"Non-validated user" frustration

[+DarkZen]

I have been getting spammy type messages to my email account lately from a person with no hides and no finds. They are writing me non stop. It's clear by now they are just messing with me.

 

There is also another noob who is asking me where (specifically) are my caches. They have two finds and their account email has not been validated.

 

It doesn't seem fair that Groundspeak allows someone to email me or question me about my caches if they can't bother to complete the registration process.

 

Sorry, just had to vent.

[+MartyBartfast]

I have been getting spammy type messages to my email account lately from a person with no hides and no finds. They are writing me non stop. It's clear by now they are just messing with me.

 

There is also another noob who is asking me where (specifically) are my caches. They have two finds and their account email has not been validated.

 

It doesn't seem fair that Groundspeak allows someone to email me or question me about my caches if they can't bother to complete the registration process.

 

Sorry, just had to vent.

 

report it to Groundspeak via the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the Geocaching.com pages. This sounds like harrasment, and if GS agree they can kick the person off.

[+cerberus1]

I have been getting spammy type messages to my email account lately from a person with no hides and no finds. They are writing me non stop. It's clear by now they are just messing with me.

 

There is also another noob who is asking me where (specifically) are my caches. They have two finds and their account email has not been validated.

 

It doesn't seem fair that Groundspeak allows someone to email me or question me about my caches if they can't bother to complete the registration process.

 

Sorry, just had to vent.

Are they actually using email, or sending messages through the Message Center, with copies to your email?

We were told initially that those kids with unvalidated accounts, and "never" of last visit on site would be able to be contacted through the message center.

On each cache page (near your name) is, "message this owner".

- It's a direct link to the message center, what most of these new kids seem to use.

[+The A-Team]

On each cache page (near your name) is, "message this owner".

It's a direct link to the message center, what most of these new kids seem to use.

It's also the only communication method available through the free Geocaching® app, which is likely what bored youth will be using.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I get annoyed at the spam from oakcoins and geoswag where the e-mail address to block changes every time. I am not interested in their spam. I learned at work that e-mail addresses ending in abcd.efgh.net can be blocked by putting what comes after the . as the spam address. In this case .efgh.net. Because the next spam spew will change to 1265.efgh.net.

[+Pond Bird]

How come they don't have to validate their emails and WE do? I would complain to Groundspeak too.

[+DarkZen]

Thanks for the replies. I think I will contact GS. In response to a question up thread, yes it was a message and not an email only but I feel my complaint is valid. Some kid gets an account with the the apparent sole reason of messing with people (since my OP I've discovered another cacher in the are they are targeting - using the same language).

 

They still have no finds or hides logged. I'm not planning on dying on this hill or fighting city hall but it doesn't seem right to be able to sign up, look for caches, log finds and have access to contact members without validating their own account.

[+kunarion]

it doesn't seem right to be able to sign up, look for caches, log finds and have access to contact members without validating their own account.

Sure it does. The Company merely wants to "validate" that the user is a person (not just a computer). It simply provides a built-in way for web sites to send ads to you, oh, and it may reduce Spam. It also helps the site send you email for legitimate purposes, where the App has messaging built-in, no validation required. Validation is in no way designed to prevent you from getting bad emails, and you know this because you can see the same thing with "validated" Internet users everywhere on the Internet. Since the App users need a phone with access to download the App, they have accounts already, even data subscriptions. They are as validated as they need to be for the purpose of the site. They are validated better than any Geocaching "validated" user is, since you can "validate" with a throw-away email address. You can't load the App with a throw-away email address.

 

If "verify everyone" was in place, the exact same person in the OP may "validate" a throw-away email address, then do exactly what he is doing now. Then these threads will be about "even more and better validating!".

Edited May 2, 2016 by kunarion

[+narcissa]

This site doesn't have good mechanisms for blocking unwanted contact from poorly-behaved users, but they do tend to be pretty responsive to complaints.

[+T0SHEA]

The "Send Email" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user: jward199

 

jward199 logged 75 caches and has 11 trackables all since June/July 2013.

 

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

 

I wondered the same thing: How is this possible? Using an app; caches are located, logged and if they actually go there take the trackable to never to be contacted again.

