Secret Log Pages

[markandlynn]

I can see that this was last discussed way back in 2002.

I have now done several caches where you are told "no spoilers in the logs please"

and have done one cache with a secret logging page (off site) where you can tell the real story of what happened.

A simple password protection option would help both issues with the password being in the cache or at the cache location or sent by the cache owner.

You would need to see the names of people who have succesfully logged a find on the cache but not be able to see their secret logs.

Good idea? or completely unworkable?

[+OccidentalErrant]

Edited by OE

Edited March 14, 2005 by OccidentalErrant

[markandlynn]

Geo Cities is free... or am I missing the point of your statement?  I can see nothing wrong with directing to an off site page with a signature on the forums personally.

???

I was asking if having password protected logs would be a good idea.

Out of 5 caches with "no spoilers in the logs" only one of them had somewhere else I could talk openly about the experience, it would be nice to share the full experience for all of these caches possibly via a password protected log page.

[+Markwell]

After moderating the Getting Started forums, people have enough problems with coded Travel Bugs and logging, and even just logging the cache as being found without a password. K.I.S.S.

[+sbell111]

I agree with Markwell. I guess I don't really see the point to this. Since it would be password protected, everyone wouldn't be able to read the logs. You could just email the story to the cache owner and put it out on your own website.

[+Pasha]

I dunno, I can kinda see M&L's point; whether it's on gc.com or an external page, on some caches it'd be nice to tell the whole story and not be limited by spoiling words or phrases. No need for any changes to gc.com; someone could just put up an external page with a standard interface where cache owners could automagically set up a password-protected area for finders to post additional logs. It'd all be opt-in, of course, and people aren't going to forego claiming the find on gc.com because of it.

[CoyoteRed]

After moderating the Getting Started forums, people have enough problems with coded Travel Bugs and logging, and even just logging the cache as being found without a password. K.I.S.S.

So, in other words, we all are held back by the lowest common denominator?

[+Tzoid]

It needn't be more complicated than adding another note type "Note for other finders". Notes of this type will only be displayed to you if A: you are logged in and B: You have previously posted a Found It note for that cache.

[+Tharagleb]

It needn't be more complicated than adding another note type "Note for other finders". Notes of this type will only be displayed to you if A: you are logged in and B: You have previously posted a Found It note for that cache.

So if I want to cheat and see the secret log with the spoiler i just:

 

1) Do a FIND

2) Check out the spoiler(s)

3) Ooops! Should have been a note or a DNF

[+Tzoid]

And so what? It is the cheaters privilege to cheat. For whatever joy they get out of it.

[+Jeremy]

So, in other words, we all are held back by the lowest common denominator?

I don't understand this statement.

[+gnbrotz]

Jeremy,

 

Here's what I took from the post:

 

When Markwell replied, he seemed to suggest that since many folks had trouble with some of the simple procedures already in place, the idea of new/more advanced processes was not worthwhile (at least that's what it said to me).

 

In response to that, CR seemed to imply "Why should those of us who are intelligent enough to do something like this not be able to do it just because everyone may not grasp the concept?"

 

Hopefully the actual posters of these comments will correct me if I myself did not understand their intent.

[+Tharagleb]

And so what? It is the cheaters privilege to cheat. For whatever joy they get out of it.

The point is that it isn't protecting the *secret* log at all by having a finders only viewable log type.

[+Jeremy]

In response to that, CR seemed to imply "Why should those of us who are intelligent enough to do something like this not be able to do it just because everyone may not grasp the concept?"

 

Hopefully the actual posters of these comments will correct me if I myself did not understand their intent.

I still don't get it, as it was already suggested someone could create logging requirements off geocaching.com.

[+Jeremy]

And so what?  It is the cheaters privilege to cheat.  For whatever joy they get out of it.

The point is that it isn't protecting the *secret* log at all by having a finders only viewable log type.

Which is easily circumvented by logging a find, reading the hint, and deleting the log.

[+planetrobert]

And so what?  It is the cheaters privilege to cheat.  For whatever joy they get out of it.

The point is that it isn't protecting the *secret* log at all by having a finders only viewable log type.

Which is easily circumvented by logging a find, reading the hint, and deleting the log.

what if you have to enter a find with a 'secret' code that would be in that cache.

[+Team Perks]

what if you have to enter a find with a 'secret' code that would be in that cache.

