Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

It's an Eclipse mint tin placed next to a large body of salt water.

My worse experience of that, was an Eclipse mint tin stuck under a bridge over salt water. The tin was completed rusted out. A classic !

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, x7Kevin said:

A big problem would be that if the codeword gets smudged or is unreadable that means the cache can no longer be logged by anyone, even if the container is in fantastic shape.

Part of me wonders about handwritten codewords that might be confusing. I teach middle-school math, and some of my students learned to write numbers in ways that differ from the way numbers are usually taught here. Some of them write "1" with an exaggerated top stroke that resembles the way other students write "7". Some write "4" in a way that resembles the way other students write "9". And then there are the sloppy ones who write "0" in a way that resembles "6" (or vice versa), or that write "8" in a way that resembles "6", and so on. And that's just the ten digits. The handwritten letters have their own confusing variations.

[FDor]

17 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

I'm always intrigued when brand new players want to make changes to the game. Very few of the suggested changes are improvements.

Dear GeoTrekker26,
You can react condescendingly to ignorant, stupid newcomers, like me with only 43 found caches, but what are your substantive objections to my suggestion?
Greetings, FDor

[+Hügh]

19 hours ago, FDor said:

simple

 

You use this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, FDor said:

what are your substantive objections to my suggestion?

How about, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

[+JL_HSTRE]

49 minutes ago, niraD said:

How about, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

 

As long as cheating occurs it is broke.

[+kunarion]

11 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

As long as cheating occurs it is broke.

 

In that case, a Code Word is definitely out. 

 

But the OP was created due to "scraps of crumpled paper or wet paper or full paper in caches".  The code word is "Needs Maintenance".

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

I disagree with this suggestion. I personally believe that geocaching is better the way it is, as I have stated before in this thread.

Some cachers on this thread are being quite rude to the author of this suggestion. Please don't. Yes, they are relatively new to the game, but they are trying to help.

Thanks @FDor for the suggestion.

[+thebruce0]

18 hours ago, niraD said:

21 hours ago, x7Kevin said:

A big problem would be that if the codeword gets smudged or is unreadable that means the cache can no longer be logged by anyone, even if the container is in fantastic shape.

Part of me wonders about handwritten codewords that might be confusing

 

Yup. For a cache or two I published in the past, I used label makers to punch numbers/text into sticky labels. Those last through weathering and are super easy to read, 3d, and easy to replace if lost or broken. Highly recommended. But, whatever is on those labels is always used as an intermediate waypoint needed to get to the next stage or final - not a requirement to log a find online. (ick)

[FDor]

8 hours ago, Hügh said:

 

You use this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I even used the word “simple” twice.

 

By “simple caches” I mean the caches that you can easily find without a premium account by simply going to the specified coordinates.

 

By “simple extension” I mean that the extension is conceptually quite simple, namely (a) the CO can put a code word in his/her cache and (b) Groundspeak has to extend the central registration and the user interface a bit. No need for additional applications or other electronic tools. And it is an optional extension that can coexist with the current system.

 

[FDor]

7 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

In that case, a Code Word is definitely out. 

 

But the OP was created due to "scraps of crumpled paper or wet paper or full paper in caches".  The code word is "Needs Maintenance".

In the (merely) 43 caches I found, in more than half of them I found a scrap of neglected paper on which you could just barely babble something in a corner. I don't exactly have the impression that the CO ensures that the online logging corresponds to the physical logging in the cache.

 

This is how I came up with my proposal that the CO can (optionally) expand the cache with a code word/token in the container. Of course, that code word must be in a form that is weather, heat, cold and moisture resistant, for example as a laminated piece of cardboard or plastic or as a plastic letter strip, preferrably tight to the container. And if the logbook for those caches is hardly maintained and checked, then when logging online I am still satisfied that I have made it very plausible that I really found the cache.

 

I won't do it, but I think I could easily log a cache online very quickly in every continent of the world without anyone checking and correcting it. Don't worry, I really don't do that because what matters to me is the excitement and satisfaction of finding a cache.

[+barefootjeff]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:06 AM, FDor said:

My proposal means that in addition to signing the logbook as an additional check, you need a code word from the cache to also log the find online (immediately on the spot or afterwards at home) (of course only if the cache offers this).

 

Sorry, but now I'm getting confused as back in your initial post you said:

 

On 1/27/2024 at 10:52 PM, FDor said:

No more need for paper logbooks (which are sometimes full, wet or too small).

 

What do you hope to achieve from your suggestion? Is it to eliminate logbooks and replace them with digital logging using codewords, or to provide an additional task for finders to perform when logging online? Either way, it seems to me to be a lot of extra overhead for very little benefit, as the great majority of caches have readily-signable logs and aren't being compromised by cheaters.

[+thebruce0]

Suggestions that improve the accepted process of the actual hobby can be much more reasonable and feasible than suggestions that attempt to alter the core process at a fundamental level introducing new mechanics that people will, guaranteed, inevitably attempt to circumvent. Especially if it's new-and-shiny, where the established norm has gone through many years of rigorous 'playtesting' as it were, and still survives.

