"I see it as a good idea, as long as other checkers can be used as well."

"There are no announced plans to expand the built-in Geocaching.com Checker to other cache types.  In addition, the OP does not own any Wherigo caches or Letterbox Hybrid caches.  The quoted request relates to the OP's Mystery Caches, and nothing further."

 

Sounds like a very directed situation, not a generalized 'every cache owner' issue.

 

16 minutes ago, niraD said:

What part of the original post indicates that a third party checker might be an acceptable option?

The comment was in response to your "I've also found puzzle caches where..." example, not the OP.

 

17 minutes ago, niraD said:

Has Groundspeak updated their solution checker? The last time I looked into it, Groundspeak's checker had significant flaws and limitations compared to the third party checkers. Forcing the use of an inferior tool is not neutral.

Insofar as it takes final coordinates, which are (afaik) now required with puzzle listing publishes (tho maybe that's just LBs), and verifies that you have entered the same coordinates. I'm not referring to usability or functionality. One is not required to use the native checker. But if this CO is being required to include it, then the way I see the impact to the user is neutral at worst and beneficial at best.

 

[Fledermaus]

10 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Sounds like one Reviewer is on a mission. 
 

No one around here has received that email, yet. 

Shall I reveal the reviewer's name or not?

[Fledermaus]

8 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Instead of ranting in all-caps in the forums, you have better options:

• Ask the reviewer, why should do this when there is no public guideline saying so.
• If the reviewer doesn't reply (or you disagree with his answer), contact HQ about the issue.

are you willing to reveal a phone number or an alternative email for filing such a complaint against a reviewer.

otherwise, calling hq is pointless because they have no phone-in menu option for doing so.

is their an actual "oversite committee" through email, where real action is slow to slower in responce.

 

[Keystone]

Complaints about the review process or the actions of Community Volunteer Reviewers can always be directed to Geocaching HQ by writing via the Help Center and selecting "Appeals" as the category for your correspondence.  All inquiries sent to "Appeals" route to the Community Volunteer Services (CVS) team, who oversees the volunteers' work.

 

In this case, an appeal would not make a difference, as the Reviewer pre-cleared their course of action with CVS prior to their communication to you.

[Fledermaus]

At what level am I allowed to create difficult puzzles? Shall I make them so simple/generic that an average geocacher with an IQ of 100 can find it, or is 130 to much or as high as 150? Are Mensa puzzles permitted? Who draws the line of simplicity vs complexity vs difficulty? Is there a GC commandment/guideline that spells out a specific number? What if a reviewer is unable to solve a puzzle? Does that mean that the mystery geocache will not be approved? Here is a quote from a fictional someone to who I can relate: "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested!" Take that for what it is worth! When you try to solve some of my puzzles, you may need some migraine medication. Ask those who have been successful and those who have not.

EOL/NNNN/30

[Fledermaus]

37 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Complaints about the review process or the actions of Community Volunteer Reviewers can always be directed to Geocaching HQ by writing via the Help Center and selecting "Appeals" as the category for your correspondence.  All inquiries sent to "Appeals" route to the Community Volunteer Services (CVS) team, who oversees the volunteers' work.

 

In this case, an appeal would not make a difference, as the Reviewer pre-cleared their course of action with CVS prior to their communication to you.

The 4th Reiche has spoken! BTW, am I being accused of something? Sounds like the Prosecutor went before the Judge to get a predetermined course of action without notification or trial by my peers! No great loss! All my mystery geocaches, to the best of my knowledge, now have the dreaded "native" and not so greatly revered GC Checker anyway.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Fledermaus
misspelling

[+Sapience Trek]

33 minutes ago, Fledermaus said:

The 4th Reiche has spoken! BTW, am I being accused of something? Sounds like the Prosecutor went before the Judge to get a predetermined course of action without notification or trial by my peers! No great loss! All my mystery geocaches, to the best of my knowledge, now have the dreaded "native" and not so greatly revered GC Checker anyway.

 

Referring to somebody as a Nazi will not bode well for you.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As mentioned requiring the native checker doesn't ruin any puzzles, it just means that once you determine the final coordinates (by whatever puzzle) you can actually verify them.

 

I own three puzzle caches (one of them adopted) where the solution to the puzzle is the coordinates of a waypoint, not a final, but the native checker will only accept the final's coordinates. To get to the final, players have to go to the waypoint to gather further information and in none of those cases would a checker be of any use. So yes, having to enable the native checker on those would ruin them, or at the very least make them confusing to players.

 

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

We still have some people put out puzzles here with zero checker. The only reasonable concern I could see is the older "when I was your age" complaint about checkers in general where part of the 'adventure' was possibly not knowing if you had the right coordinates until you checked them first hand. *shrug*

 

There are puzzle caches around here (for example GC7H8EE) where there are a limited set of choices for the final location, enough to make it impractical to visit them all but small enough to make battleshipping a checker easier than actually solving the puzzle. Another such puzzle (GCA8MAZ) was published just last night without a checker. Yes, it'd take a bit of time and effort to run all 101 coordinates through a checker (or maybe not if the correct one is early in the list), but I've seen it done on one of my caches with a geocheck checker, when someone used the EXIF coordinates on a log image (back in the days when they weren't stripped out) and battleshipped it, making over 100 attempts spread across a week before they finally hit the correct one.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by barefootjeff

[Keystone]

45 minutes ago, Fledermaus said:

The 4th Reiche has spoken!

 

Godwin's law having been invoked, we're done here.  My post was intended to provide you with helpful details.  Closing this thread.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Keystone

[geoawareUSA9]

I'll not belabor the points made by any of the other reviewers made in this thread.

 

However, putting on my forum moderator hat for a moment, I'd like to point out that this thread provides some fine examples of how not to behave in the forums.

 

Let's all try to make better mistakes tomorrow.

Edited April 5, 2023 by geoawareUSA9
better grammar is more gooder