Wait...So to placate a few people who like the "secret code" idea, I would suddenly have to start writing down a code for every single cache I find--knowing that by the time I get home I won't be able to interpret my own scribblings and thus be unable to log the find at all?

 

Um...no.

 

My name in the log book is proof enough as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to have to waste my time on anything beyond that.

 

(edit: grammar)

Edited March 18, 2005 by Team Perks

[+sbell111]

I'm with the unfluffy tri-eyed cat.

 

Let's not make this any more complicated than it has to be. If someone really wants a place for 'the whole story' of peoples adventure in looking for his/her cache, they can easily create their own web page.

[+Jeremy]

When the site was first built, in the database I added a column called "SecretCode" in anticipation of creating a way where people could code lock their geocache to force people to find such a code before posting a log.

 

During implementation I put my black hat on and realized there are so many ways to fake a find (off-site walkthroughs, asking friends, etc) that it didn't make sense to create a feature that would create an environment for fake logging. Instead, I felt that the owner should decide whether they want to closely track logs through the physical logbook (much harder to cheat), or let cheaters cheat. Since there is no "prize" for a find other than the experience (and dimestore items in the cache), in the long run who really cares? So I left it out.

 

There are already ways where an industrious cache hider can go off and do their own thing if they really want some code requirement for a find. That's the wonderful thing about the Internet. But when we create new features on the web site we now have to be aware of the social implications around adding them, and weigh the chance that they will be exploited somehow.

[+Eric K]

what if you have to enter a find with a 'secret' code that would be in that cache.

Wait...So to placate a few people who like the "secret code" idea, I would suddenly have to start writing down a code for every single cache I find--knowing that by the time I get home I won't be able to interpret my own scribblings and thus be unable to log the find at all?

 

Um...no.

 

My name in the log book is proof enough as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to have to waste my time on anything beyond that.

 

(edit: grammar)

I agree with this for a few reasons.

1. I would say a vast percentage of geocachers are 'casual' geocachers and don't want to get that in depth.

2. That would take some of the fun out of geocaching if it's more like work where you have to enter codes instead of just signing a log book

3. When I cache in the winter sometimes by the time I get to the cache I have just enough time to scribble in the log book before my fingers freeze

4. In the summer and spring at some locations I have just enough time to scribble in a log book before the 'skeeters drain me dry.

5. No matter what system you come up with there are some people that have nothing better to do than to try to cheat and beat that system. I say don't worry about those people and just enjoy the game.

 

Afterthought: If you want to have people enter some secret code or something make your cache a puzzle cache.

Edited March 18, 2005 by Eric K

[+planetrobert]

what if you have to enter a find with a 'secret' code that would be in that cache.

Wait...So to placate a few people who like the "secret code" idea, I would suddenly have to start writing down a code for every single cache I find--knowing that by the time I get home I won't be able to interpret my own scribblings and thus be unable to log the find at all?

 

Um...no.

 

My name in the log book is proof enough as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to have to waste my time on anything beyond that.

 

(edit: grammar)

I agree with this for a few reasons.

1. I would say a vast percentage of geocachers are 'casual' geocachers and don't want to get that in depth.

2. That would take some of the fun out of geocaching if it's more like work where you have to enter codes instead of just signing a log book

3. When I cache in the winter sometimes by the time I get to the cache I have just enough time to scribble in the log book before my fingers freeze

4. In the summer and spring at some locations I have just enough time to scribble in a log book before the 'skeeters drain me dry.

5. No matter what system you come up with there are some people that have nothing better to do than to try to cheat and beat that system. I say don't worry about those people and just enjoy the game.

 

Afterthought: If you want to have people enter some secret code or something make your cache a puzzle cache.

sorry for kicking the hornets nest, i wasn't really serious about the code idea.

 

personally i think it would be cool if it were optional based on the cache hider, not manditory just like on terracaching.com but it won't bother me if it never happens, i really don't care. i would hope that if a code was implimented this way would be the way.

 

you could have a code to allow extra spoiler info to be seen but still allow finds without it... nevermind it is a bad idea.

[markandlynn]

The idea was that it was an opt in for the cache owner probably with the approvers approval (good grammar!)ie for a high difficulty cache. Caches such as Blood and Guts, Tube Torcher, Cut Down Cache would probably be an even better experience if you could share the whole story on a password protected site.

The password would be in the cache or emailed by the owner after a visit to the logbook.