[+Manville Possum]

Why don't you just block them in the Message Center and turn off the email notification?

 

The spammy stuff I would report.

 

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

[+The A-Team]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

[+Manville Possum]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

 

NVM's are welcome to contact Groundspeak and ask that their logs be reinstated, but for me as a cache hider my listings are only for validated members that actually sign the physical log. Like it or not, it's my listings.

[+hzoi]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

 

I also don't see how this is allowable. If they appeal their log deletions, someone might be looking at a vacation, and it's not the non-validated users.

[+Manville Possum]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

 

I also don't see how this is allowable. If they appeal their log deletions, someone might be looking at a vacation, and it's not the non-validated users.

 

When I am forced to allow NVM's that don't sign the physical log or validate their email address then I will archive my listings myself and go play Pokemon GO.

[Keystone]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

 

I also don't see how this is allowable. If they appeal their log deletions, someone might be looking at a vacation, and it's not the non-validated users.

 

When I am forced to allow NVM's that don't sign the physical log or validate their email address then I will archive my listings myself and go play Pokemon GO.

That isn't what you said earlier.

 

Deleting ANY member's log (non-validated, basic, premium, charter, platinum...) is within a cache owner's rights if the user has not signed the physical log. Deleting a non-validated account's online log where they did in fact sign the physical log is wrong, assuming that the online log did not violate the terms of use (no potty language, etc.).

[+wmpastor]

We delete ALL non-validated user logs from our caches.

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

How very welcoming of you.

 

It should be pointed out that not only is this in violation of the guidelines (it would be an ALR), but it's a very poor way to welcome a new user to the game. The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed. I fail to see how taking out your frustration on the user is going to help anyone when it's Groundspeak that needs to make a change (ie. enforce email validation).

 

I also don't see how this is allowable. If they appeal their log deletions, someone might be looking at a vacation, and it's not the non-validated users.

 

When I am forced to allow NVM's that don't sign the physical log or validate their email address then I will archive my listings myself and go play Pokemon GO.

 

Somehow earlier i missed that there was also a failure to sign the log. Was that mentioned earlier??

[+Manville Possum]

The user isn't doing anything wrong; they're using the site and apps as they're designed.

 

Actually, there is a link on the app that says please validate your email address, which should be required to log a geocache online.

 

I don't have problems myself with the NVM's and my listings because of the PMO status. That seems to have weeded out the NVM's.

[+kunarion]

Actually, there is a link on the app that says please validate your email address, which should be required to log a geocache online.

Email verification is required to log a cache from a web browser. An App user is already validated eight ways to Sunday, by using an App. You can't download (therefore can't use) any App without first verifying a whole lotta things about yourself, and that often includes paying for phone data and other proof of not being a bot, that better identifies people than using a one-time throw-away email address to be "verified" on the web site. While either can of course send Spam (til blocked), App users are more verified than web users.

Edited July 26, 2016 by kunarion

[+cheech gang]

 

I don't have problems myself with the NVM's and my listings because of the PMO status. That seems to have weeded out the NVM's.

 

That doesn't quite square with your comment that you delete non validated user finds.

[+wmpastor]

 

I don't have problems myself with the NVM's and my listings because of the PMO status. That seems to have weeded out the NVM's.

 

That doesn't quite square with your comment that you delete non validated user finds.

 

MP has been adequately chided for that remark several times, and may have back-pedaled. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say maybe that *was* the policy, but using it has been unnecessary because of the PMO thing. And any deletions were and are supported by failure to sign the log.

 

If that's the scenario, then all is well, I think.

[+wmpastor]

Actually, there is a link on the app that says please validate your email address, which should be required to log a geocache online.

Email verification is required to log a cache from a web browser. App user is already validated eight ways to Sunday, by using an App. You can't download (therefore can't use) any App without first verifying a whole lotta things about yourself, and that often includes paying for phone data and other proof of not being a bot, that better identifies people than using a one-time throw-away email address to be "verified" on the web site. While either can of course send Spam (til blocked), App users are more verified than web users.

 

Interesting point - so the image of scofflaw, fly-by-night app users is a myth, huh?!

