irvingdog Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I read in "underwater caches" that Jeremy is ultimately going to work on cache attributes. Perhaps one could affix a "Troll Guard". This could be as simple as placing a code on the underside of the lid of the cache. When someone is attepmting to log a find for the cache, they would need to enter the "Troll Guard" code, which is assigned to the cache placer at the time the cache is placed. You know what? I think I'm going to start doing that for myself. Before I'll allow a post to stay on the cache site, they will need to e-mail me with the "Troll Guard" code, which I will place on the cover of the logbook in big bold letters. Want to log the find? Remember the code. I'll make it simple to remember. this could eliminate "geobuddy" whiners and Jay Cooke Staff liars (if he is one). I've got some thinking to do............. Ahhhh......the moist nose of a German Wirehaired Pointer! Quote Link to comment
SunCrush Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I like the idea of under water caches, very neat and different. Your idea sounds neat and fun, do explore with it and let us know!! Quote Link to comment
SunCrush Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I like the idea of under water caches, very neat and different. Your idea sounds neat and fun, do explore with it and let us know!! Quote Link to comment
hrdwareguy Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 taking the password for a virtual cache to the next level. Instead of using to verify the visit of a virtual cache, use it to verify the vist of an regular cache. Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:..."Troll Guard" code, which is assigned to the cache placer at the time the cache is placed. At first I thought this would make placing a cache a lot more work, as you'd have to come to the site more than once to place a cache (once to get the code, and again to activate the cache once the code is actually placed inside). Then I thought, why does the code have to be assigned? Just have a "Log Password" area on the Hide form. Then it can all be done at once. Of course, the password would only be required for finds, not for notes or not-founds. If this is to be implemented, it should definitely be optional for the placer. And the description should warn the user that there is a password so they make sure they get it. Quote Link to comment
Team Dragon Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I already require it with the American Cemetery cache. Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I probably won't bother to log finds on such caches on the site. I certainly wouldn't use such a feature in hiding my caches. This is a classic example of what annoys me about the way people go about solving problems. In order to protect a hobby from a tiny number of trouble makers you want to add a burden on everyone who is already being honest. It's a hobby people, not a way of life. lighten up. Quote Link to comment
+Number 6 Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Troll Guard sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think of somehow extending it to the forums? Something like you must have at least one or two confirmed finds and/or hides to post anywhere except in a newbie area for people wanting advice on getting started, etc. I'm tired of being troll bait and also seeing others fall for it. A human explained humor to a computer in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He said that playing a joke on someone the first time can be funny, but it isn't funny twice. As I recall, the computer called it a funny once. Be Seeing You! Quote Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Marty Fouts: This is a classic example of what annoys me about the way people go about solving problems. In order to protect a hobby from a tiny number of trouble makers you want to add a burden on everyone who is already being honest. I have to agree... I've hidden several caches myself, and if someone wants to make a log claiming that they found it, when they probably didn't - well, then they can go ahead and do it. They probably have some issues, sure... but if they do that sorta thing, it isn't gonna bother me. Here is my reason. Personal stats of other players mean nothing to me... moreso now than when I first started. When I started, it felt like a bit of a competition - but now that I've done it for many months, I've settled in to the idea that it is just a fun hobby. I'm not out to compete against anyone else's stats - in hidden caches, found caches, travel bugs sent, etc. If people wanna pad their stats, then it is their business. I like knowing my own stats, just for the info - not because I'm trying to catch someone else in the rankings or something. I'd still log a real cache with a password - but the hider should make sure (in/on the cache itself) that it is VERY clear that a password is required for the cache to be logged online. --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Quote Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Marty Fouts: This is a classic example of what annoys me about the way people go about solving problems. In order to protect a hobby from a tiny number of trouble makers you want to add a burden on everyone who is already being honest. I have to agree... I've hidden several caches myself, and if someone wants to make a log claiming that they found it, when they probably didn't - well, then they can go ahead and do it. They probably have some issues, sure... but if they do that sorta thing, it isn't gonna bother me. Here is my reason. Personal stats of other players mean nothing to me... moreso now than when I first started. When I started, it felt like a bit of a competition - but now that I've done it for many months, I've settled in to the idea that it is just a fun hobby. I'm not out to compete against anyone else's stats - in hidden caches, found caches, travel bugs sent, etc. If people wanna pad their stats, then it is their business. I like knowing my own stats, just for the info - not because I'm trying to catch someone else in the rankings or something. I'd still log a real cache with a password - but the hider should make sure (in/on the cache itself) that it is VERY clear that a password is required for the cache to be logged online. --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Quote Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Number 6:Troll Guard sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think of somehow extending it to the forums? Something like you must have at least one or two confirmed finds and/or hides to post anywhere except in a newbie area... Yikes. Overregulation, imho. --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Quote Link to comment