 

The more that strict rules and processes are introduced, the much easier it will be for people to 'break' them and objectively cheat and cause heartache and frustration in the community. As people will always try to push that limit, this game has accepted that a massive grey area with few strict rules, wherein community is encouraged to lean towards ethical activity and the spirit of the hobby and debate amongst itself issues of opinion rather than codifying them into law, is the least chaotic mechanic for this hobby's success and longevity.

Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.

If there are issues, the owner and the finder can duke it out. If it comes to breaking a general term of use for the website, or breaking one of the few rules, appeals can step in. They regularly recommend that geocachers come up with a solution themselves, since HQ does not want to be the arbiter of subjective he-said/she-said debates.

 

Technology will be broken by people who desire it enough, and if the 'rule' to break is solely defined on what the technology is programmed to do, then cheaters will win.  Rather, leave it loose and encourage the spirit of what this is about, so there is less 'value' in cheating because then, as they say, "they're only cheating themselves".

 

Game developers (vs cheaters), system administrators (vs hackers), puzzle creators (vs puzzlers), and others, often deal with this same dilemma. Hackers have to weigh the desire to win with how much effort it takes to do so. So you either make it ridiculously hard to cheat, or you make it less 'rewarding' to win. In geocaching, "cheating" merely gets you statistical numbers and you miss out on experiences. So, focus less on numbers and more on fun, without trying to 'protect' the numbers.

 

If someone can get a smiley by spoofing their geolocation easily and quickly, or getting an answer without doing work, generally speaking, they will. Especially if there's nothing the other side can do about it.

Adventure Labs had to deal with that - the technical aspect. And they're still attempting to deal with people circumventing the 'spirit' of the concept; eg armchair-logging massive airport series requiring only an easily attained code for each 'Location' (ironically) to boost that smiley count).

Geocaching Challenges (in their hayday) had to deal with that - the value proposition. Except that it got SO loose and people abused it towards mocking the concept that they killed it off.

 

No, the reason why geocaching is unique and still successful after 24 years is that no other game is like it (well, letterboxing which predates it I guess).  All these other location-based digital technology games have a hayday, and often die off, whether the cost of keeping it running is too high, or cheating runs too rampant, or something bigger and better comes along... Why hasn't that happened with geocaching? Because ultimately the best value one can attain is in the experience, not the numbers, and it does not rely on changing technology nearly as much as any other game.  GPS. Website. Simple rules. Deal with everything else yourselves. Forge amazing experiences for others to enjoy. Boom, done.

 

Other methods of 'proving' the find have been suggested over the many years this game has been around. So this suggestion really is nothing new (sorry to say), which is another reason there's a good amount of blowback. The debate's been rehashed over the years; there's nothing new under the sun.

Edited February 7 by thebruce0

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, FDor said:

I don't exactly have the impression that the CO ensures that the online logging corresponds to the physical logging in the cache.

 

You are absolutely right, but it still happens occasionally by the CO and frequently by other players that are visiting the cache. Experienced players may add extra log sheet to the cache if the logbook is full or damaged to ensure that the visit is recorded correctly, at least temporarily.

 

I have found one cache that works as you suggested. The cache originally had a logbook but the cache was muggled so many times that the CO replaced the cache with a TB. The TB was used as a virtual logbook to sign the logbook before the found was finally logged in the cache page.

Edited February 8 by arisoft

[+MNTA]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.

 

How is this proof for the finder?

 

Hypithetically, lets say a cacher finds a cache and signs the log.

Let's say now the CO decides for some reason that they wish to delete the log. How can the finder prove he found it? Yes they can dispute it with GS. The CO could invent a log omitting the finders signature.  GS probably would side with CO. I'm guessing, never had to apeal anything. Maybe others know better here.

 

In another case let's say a muggle steals the container and log book. The CO decides for whatever reason to delete the find. What happens here?

 

How about a throwdown, now we have two caches in the same spot. Some finders sign the original others sign the throw down. This has happened to me for sure.

 

How about the log becomes mush. CO for some reason can't verify the find and decides to delete the log.

 

I hope this is far fetched but I'm trying to prove a point that signing the log does not prove you found it.

 

One mechanism to prove the find is outlined in the OP. Others could be the finder submits to GS some other form of proof that could be behind the scenes, maybe a log picture. I'd prefer to not have to purchase the fob, but that would work as well

 

This would help to get rid of forgot my pen logs without a picture. We have all seen these.  They really don't both me and most lose interest in the game and move on. If I forgot my pen or lose it along the way. I normally take a picture of the log as proof and have never heard complaints from the co. Others do the same.

 

Full disclosure I have deleted one log as far as I remember. The cacher was from somewhere in Europe and I did not recognize them as a local so I clicked on them. Then noticed they had logged on the same day remote caches in Europe, Georgia and Oregon in the same day. My caches is probably an hour and a half away from the airport on dirt roads. Not a tourist cache. He also did not log any of the others nearby so I grew suspicious, they would go for the Original Stash not mine. I contacted the finder and the owner in GA. He responed to the GA CO with something about inventing a Tardis and admitted to fat fingering. We deleted the finds.

