Author Topic: Automated proximity detection?  (Read 5728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

brewsterjuice

  • Guest
Automated proximity detection?
« on: February 25, 2015, 08:06:05 »
Each time I create a cache now I always submit it first without most of the data included just to find out whether I am wasting my time thinking about that location. I do check whether traditionals etc are outside 161M but of course unknowns and multis could (and usually are!) encroaching. Then a couple of days later a reviewer gives me the yes or no for the location.

Question - why can't this be automated to give the poor reviewers a break? e.g. you could have an option on cache submission which says 'Automated proximity check only' and then within a set period you get a response back. I can see why you wouldn't want it to respond immediately since then you could brute force some cache locations but what about responding in 24 or 48 hours?

Bruce/Brewsterjuice

royfran

  • Full Time Cacher
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
Re: Automated proximity detection?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2015, 08:55:09 »
Question - why can't this be automated to give the poor reviewers a break? e.g. you could have an option on cache submission which says 'Automated proximity check only' and then within a set period you get a response back. I can see why you wouldn't want it to respond immediately since then you could brute force some cache locations but what about responding in 24 or 48 hours?
If there was a "Like" button, I'd be clicking it right now!  I second that motion and, as you point out, by delaying the response a bit instead of making it instantaneous, you greatly reduce the risk of some cheater using this functionality to brute-force that nearby pesky puzzle cache.

Xira

  • Full Time Cacher
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Automated proximity detection?
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2015, 11:50:11 »
What a great idea!

brewsterjuice

  • Guest
Re: Automated proximity detection?
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2015, 11:45:58 »

Thanks to whynotpinotte for forwarding this idea onto Groundspeak HQ!  I look forward to using this in the future.  ;D

Brewsterjuice/Bruce




You have just been sent a personal message by Whynotpinotte on Canada's Capital Cachers / Cacheurs de la capitale du Canada.

IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.

The message they sent you was:

Hi Bruce,
Great idea you proposed. I relayed it to Groundspeak HQ public relation lady I met in Seattle 2 weeks ago and here's her reaction:

Quote
Hi JF!

Thank you so much for sending this over to us - it's funny. I passed it on to our CVS (Community Volunteer Support Team) and they said they got this same exact suggestion yesterday from someone in China! I know this won't make it in the updates we have this year but they thought it was a great idea and are considering something like this for the next large round of updates!

Please keep sending us your awesome ideas.. or the ideas of others! :)

Cheers!
--

Holly Ann Walker
Guest Experience Coordinator
hollywollyoxenfree





On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Jean-François Roman <> wrote:
Hi Holly,

When I visited HQ 2 weeks ago, Abby or you mentioned you were always looking for suggestions to improve geocaching tools. Here's one idea that was proposed in our local forums that might be of interest for your team:


Automated proximity detection?
« on: Today at 08:06:05 »

Each time I create a cache now I always submit it first without most of the data included just to find out whether I am wasting my time thinking about that location. I do check whether traditionals etc are outside 161M but of course unknowns and multis could (and usually are!) encroaching. Then a couple of days later a reviewer gives me the yes or no for the location.

Question - why can't this be automated to give the poor reviewers a break? e.g. you could have an option on cache submission which says 'Automated proximity check only' and then within a set period you get a response back. I can see why you wouldn't want it to respond immediately since then you could brute force some cache locations but what about responding in 24 or 48 hours?



Hopefully, we'll see that feature or its cousin sometimes in 2016!

Jeff