+Gimpy Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 My caches have been logged approx. 800 times. On top of all the e-mail I get now, do I want to add another 800 messages to it? Forget it. If someone wants to inflate their numbers, let em' have at it. It's a game/pastime/hobby/sport or whatever. If some folks feel the need to cheat,then they have a personal problem.I'll not be adding any such rules/regulations to any of my caches. I've had days where I've had 5 or 6 finds, & it's enough to sit at the PC and log them all as it is now. "Gimpy" Quote Link to comment
+Gimpy Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 My caches have been logged approx. 800 times. On top of all the e-mail I get now, do I want to add another 800 messages to it? Forget it. If someone wants to inflate their numbers, let em' have at it. It's a game/pastime/hobby/sport or whatever. If some folks feel the need to cheat,then they have a personal problem.I'll not be adding any such rules/regulations to any of my caches. I've had days where I've had 5 or 6 finds, & it's enough to sit at the PC and log them all as it is now. "Gimpy" Quote Link to comment
+Clan Ferguson Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 The harder you make it for the finder to log on line the less likey they will log online. No online logs and people might not what to hunt the cache because its been out so long with out a hit. Just a thought Cache On!! James "Big Dog" -Clan Ferguson Quote Link to comment
+JetSkier Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 If you're that worried about someone logging your cache without actually finding it, check the log book. If they didn't log, delete their find! Simple as that. Quote Link to comment
+Team StitchesOnQuilts Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I agree with Marty. Having a password would punish more honest people than dishonest people. I also think that since this is a game, or RASH, if you prefer, it's overkill to be putting layers on security on it. Trolls are a part of online life. They have existed since before 1988, when I first got onto the Internet. I think the best we can do is to just deal with them when they pop up. I'm not saying that I condone trolls, or like their behavior: I'm just saying that I'm not willing to put a bunch of honest cachers to extra work in order to avoid the trouble that a very few misguided individuals cause. Shannah Quote Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Number 6:Troll Guard sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think of somehow extending it to the forums? Something like you must have at least one or two confirmed finds and/or hides to post anywhere except in a newbie area for people wanting advice on getting started, etc. Bad idea. How many hides/finds do I have again? Quote Link to comment
azog Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I probably wouldn't visit a cache which made me send a verification "password". I have a bad enough memory, now I need to remember to write down the password to gain credit for the cache? Besides, I'm gonna agree with Rubbertoe. If someone wants to bloat their own numbers for whatever cheap thrill it gives them, well, that's between the faker and their own conscience. When a hider does cache maintainence, it would be fairly easy to take the logbook and compare it with the weblogs, or at least count them. The logbook will have higher logs than the weblogs. The weblogs should never have more logs than the paper trail. Don't owners have delete abilities? Quote Link to comment
irvingdog Posted August 1, 2002 Author Share Posted August 1, 2002 I'm fairly new to the hobby and didn't take into account cachers who post huge numbers. My reason for the suggestion lies in the circumstance of a person posing as a park ranger claiming to have found and removed a cache from a relatively remote location. It now seems as if the cache is still there and unscathed. That and the "geobuddy" thing. I didn't even think about people who would falsely log caches to bloat thier own find count. Now that I think about it, that is lame, but I wouldn't bother trying to implement something to stop that. They are only kidding themselves. Who else would care? Sometimes you gotta go through a few bad ideas to hit on a good one. Ahhhh......the moist nose of a German Wirehaired Pointer! [This message was edited by Irvingdog on August 01, 2002 at 12:40 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+brdad Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I like the idea, but it would be kind of a pain as Marty Fouts says. That just shows another reason it helps to sign the logbook and take something / leave something and leave note of it. At least if both of those are done that should be as much if not more proof that the person did actually visit the cache. Anyone that has been online knows that passwords aren't secret for long. Beats me why anyone would go to that extent to log a find, but the act seems pretty popular. Quote Link to comment
+Number 6 Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Yikes. Overregulation, imho. quote: Sometimes you gotta go through a few bad ideas to hit on a good one. I guess we could just give up and let the trolls win. Be Seeing You! Quote Link to comment