[+barefootjeff]

54 minutes ago, MNTA said:

This would help to get rid of forgot my pen logs without a picture. We have all seen these.  They really don't both me and most lose interest in the game and move on. If I forgot my pen or lose it along the way. I normally take a picture of the log as proof and have never heard complaints from the co. Others do the same.

 

All my caches have pencils in them, and some of the more remote ones have a spare as well (and/or a sharpener). This seems a pretty low tech and reliable solution, although i did get a "forgot my pen so didn't sign the log" once where the finder, upon realising they were penless, didn't even open the container. The trouble with "foolproof" is that there'll always be a better fool, I guess.

 

On the (thankfully) rare occasions when I've found myself at GZ without a pen, on urban caches I've gone off to find somewhere I can buy one, and on remote bushland ones where there isn't a pen shop within a reasonable distance, I've improvised with a gumnut or twig. Another local cacher, who has something of a reputation for not having a pen, often uses charcoal, but he seems to have better luck finding some close by than I do.

Edited February 8 by barefootjeff

[FDor]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sorry, but now I'm getting confused as back in your initial post you said:

 

 

What do you hope to achieve from your suggestion? Is it to eliminate logbooks and replace them with digital logging using codewords, or to provide an additional task for finders to perform when logging online? Either way, it seems to me to be a lot of extra overhead for very little benefit, as the great majority of caches have readily-signable logs and aren't being compromised by cheaters.

 

Progressive insight on my part...

 

I read in many responses that many geocachers are attached to logging on paper. Then we simply keep it open for the CO: either (1) only logging on physical paper or (2) only online logging with a code word or (3) both physical logging on paper and online logging with a code word. Problem solved :-)

 

You added: “Additional task for finders”, “lot of extra overhead”,… seems a bit exaggerated to me, the extra effort is negligible.

[FDor]

14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Suggestions that improve the accepted process of the actual hobby can be much more reasonable and feasible than suggestions that attempt to alter the core process at a fundamental level introducing new mechanics that people will, guaranteed, inevitably attempt to circumvent. Especially if it's new-and-shiny, where the established norm has gone through many years of rigorous 'playtesting' as it were, and still survives.

 

The more that strict rules and processes are introduced, the much easier it will be for people to 'break' them and objectively cheat and cause heartache and frustration in the community. As people will always try to push that limit, this game has accepted that a massive grey area with few strict rules, wherein community is encouraged to lean towards ethical activity and the spirit of the hobby and debate amongst itself issues of opinion rather than codifying them into law, is the least chaotic mechanic for this hobby's success and longevity.

Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.

If there are issues, the owner and the finder can duke it out. If it comes to breaking a general term of use for the website, or breaking one of the few rules, appeals can step in. They regularly recommend that geocachers come up with a solution themselves, since HQ does not want to be the arbiter of subjective he-said/she-said debates.

 

Technology will be broken by people who desire it enough, and if the 'rule' to break is solely defined on what the technology is programmed to do, then cheaters will win.  Rather, leave it loose and encourage the spirit of what this is about, so there is less 'value' in cheating because then, as they say, "they're only cheating themselves".

 

Game developers (vs cheaters), system administrators (vs hackers), puzzle creators (vs puzzlers), and others, often deal with this same dilemma. Hackers have to weigh the desire to win with how much effort it takes to do so. So you either make it ridiculously hard to cheat, or you make it less 'rewarding' to win. In geocaching, "cheating" merely gets you statistical numbers and you miss out on experiences. So, focus less on numbers and more on fun, without trying to 'protect' the numbers.

 

If someone can get a smiley by spoofing their geolocation easily and quickly, or getting an answer without doing work, generally speaking, they will. Especially if there's nothing the other side can do about it.

Adventure Labs had to deal with that - the technical aspect. And they're still attempting to deal with people circumventing the 'spirit' of the concept; eg armchair-logging massive airport series requiring only an easily attained code for each 'Location' (ironically) to boost that smiley count).

Geocaching Challenges (in their hayday) had to deal with that - the value proposition. Except that it got SO loose and people abused it towards mocking the concept that they killed it off.

 

No, the reason why geocaching is unique and still successful after 24 years is that no other game is like it (well, letterboxing which predates it I guess).  All these other location-based digital technology games have a hayday, and often die off, whether the cost of keeping it running is too high, or cheating runs too rampant, or something bigger and better comes along... Why hasn't that happened with geocaching? Because ultimately the best value one can attain is in the experience, not the numbers, and it does not rely on changing technology nearly as much as any other game.  GPS. Website. Simple rules. Deal with everything else yourselves. Forge amazing experiences for others to enjoy. Boom, done.

 

Other methods of 'proving' the find have been suggested over the many years this game has been around. So this suggestion really is nothing new (sorry to say), which is another reason there's a good amount of blowback. The debate's been rehashed over the years; there's nothing new under the sun.

 

I see that a lot of people are very concerned about the possibility of cheating. That's not my approach at all. When I search for geocaches, I do it just for my own pleasure, not to collect as many finds as possible.