[+DarkZen]

1469495578[/url]' post='5599211']

1469492485[/url]' post='5599200']

Actually, there is a link on the app that says please validate your email address, which should be required to log a geocache online.

Email verification is required to log a cache from a web browser. An App user is already validated eight ways to Sunday, by using an App. You can't download (therefore can't use) any App without first verifying a whole lotta things about yourself, and that often includes paying for phone data and other proof of not being a bot, that better identifies people than using a one-time throw-away email address to be "verified" on the web site. While either can of course send Spam (til blocked), App users are more verified than web users.

Disagree. You are making a technical distinction between IT issues and what the rest of us feel is more the "soul" of the sport. Sure, by downloading the app you could be technically be considered verified. But it's clear that Groundspeak wants new users to officially verify their accounts online - it says so right on the app. And sure, I'll grant you that GS uses its website to promote and monetize... they have to to fund the site. I don't begrudge them that. It's their site, they can run it how they wish.

 

But none of that changes how us end users perceive their experience when dealing with new app users who don't care to play with integrity. The trolls who prompted this thread kept taunting me despite my attempts to help them join in.

In contrast, yesterday I had another new user message me and and ask for a specific hint for one of my caches. He had no finds and was not a validated user. I wrote back and and explained that the hint should be adiquate. I further explained that I didn't normally give additional hints to NVMs and asked, why not validate? He did, and continued to find that and more caches.

In my opinion, if someone is serious about this game they will do what is expected and required of them. It's just a sign of respect. I'm sure there are some but I bet there aren't many NVMs with over a hundred finds. And that's really the problem in my opinion, it's not the NVMs with thousands of finds who bother me (not that they actually exist) it's the jerks who insist on trolling me who have NO finds... maybe 1 at the most.

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by DarkZen

[+Manville Possum]

 

I don't have problems myself with the NVM's and my listings because of the PMO status. That seems to have weeded out the NVM's.

 

That doesn't quite square with your comment that you delete non validated user finds.

 

MP has been adequately chided for that remark several times, and may have back-pedaled. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say maybe that *was* the policy, but using it has been unnecessary because of the PMO thing. And any deletions were and are supported by failure to sign the log.

 

If that's the scenario, then all is well, I think.

 

I can say that it appears to me NVM's are actually supported more here than I thought, but as a cache owner I'm still using my own judgement when it comes to deleting logs posted online for my listings. My caches are not beginner rated, many have PI, thorns and other things that you won't find under a lamp skirt in a Walmart parking lot. If I delete a legitimate log where a NVM has actually signed my physical log and not left their own "replacement" log then they are welcome to contact Groundspeak with their proof of visit to my geocache and they can repost their log, but until then I will police my own geocache listings. My policy has not changed, but I will say that I do not auto delete ALL NVM logs like the other person stated that they did. I'm just special and everyone piled on me here in the forum, but I was not first to comment on deleting NVM logs.

[+The A-Team]

...I will say that I do not auto delete ALL NVM logs like the other person stated that they did. I'm just special and everyone piled on me here in the forum, but I was not first to comment on deleting NVM logs.

Nice try.

 

...

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

I wouldn't say we piled on, it's just that you were the only one of the two that responded, so we had a discussion about your policy. I think we've made it sufficiently clear by now that your policy does not mesh with Groundspeak's policies, so if you're happy with continuing in this fashion with the knowledge that you're violating policy and could suffer some consequences as a result, that's fine by me. Personally, I'll just continue treating NVMs as what they are: members.

[+Manville Possum]

...I will say that I do not auto delete ALL NVM logs like the other person stated that they did. I'm just special and everyone piled on me here in the forum, but I was not first to comment on deleting NVM logs.

Nice try.

 

...

I also delete all logs from NVM's.

I wouldn't say we piled on, it's just that you were the only one of the two that responded, so we had a discussion about your policy. I think we've made it sufficiently clear by now that your policy does not mesh with Groundspeak's policies, so if you're happy with continuing in this fashion with the knowledge that you're violating policy and could suffer some consequences as a result, that's fine by me. Personally, I'll just continue treating NVMs as what they are: members.