+GeoManhattan Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 If you don't trust an entry - Just go to the cache and check the logbook. You can't fake that. Keep in mind it's a game without a "winner". Quote Link to comment
+Trudy & the beast Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I have mixed emotions about this issue. Having been suckered in by Majicman and his alteregos, I would like to see a lid put on it. Then, I think of navigating the groups on Yahoo.com and I can't say I want that kind of thing. I developed an application at work that management found useful enough to protect. IT put in the security and now I don't have the clearance to maintain it. . If you want to remove or prevent unwanted logs at your caches, it is probably best for all concerned to build that into the logging process for yourself rather than asking to have it implemented across the board. I know that before I respond to a suspicious post on the discussion pages, I will check the poster's profile to keep from becoming another mark for a troll or handpuppet. Quote Link to comment
+Trudy & the beast Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I have mixed emotions about this issue. Having been suckered in by Majicman and his alteregos, I would like to see a lid put on it. Then, I think of navigating the groups on Yahoo.com and I can't say I want that kind of thing. I developed an application at work that management found useful enough to protect. IT put in the security and now I don't have the clearance to maintain it. . If you want to remove or prevent unwanted logs at your caches, it is probably best for all concerned to build that into the logging process for yourself rather than asking to have it implemented across the board. I know that before I respond to a suspicious post on the discussion pages, I will check the poster's profile to keep from becoming another mark for a troll or handpuppet. Quote Link to comment
+leatherman Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Fundamentally, it sounds good. However I try to take as little as possible to and from a cache. I take a PDA, GPSr and something to trade. I usually don’t have anything to take notes. There is a cache called Multi Cache Mania and some others called PreRound-up in the Seattle area. You have to write down a clue at these caches, to complete a puzzle to find their cache. I didn’t write down any of the clues and was forced to return to caches I had visited before. I think I would be very upset if I had to return to the cache for a code word in order to log a find. If my log was deleted just because I didn’t have the code word I would be writing a pretty volatile email to admin. Preperation, the first law to survival. Quote Link to comment
+BruceS Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I have done a few that were micro caches that were too small for log books and they had only a passwords in them. Not a problem. I would not want all caches that way but it is workable. BTW if you carry a PDA you have something to take notes on. Quote Link to comment
+leatherman Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by BruceS:if you carry a PDA you have something to take notes on. That would take effort to dig out the PDA from my pack. I could write on my hand too. Minimal effort. Preperation, the first law to survival. Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:I have mixed emotions about this issue. Having been suckered in by Majicman and his alteregos, I would like to see a lid put on it. Then, I think of navigating the groups on Yahoo.com and I can't say I want that kind of thing. I developed an application at work that management found useful enough to protect. IT put in the security and now I don't have the clearance to maintain it. . If you want to remove or prevent unwanted logs at your caches, it is probably best for all concerned to build that into the logging process for yourself rather than asking to have it implemented across the board. I know that before I respond to a suspicious post on the discussion pages, I will check the poster's profile to keep from becoming another mark for a troll or handpuppet. understand that this would only stop those trolls who never visit caches. there's no way to keep someone and their sock puppets from logging a cache that the person has been to. after all, if foo sees a cache, then all of foos socks have the same info, and any of them can log it if they want. Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:I have mixed emotions about this issue. Having been suckered in by Majicman and his alteregos, I would like to see a lid put on it. Then, I think of navigating the groups on Yahoo.com and I can't say I want that kind of thing. I developed an application at work that management found useful enough to protect. IT put in the security and now I don't have the clearance to maintain it. . If you want to remove or prevent unwanted logs at your caches, it is probably best for all concerned to build that into the logging process for yourself rather than asking to have it implemented across the board. I know that before I respond to a suspicious post on the discussion pages, I will check the poster's profile to keep from becoming another mark for a troll or handpuppet. understand that this would only stop those trolls who never visit caches. there's no way to keep someone and their sock puppets from logging a cache that the person has been to. after all, if foo sees a cache, then all of foos socks have the same info, and any of them can log it if they want. Quote Link to comment
+brdad Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by BruceS:BTW if you carry a PDA you have something to take notes on. I took a phone number once using my GPS, I just made 2 waypoints, one for first 3 digits and another for the last 4, added a "+" in front of each so they'd be first on the list of waypoints. Quote Link to comment
river ranger Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Irvingdog: the circumstance of a person posing as a park ranger claiming to have found and removed a cache from a relatively remote location. It now seems as if the cache is still there and unscathed. blasphemy! someone posing as a ranger, and removing a cache!?! let me at 'em! tarnishing a fine rangers image! if i find 'em i'll archive that sock puppet! having to do what the voices in my wifes head tell me to do... Quote Link to comment