 

But speaking of “cheating”: in practice, in the current system of online reporting on the website, there is no obstacle to reporting a cache as found. With the extension of a code word that you can physically find in the cache container, it is a lot more difficult to unlawfully report a cache as found.

[FDor]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

All my caches have pencils in them, and some of the more remote ones have a spare as well (and/or a sharpener). This seems a pretty low tech and reliable solution, although i did get a "forgot my pen so didn't sign the log" once where the finder, upon realising they were penless, didn't even open the container. The trouble with "foolproof" is that there'll always be a better fool, I guess.

 

On the (thankfully) rare occasions when I've found myself at GZ without a pen, on urban caches I've gone off to find somewhere I can buy one, and on remote bushland ones where there isn't a pen shop within a reasonable distance, I've improvised with a gumnut or twig. Another local cacher, who has something of a reputation for not having a pen, often uses charcoal, but he seems to have better luck finding some close by than I do.

 

If there had been a code word in the container, you would have simply taken a photo of that code word with your smartphone and then later logged the discovery online at home.

 

I like online logging much more than logging on physical paper because it gives the cacher a very nice overview of all his/her finds and the CO also has a very nice overview of all visits to his/her cache.

[+thebruce0]

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online.

 

How is this proof for the finder?

 

Hypithetically, lets say a cacher finds a cache and signs the log.

Let's say now the CO decides for some reason that they wish to delete the log. How can the finder prove he found it? Yes they can dispute it with GS. The CO could invent a log omitting the finders signature.  GS probably would side with CO. I'm guessing, never had to apeal anything. Maybe others know better here.

 

Mhm, that's how it works. It's not a perfect system, but if people play legitimately, that's the purpose for signing the log sheet. If a person claims that the signature is theirs, almost certainly an appeal will have the find log reinstated and locked so the CO doesn't delete it. That's the intent. Of course there's always room for people to be deceptive. Let's not encourage it.  If the CO finds no reasonable evidence that a user actually found the cache (typically by signature on the log sheet) they have grounds if they choose, to delete the Find log, and generally HQ will stand by that.  Yes, people quibble over details. Ultimately that's not relevant to the reason the guidelines say (in so many words) that you sign the log sheet and you then may log it online.

 

That's the baseline. Not signed? CO has grounds to delete the log. Signed? The CO should be letting the online log stand.  Beyond that, quibble it amongst yourselves and sort it out. Still not solved? HQ will arbitrate based on that one guideline: Is the log signed? If so, then the find is locked against deletion.

[+Sottiwotti]

I'm also pretty new, and I love logging on paper. I love looking back in the paper log to see the other people who have signed, feels like history. It's also nice to have something tangible, feels like you actually accomplished something. I don't want to worry about finding some codeword when geocaching, finding the geocache itself is already challenging enough

 

I might be very lucky, but I have not yet come across a logbook that has become too wet or damaged that you can't write on it anymore.

[+thebruce0]

 

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

I hope this is far fetched but I'm trying to prove a point that signing the log does not prove you found it.

 

No one ever believed or says that a name on a log sheet is hard objective proof that the one who signed the name is the one identifies with the name. And with that you see why everything else is a grey area. Who signed? You? A friend? Were you 1 foot away or 10 feet? Alone or in a group? Signed with initial or full name? Real name or caching name? Is it even legible? No, in practical application the rule does not require a person to sign their own legible name to a log sheet to 'earn' the right to log it online.

In practice, in effect it's simply that the name you cache under and sign the log with for that find is on the logsheet in order to protect your log against deletion from the CO.  And the mature, reasonable adults need to arbitrate their own disagreement first.

 

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

One mechanism to prove the find is outlined in the OP

 

I don't think HQ ever meant that the reason behind this 'rule' was literal "proof" of a find. It's merely the most streamlined mechanism for making a judgment which can never be guaranteed correct 100% of the time. It's a simple rule, a straightforward rule, and fighting over it is ultimately much more hassle than it's worth so it's up to the participants to decide how to deal with the disagreement. HQ doesn't want to get involved with quibbling as a very distant 3rd party.

It's simple: Name in log = Online log.  Who's going be first to try to skirt the spirit of this activity? The finder or the hider?  Hopefully neither if both understand the spirit.

 

If I log a find online by photo log or for whatever other reason I'm sure it's 'found' but my name is not on the log sheet, I am ready for the log to be deleted and accept that fate if the CO decides. Because I know the find log isn't "I saw the cache" or "I touched the container" or some other opinion about what constitutes a "Find". My Find log for physical caches implies that I got to the finish line and signed the logsheet. If I try to log a cache found where that wasn't the technical outcome, then I'm fine if the owner deletes my log.  Sure I could be miffed if I really feel the find was deserved, but again, my feelings and opinion don't prove anything.

 

Adjust your goals so that signing the logsheet (having your name in the log after having found the cache, whether alone or with friends) is your personal and primary goal when looking for a physical geocache. Then all the bases are covered. And if you're not certain the owner will be satisfied, document your accomplishment in photos and be ready to ask for an appeal.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, FDor said:

But speaking of “cheating”: in practice, in the current system of online reporting on the website, there is no obstacle to reporting a cache as found.