 

It's members like you that make me want to archive my listings and quit. I can stand a few NVM's and their blank logs that only draw a smiley face on my log book, and I don't delete the little kids logs for no reason. It's the grown up adults and the bitter people like you here in the forums that just want to post junk and flame other members and suggest that they need banned because they police their listings differently.

 

No NVM's have posted here or complained about me, it's mostly just you, a fellow Waymarker. That's what's wrong with the Waymarking site, it's a group of elitists that can't get along. I hope Groundspeak pulls the plug on that site and fixes the problems here on this site such as the message center and the phone app.

 

Have a nice night.

[+lumbricus]

...No NVM's have posted here or complained about me, it's mostly just you, a fellow Waymarker. That's what's wrong with the Waymarking site, it's a group of elitists that can't get along. I hope Groundspeak pulls the plug on that site and fixes the problems here on this site such as the message center and the phone app...

Please stop with your negative talking about Waymarking, it's getting on my nerves.

 

It would never come to my mind to delete the online log if the member (no matter which type of member) found the cache.

[+Manville Possum]

...No NVM's have posted here or complained about me, it's mostly just you, a fellow Waymarker. That's what's wrong with the Waymarking site, it's a group of elitists that can't get along. I hope Groundspeak pulls the plug on that site and fixes the problems here on this site such as the message center and the phone app...

Please stop with your negative talking about Waymarking, it's getting on my nerves.

 

It would never come to my mind to delete the online log if the member (no matter which type of member) found the cache.

 

I agree, if the log is signed it is valid. Validated member or not. I'm not accepting WM visits that don't meet the requirements.

 

Another thing that I'm not doing is renewing my membership as long as it is supporting the Waymarking site because of the bitterness from other Waymarkers in the forums.

 

I'm sure that most geocachers would like to see their membership fees support geocaching and not Waymarking. Too much here on this site needs work, and it should be funded and not a site that we have already been told it's not going to be fixed, and many features there are broken too.

 

Let's focus on who pays the bills, and not the UVM's.

[+hzoi]

...No NVM's have posted here or complained about me, it's mostly just you, a fellow Waymarker. That's what's wrong with the Waymarking site, it's a group of elitists that can't get along. I hope Groundspeak pulls the plug on that site and fixes the problems here on this site such as the message center and the phone app...

Please stop with your negative talking about Waymarking, it's getting on my nerves.

 

It would never come to my mind to delete the online log if the member (no matter which type of member) found the cache.

 

I agree, if the log is signed it is valid. Validated member or not. I'm not accepting WM visits that don't meet the requirements.

 

Another thing that I'm not doing is renewing my membership as long as it is supporting the Waymarking site because of the bitterness from other Waymarkers in the forums.

 

I'm sure that most geocachers would like to see their membership fees support geocaching and not Waymarking. Too much here on this site needs work, and it should be funded and not a site that we have already been told it's not going to be fixed, and many features there are broken too.

 

Let's focus on who pays the bills, and not the UVM's.

 

I wonder how much the Waymarking and Wherigo sites cost to just maintain. I'm not aware of any new developments to either in the last few years, so I doubt much programming support has been required.

 

On another note, when did you drop "Hunters" from your name? Did you stop hunting? (Are the possums in control now?)

[+The A-Team]

I can stand a few NVM's and their blank logs that only draw a smiley face on my log book, and I don't delete the little kids logs for no reason. It's the grown up adults and the bitter people like you here in the forums that just want to post junk and flame other members and suggest that they need banned because they police their listings differently.

1. Myself and the others posting here were only commenting on what you yourself posted. No posting of junk and no flaming. You've since clarified that you don't actually delete all NVM logs as originally stated, so I don't think there's really a problem anymore. You may want to consider making your stance more clear right from the start in the future.

2. I never suggested that anyone be banned. I only pointed out that by knowingly going against the wishes of Groundspeak, you could be opening yourself up to some kind of consequences. That could take the form of a ban, but it could also be a simple warning (which would be the most likely first step). Anyway, after your clarification, it seems unlikely that anything like this would happen.

 

Sorry if I've pushed you towards quitting geocaching. I was only responding to what I saw as something that would be harmful to the game, but it turns out it was all a misunderstanding.