river ranger Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Irvingdog: the circumstance of a person posing as a park ranger claiming to have found and removed a cache from a relatively remote location. It now seems as if the cache is still there and unscathed. blasphemy! someone posing as a ranger, and removing a cache!?! let me at 'em! tarnishing a fine rangers image! if i find 'em i'll archive that sock puppet! having to do what the voices in my wifes head tell me to do... Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 From Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines and the paragraph on Virtual caches: quote:There should be a question that only the visitor to that location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered unless you physically visit the spot. Sounds like a troll guard to me. Markwell Chicago Geocaching Quote Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 I agree with Markwell, it shouldn't be that big a deal, as we routinely do it with virtuals. I guess the troll guard can be something memorable that doesn't have to be written down - like what color is the cache container? It's sad that we'd have to do any of this though, it is after all just a game. Surely those who cheat on physical caches are in the minority and will be quickly found out? A year ago "find" numbers seemed to be important, but I think now that there are so many easy caches of all sorts out there you can rack up the numbers quickly by getting in your car and going after the 1/1 virtuals, drive-by physicals, and lamecationless caches, all without cheating. That is, if racking up the numbers is a priority. But I digress. Maybe in some parts of the country caches are still few and far between and some find the need to be trolls in this manner. ~erik~ Quote Link to comment
+brdad Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Short of microcaches that are too small, a person could always leave slips of paper or buisness cards with the password on them that could be taken back with the cacher, they would just have to come back to reload them as needed. Another avenue to look down may be some way to have the cache hider approve a log, using their own disgression. That way the loggers find numbers would not go up unless the hider approved it, but have the log show up on the cache page with some writing in red at the bottom of the log saying something like, "This cache visit has not yet been verified". Is seems to me this method would be a lot more intimidating to a cheater and if log readers saw a certian user with all these logs with the red notice it would propbably be a good indication the cache logger was a cheat. One problem with that system would be the hider not being punctual in approving or disssaproving the log. Maybe there could be a time limit, after a set amount of time it would automatically be approved. I'm not sure how easy this could be programmed into the system either? Quote Link to comment
DisQuoi Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Are you wearing anything in this picture? Quote Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Visit your caches. Maintain them. Write down the names of the people who have signed the physical logbook. Compare it to the online logs. After checking with those who failed to sign the logbook for extenuating circumstances, (and they would need to provide a really good description of the hike in and cache site), delete those that don't belong there. Cache owners just need to do what they should have been doing in the first place. Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Seems like we are getting too serious about a hobby again. if someone wants to cheat who really cares? I don't. If you personally want to double check them then post your little codes, just don't subject the rest of us to your paranoia. Never Squat With Yer Spurs On Quote Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:Seems like we are getting too serious about a hobby again. if someone wants to cheat who really cares? I don't. If you personally want to double check them then post your little codes, just don't subject the rest of us to your paranoia. Never Squat With Yer Spurs On Couldn't have said it better!!!! Byron Quote Link to comment
+Criminal Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Me too. Who cares if somebody wants to cheat? ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song, Or wisdom for a dance in the street................. Quote Link to comment
irvingdog Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:if someone wants to cheat who really cares? I don't. If you personally want to double check them then post your little codes, just don't subject the rest of us to your paranoia. Yeah, O.K. Nice attitude. It was just a suggestion. you don't get answers without them. I couldn't give a rats posterior about people bloating their find totals, I proposed it for a different reason all together. did you read my follow up? Did you? Ahhhh......the moist nose of a German Wirehaired Pointer! Quote Link to comment
irvingdog Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:if someone wants to cheat who really cares? I don't. If you personally want to double check them then post your little codes, just don't subject the rest of us to your paranoia. Yeah, O.K. Nice attitude. It was just a suggestion. you don't get answers without them. I couldn't give a rats posterior about people bloating their find totals, I proposed it for a different reason all together. did you read my follow up? Did you? Ahhhh......the moist nose of a German Wirehaired Pointer! Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by DisQuoi:Are you wearing anything in this picture? http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/avatar/47310_300.jpg A very fetching Vista. Can't you tell? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.