 

There isn't - until a diligent owner who upholds their agreement in owning a cache and maintaining it (including the online listing) checks the log and finds that the user's name isn't on the sheet. Then *wipe* goes the log from the history. And it won't be restored unless appeals decides that there's sufficient evidence that the find is legitimate, per the guidelines. Beyond that they generally take a hands-off approach encouraging the hider and finder to decide themselves. And if that's the case most likely nothing will change unless the finder can change the hider's mind.

 

The mechanics of this hobby are set up so there is no technical "cheating" - mainly because it's not a competition (whether or not someone's find count is accurate does not affect any other user one iota), and any comparative value placed on stats is entirely inferred and subjective. There can however be misleading information - typically, inaccurate logging practices that can mislead geocachers. But that's not "cheating", that's abusing the system and negatively affecting others' experiences. That's why cache owners have responsibilities, and why guidelines are in place to demonstrate good etiquette and processes to minimize that angst from misleading information.

 

But as soon as you insert a technical programmatic line that universally determines validity of a find, 100% absolutely guaranteed there will be people from every nation taking advantage of the fact that with no judgment to be made, illegitimate finds can be logged and protected purely for the sake of the numbers and stats. And then, the 'find' loses all meaning if the owners can't make the reasonable judgment about what is and isn't a find. And if you say well, they still can, then there's no point ultimately in the technical logging allowance. Just sign the sheet.

Just sign the sheet.

Or explain why you believe you found the cache and your log should stand so the CO will agree.

Simple concept, really. Code words and technical hurdles codified in the game are just adding complexity that will also add enticement to circumvention and make the whole process an enormous headache to keep 'legitimate'.

Edited February 8 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, FDor said:

If there had been a code word in the container, you would have simply taken a photo of that code word with your smartphone and then later logged the discovery online at home.

And then one person takes that photo and shares it to their group of friends privately, they all log the finds, claim it, and lock them in because "but we had the code word!"

It's nowhere near as simple as that. And you add layers up on layers of methods to thwart such 'cheating'. Or, you can let people duke it out themselves, while encouraging the proper spirit of the activity - sign the logsheet, or convince the owner you found it. Then log it online.

[FDor]

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And then one person takes that photo and shares it to their group of friends privately, they all log the finds, claim it, and lock them in because "but we had the code word!"

It's nowhere near as simple as that. And you add layers up on layers of methods to thwart such 'cheating'. Or, you can let people duke it out themselves, while encouraging the proper spirit of the activity - sign the logsheet, or convince the owner you found it. Then log it online.

 

If you really have that kind of friends, it is in the current system even much, much easier to cheat. Simply click on the cache on the website and click on the “found” button.

[+arisoft]

Just now, FDor said:

 

If you really have that kind of friends, it is in the current system even much, much easier to cheat. Simply click on the cache on the website and click on the “found” button.

 

Here is one local player here who signs some caches and skips some but logs them all on-line. Cache owners are now aware of this habit and delete logs. However, the real effect of being caught is that he is considered a cheater and that stigma cannot be removed.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, FDor said:

If you really have that kind of friends, it is in the current system even much, much easier to cheat. Simply click on the cache on the website and click on the “found” button.

As I've said, the system is in place to allow the cache owner to decide if that log is legitimate. And yes, there are people who reportedly take advantage of the 'group caching' loophole. And it's frustrating and infuriating - but not "cheating", and most often people have just now decided to shrug it off because nothing can be done and it's not worth the effort. As I always say, as long as the cache was found that day, it no longer causes me angst if 30 people log it found when 1 person did and the rest just 'claimed' it under the group caching name.  It's annoying, but it's not cheating. I choose to encourage better etiquette, because as mentioned before, those other 29 are "only cheating themselves" (while also annoying any cache owners who crafted a geocache experience that was skirted merely so they could earn a +1 smiley, and they can't do anything about it if the owner can't "prove" those 29 finders weren't also present).  And no, a code word won't help, because that 1 person would just tell everyone the code word. Same problem. But even less agency on the owner's part.

[+kunarion]

54 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And then one person takes that photo and shares it to their group of friends privately, they all log the finds, claim it, and lock them in because "but we had the code word!"

 

Even more often, there would routinely be Find logs like "TFTC!  Code Word GX7852".  So I'd have to go change the Code Word in my cache, and now there are old and new Code Words to sort out.  All because of gross Micros full of mashed up spitwad log paper that no Owner maintains, and Finders who perpetuate them.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Sottiwotti said:

I might be very lucky, but I have not yet come across a logbook that has become too wet or damaged that you can't write on it anymore.

 

That kind is easy to avoid.  If I do find an unexpectedly soaked log sheet, never previously mentioned, I dry the log sheet enough to sign it.

 

But you won't find mine like that.  I know which of my caches are high-maintenance (mostly the Micros), and if they're in bad shape, I don't inflict them upon Finders.  "Disable" is an option to Cache Owners.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, FDor said:

You added: “Additional task for finders”, “lot of extra overhead”,… seems a bit exaggerated to me, the extra effort is negligible.