I suppose the question should be

If youv'e done a cache where anything you write in the online log will be a spoiler and the cache setter states any logs with spoilers will be deleted would you like a password protected area to wite up your log?

[+Byron & Anne]

After reading throught this thread and thinking about it, I think it could be a reasonable suggestion. As far as somebody circumventing the system, i.e. logging a find to view the restricted logs, I don't see that as a problem. People talk to peolpe and tell where the cache is by various methods. I don't really think the term "cheating" even belongs in the same discussion as geocaching. Therefore maybe a system that would require a couple more clicks to read the "spoilers" would be enough. Those that want to read everything, including spoilers can and those that might not be in the area could read those logs too.

 

I think that "spoilers" spoil it for the hunter, not for the hider, and it would be much more fun to get a lot more good stories from hunters. There's been a couple of times that I wanted to tell a bit more, but couldn't because of "spoiler" thing.

 

Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling.

My $.02 worth or less.

 

Byron

[+Stuey]

I suppose the question should be

If youv'e done a cache where anything you write in the online log will be a spoiler and the cache setter states any logs with spoilers will be deleted would you like a password protected area to wite up your log?

Yes I would. Good idea

[+sbell111]

...As far as somebody circumventing the system, i.e. logging a find to view the restricted logs, I don't see that as a problem. .... Therefore maybe a system that would require a couple more clicks to read the "spoilers" would be enough.  Those that want to read everything, including spoilers can and those that might not be in the area could read those logs too.

 

I think that "spoilers" spoil it for the hunter, not for the hider, and it would be much more fun to get a lot more good stories from hunters. There's been a couple of times that I wanted to tell a bit more, but couldn't because of "spoiler" thing. 

Wouldn't that be the same as the current log encryption? If someone wants to read the encrypted logs they just hit the decrypt button and get the full story.

 

I don't think an option of being able to click to the full story (spoiled log? ) would be acceptable to some cache owners. I think we would have more threads like the 'spoiler' thread that was in play the other day.

 

I hope you don't mind, I deleted a few of the lines in your post above, but I think your intent is still there.

Edited March 19, 2005 by sbell111

[+Kealia]

So, in other words, we all are held back by the lowest common denominator?

I find this to be very contradictory to what you posted in the thread about the TiVo SDK.

 

Your basic argument there was that it only benefited a small percentage of users so why do it. This is very similar isn't it?

 

It seems here that you're saying because this is something that you want that the ones who can't use it shouldn't hold you back. But in regards to the TiVo, because you didn't have one and couldn't use it you thought it was a waste of time.

 

Hard to know where you stand.....

[+Mopar]

In keeping with Markwell's K.I.S.S., there is a real simple solution already in place if you want to write something about a cache that only the owner and other finders can read.

The logbook.

[+Subterranean]

In keeping with Markwell's K.I.S.S....

Knights In Satan's Service??

 

What did he mean by K.I.S.S., anyway??

 

Edit: Nevermind. That last "S" refers to me.

Edited March 21, 2005 by subterranean

[+Evil Chicken]

The idea was that it was an opt in for the cache owner probably with the approvers approval (good grammar!)ie for a high difficulty cache. Caches such as Blood and Guts, Tube Torcher, Cut Down Cache would probably be an even better experience if you could share the whole story on a password protected site.

I think it is a nice idea, but I know, for example, that Blood & Guts has an invitation-only password protected site elsewhere for B&G Survivors. It is highly possible that those other legendarily difficult caches do as well.

 

Edit: grammar

Edited March 21, 2005 by Evil Chicken

[+StarBrand]

I can't help but to believe that most cachers are not trying to give away secrets - rather they are simply trying to share an experience with others. Not neccesarily the owner of the cache - just sharing. I think off-site webs are great for some but wouldn't really reduce the "problem" as some see it. A little web research can easily find information and pictures in off-site webs about famous caches. So wether it is here on GC.com or offsite - the internets greatest ability is the ability to share information. - We can only ask for respect and give it when requested of us.

 

edit spelling

Edited March 21, 2005 by StarBrand

[+Zartimus]

So, in other words, we all are held back by the lowest common denominator?

I don't understand this statement.

Jeremy is the lowest common denominator

[+Jeremy]

Jeremy is the lowest common denominator

Uh oh. We're in trouble.

[+sbell111]

People are a little hard on the big guy today, no?

[+Jeremy]

People are a little hard on the big guy today, no?

And this is any different than any other day?

 

(I'm much smaller in person)