 

You must be way better organised than me then. If I do a day trip away to find a bunch of caches that I preloaded onto my GPSr earlier in the week, I'd be likely in the heat of the moment to lose track of which ones had codewords in them and which didn't, so when I get back home to compose my online logs, well you can guess the rest. The extra effort to remedy that is another day trip away to go back to that cache I found yesterday just to get the codeword I missed first time around. Don't think it won't happen, because that's happened to me more than once with keywords for bonus caches. Not to mention the time I drove all the way to Newcastle to drop a trackable in a cache only to realise when I got there that I forgot to bring the trackable.

 

There's also the overhead for HQ in implementing the codeword in their database, logging flow and cache creation processes. From all accounts there's a lot of old spaghetti code under the hood and messing with it to implement your codewords is likely to break a whole lot of other stuff. It's likely a lot of the long-standing bugs being complained about in the Website section of the forums resulted from some unrelated change elsewhere in the code that had unexpected and inexplicable consequences.

 

I still really don't get what the problem is this is meant to fix. Yes, occasionally I've come across a leaky cache whose log is just a soggy lump of paper mache, but I just do what I can to leave a mark on it, take a photo and log an NM/OAR. That last step is the most important one, as it's what's needed to start the ball rolling and get the problem addressed. But as I said, that's pretty rare, maybe two or three times a year at most. The rest of the time, I just open the cache, pull out the log, sign it, put it all back and I'm on my way with no need to be messing around with taking photos, writing codewords into a pocketbook or whatever. At least until I get home, open my backpack and discover the trackable I meant to drop off is still in there. Now if you could come up with a foolproof fix for that...

 

As for fake logs, as a CO if I see an online log that looks suspicious, I'll firstly go and check the physical log. If there's a matching signature, great, nothing more to do. If not, I'll message the finder and, as diplomatically as possible, ask them what happened. Every time I've had a reply, it''s turned out to be an honest mistake, such as logging the wrong cache. The only times I've had to delete a log were when I didn't get any reply to my original message, my follow-up a week later or my follow-up-follow-up email in case they haven't figured out how to use Message Centre. And that's only happened maybe two or three times in my ten years of being a CO.

 

So I still don't get it. What problem are you trying to fix?

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Here is one local player here who signs some caches and skips some but logs them all on-line. Cache owners are now aware of this habit and delete logs. However, the real effect of being caught is that he is considered a cheater and that stigma cannot be removed.

 

Yes, one of the advantages of paper logs is that they're visible to anyone visiting the cache, so if someone is routinely claiming online finds without signing the logs it soon becomes apparent to the community. Compare that to ALs which are shrouded in anonymity. Apart from the first three finders at each stage or the first ten who've completed the whole Adventure, even the owner can't see who's done it unless the finder chooses to write a log review. From all accounts, abuse of those is pretty rife by those just wanting to boost their smiley count.

Edited February 9 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+Goldenwattle]

  

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

one of the advantages of paper logs is that they're visible to anyone visiting the cache, so if someone is routinely claiming online finds without signing the logs it soon becomes apparent to the community.

Yes I know some geocachers like that. One in particular I don't doubt she visits the spot, but find the cache or not, she still logs a find. I have deleted a couple of her logs of my caches. I became aware that she does this, when I couldn't find a cache, so as she was the last finder I messaged her if she would give me a clue. Weird emails back, what did I want; what cache is this? I replied the one I gave the GC number for. Back and forth; basically the same questions asked back to me.  Then, finally, oh, she says she can't remember. Too many caches.  (From two days ago!)

It then dawned on me; she had never found it, but unlike my DNF, she logged a find. Now I have noticed with some other caches (usually the harder to find ones), after some searching I found, but no signature of hers in the log, but she claims a find. Easier caches she usually manages to find and so signs the log. That's why I have no doubt she visits the areas, but she doesn't believe finding the cache is necessary, if she can't manage this. She was there! That's enough 🤣. Now if I see she has visited a log before my visit, her past behaviour has drawn attention to herself enough, that I often check if her signature is in the log, and I don't always find it. As you wrote, "it soon becomes apparent to the community". 

 

[+CAVinoGal]

On 2/8/2024 at 3:20 AM, FDor said:

I like online logging much more than logging on physical paper because it gives the cacher a very nice overview of all his/her finds and the CO also has a very nice overview of all visits to his/her cache.

Chiming in a bit late, but isn't the bolded comment above what we already have in place?  I sign the physical log, and then sit down and write the story later when I am home, reviewing the days finds, and sipping a glass of wine.

 

You sign the logsheet, AND you log the find online (either by phone or computer) telling your story.  BOTH are part of the geocaching experience.  Adding some kind of code, electronic or otherwise, is no guarantee you will get that "very nice overview" of finds/visits - those who will write a nice log will continue to do so, and those that write a TFTC or less will contnue to do that.  How is adding an extra step to the logging process going to ensure quality online logs?  This is what you seem to imply, to me, and I don't think it's needed or necessary.  Just my 2¢, whatever that is worth these days!!

[FDor]

Dear geocachers,

 

Thanks to the 26 people who contributed to this discussion. I see that many of you (73%) have been active for more than 10 years and also that many of you (85%) have registered more than 1,000 to even more than 50,000 finds.

 

I think we have now widely exchanged all views. Zooming out, I see that there are actually two basic approaches to logging geocaches:

 

1. Physical logging on paper in the geocache is leading.
2. Online logging in the central database is leading.

 

In both cases (as in all systems) fraud can occur. But cheating doesn't play a major role in geocaching, because you're only fooling yourself. So that doesn't matter much.

 

The outcome of our discussion shows that almost all respondents are in favor of the first approach and, I think, as a result, are against the implementation of the codeword proposal.

 

Let's end the debate with this conclusion.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 2/8/2024 at 6:19 AM, FDor said:

But speaking of “cheating”: in practice, in the current system of online reporting on the website, there is no obstacle to reporting a cache as found. With the extension of a code word that you can physically find in the cache container, it is a lot more difficult to unlawfully report a cache as found.

 

I agree the current system has little deterrence. But the code word system, while good in theory, will not in practice actually solve or even really improve the problem.

 

In terms of cheating, codes will simply be shared online, limiting effectiveness against armchair loggers (and in some cases enabling additional armchair logging by those not as brazen because now they can "prove" their find) while doing nothing against dubious methods like divide & conquer.

 

Any cache that suffers problems with a lost or damaged log will still suffer the same problem with a code word system, but with the added drawback of also denying Finds to some legitimate finders.

 

Your intentions are good, but your idea is neither new nor effective.

 

[FDor]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

I agree the current system has little deterrence. But the code word system, while good in theory, will not in practice actually solve or even really improve the problem.

 

In terms of cheating, codes will simply be shared online, limiting effectiveness against armchair loggers (and in some cases enabling additional armchair logging by those not as brazen because now they can "prove" their find) while doing nothing against dubious methods like divide & conquer.

 

Any cache that suffers problems with a lost or damaged log will still suffer the same problem with a code word system, but with the added drawback of also denying Finds to some legitimate finders.

 

Your intentions are good, but your idea is neither new nor effective.

 

 

Cheating isn't really the problem. If anyone wants to falsely log finds, he/she should do so, have fun! By the way, I don't think anyone would want to make such a list of code words for geocaches. Do these types of lists also exist for multi-caches, earth caches, mystery caches and so on?

 

What I do find unsatisfactory are the pieces of paper in a geocache on which I can barely scribble my name and date, often not even in chronological order. I seriously doubt if there is any CO who will meticulously check online logs against physical logs on these cluttered and difficult to read pieces of paper. Below you can see as an example five photos of all five caches that I found and logged yesterday to illustrate my point. That doesn't make me very excited.

 

I much prefer to focus on the online logging where everything is neatly structured, where you can add more text and where you can even add a photo. I always do the online logging directly on the spot, but you can of course also do it afterwards in the evening in front of the warm stove or cold fan.

 

In the current system, everybody can log any geocache around the world from the comfort of their home. A code word would make it more difficult to falsely or unintentionally log a find online. In my humble opinion, the euphoric feeling of my find would be even greater if I could authenticate my find with the code word that I had found myself in the geocache.

 

Edited February 10 by FDor

[Keystone]

45 minutes ago, FDor said:

By the way, I don't think anyone would want to make such a list of code words for geocaches. Do these types of lists also exist for multi-caches, earth caches, mystery caches and so on?

Yes, "spoiler sites" are very much a thing, both as standalone websites and social media channels.

 

The log photos that you posted looked dry, neat and easily verifiable by a cache owner.  If you found one that was unsignable, wet and falling apart, you can log "Owner Attention Requested."

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, FDor said:

What I do find unsatisfactory are the pieces of paper in a geocache on which I can barely scribble my name and date, often not even in chronological order. I seriously doubt if there is any CO who will meticulously check online logs against physical logs on these cluttered and difficult to read pieces of paper. Below you can see as an example five photos of all five caches that I found and logged yesterday to illustrate my point. That doesn't make me very excited.

 

Maybe you just need to look beyond micros. Regular-sized caches generally have proper logbooks in them, such as this one of mine, and in return finders often write more than just their name and the date:

 

\

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

Yes, "spoiler sites" are very much a thing, both as standalone websites and social media channels.

 

And they also exist for TBs too.

[+JL_HSTRE]

@FDor you are assuming that the codeword in the cache would be legible and remain legible. These would usually end up written on paper (often handwritten) that gets destroyed like the logs. Even a laminated, typed code can be water damaged to the point of being illegible.

 

Under the current system when I find a cache with a log of wet mush or a missing blog then I can still log a Find (and NM). With a code word now I can't log a Find at all.

 

I live in Florida where probably half of all micros have soggy logs. I assure you I would support a better log system if I thought what you propose was that.

 

Edited February 10 by JL_HSTRE

[+Crow-T-Robot]

19 hours ago, FDor said:

By the way, I don't think anyone would want to make such a list of code words for geocaches. Do these types of lists also exist for multi-caches, earth caches, mystery caches and so on?

Lists with codes for travelbugs/geocoins are passed around like candy at some events.  There are websites and Facebook groups that are loaded with puzzle cache solutions/spoilers.

 

If a codeword logging system were ever implemented (it won't be), the lists created for it would dwarf any travelbug or puzzle spoiler lists that already exist. 

[BlueRajah]

It's valid to take the time and think of new ideas.   It's good to have ideas from newcomers.  The hard part is wiring through the problems.  Cheaters are the biggest issue.  I can check the log, and I can delete a cheaters log.  I have done it before and gotten hate mail.  Solving that issue may allow it to happen if the website did the checking,  but I don't see the return on investment for HQ.  

[+arisoft]

44 minutes ago, BlueRajah said:

but I don't see the return on investment for HQ

 

It's pure money they got as return by selling these codes or tokens as I suggested. What kind of company choose not to gain revenue?

 

[Coumpter]

I would be afraid of people sharing the codes

[+MartyBartfast]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

What kind of company choose not to gain revenue?

One that could see its whole core product eroded to the point where it's nolonger viable.
 

• How much would a one time token cost? I'm guessing somewhere around £20, so how many cachers would be prepared to pay that for each hide.
• How many caches are big enough to take one of the tokens? All the nanos would have to go (no bad thing some would say), would they fit in a 35mm film pot? maybe, maybe not. But a significant proportion of caches would nolonger be viable.
• How often would they be stolen because they look kinda cool, or the finder has a beef with the CO, or the finder just thinks it's another swap.
• Caches go missing, at the moment that's the cost of the container and a bit of paper, but with a token it's much more expensive to lose a cache.
• How weather proof are they? I guess they could be made 100% waterproof so this should't be too much of a problem.
• How long do the batteries last? All the tokens I've used over the years are sealed units so when the battery goes the whole thing has to be replaced, so it's an ongoing cost for the CO, if they have replaceable batteries then they become susceptible to water ingress and have a reduced lifetime due to weather.
  
  IMO these factors would massively reduce the number off caches out there if tokens were required, and  would fall below the critical mass required to bring in the number of players required to keep Groundspeak in profit, so I don't see Groundspeak being so keen on the idea of tokens in caches.
  
  If tokens were not required but were optional then I can't see many cachers taking them up for the same reasons, somewhat  like Chirps were a bit of a novelty but never really took off. At least with a Chirp they could be hidden in order to discourage theft and they didn't have to be in the cache.
  
   

[BlueRajah]

 

9 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

It's pure money they got as return by selling these codes or tokens as I suggested. What kind of company choose not to gain revenue?

 

The ROI is the entire package. Companies pass on more revenue all the time.  Does it interfere with current plans, or more than we can deal with.  The company that I work for passed on a lot of new projects.  We did not have the expertise, or the capital,  to double the projects we worked on.   You can grab short term money, but you need to pay for programming development and maintenance, unless you hire more, that means the sprints the teams make now would be delayed. So you are pushing off other updates.  You have to pay to combat cheaters, pay customer service who will deal with angry cheaters.  Do we need more employees.  Do we have the space if so.  Does it mean delaying critical site upgrades, or meaning you cant expand in another planned direction. 

 

I will not say its impossible, but there is always a cost analysis done. I don't think it is there, but maybe.  Other sites proved that there was some money to be made.  Would that help/hurt. Imagine you having to pay $5 a year for an adventure lab credit. Some would do it.  Others would not. Maybe it would be worth it, maybe not. In essence, you are proposing a extra premium cache. It is an interesting thought . 

[+lee737]

On 1/28/2024 at 4:16 AM, MNTA said:

Think of it as two factor authentication, might reduce cheating.

 

It doesn't take a community long to work out who the cheats are..... and how pointless their 'stats' are.  If you really want to crack down on cheats, I think you'd have to allow ALR's like a photo with something at GZ, like for virtuals - but imagine how tedious that would become.....

[+lee737]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:38 AM, barefootjeff said:

ALs died here once the novelty wore off.

 

To be honest, we've really had our fill of them. An exception is ALs with good bonuses or ALs in cool spots, and then ALs once we've run out of all other caches in an area! We haven't logged one for about 2 months I think, I've walked past dozens of them.....

[+lee737]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:06 AM, FDor said:

As a novice geocacher with no premium account in the Netherlands and now on holiday in Madeira, I am restricted to the simpler geocaches. It may be that my experience of very often messy scraps of paper in the caches mainly occurs in my region and mainly occurs in the simple caches.

Welcome. The caches you are seeing are a small part of the game.... avoid them when you can - head out into the bush/forest/desert - whereever the ammo tins reside - there you will find caches of olde, made to last..... check out this one we found just a few days ago, hidden in 2001. The original log is still there, RIP I guess to the Geopup.... 

Don't stress about crappy logs - post a NM log, or a NA and get them off the map so better ones with diligent CO's can fill the gap.

Look at that container! Makes me want to fire up the workshop now....

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

If you really want to crack down on cheats, I think you'd have to allow ALR's like a photo with something at GZ, like for virtuals - but imagine how tedious that would become.....

 

Then you'd just get bombarded with faked photos, particularly with all the image skulduggery that's being promoted in the latest phones.