Avernar

Looks like you haven't read any of my posts in here. Just because it fits the pattern of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be listed as a multicache. A bunch of traditionals with a bonus also fits the patter of a multicache where all the stages have visible coordinates. As a reviewer you should know the Unknown/Mystery/Puzzle category is a catch all type. A cache can by listed as an Unknown at the CO discretion if they feel something warrants it. It's even been suggested in these forums to list caches as an Unknown for the sole purpose of getting people to read the listing. The same can be said for the bunch of traditionals and a bonus. Why do they need to be seperate caches. Acording to you nobody reads the listings. Just list them all as an "Additional Waypoint" of a Multi. Except now I have to pour through a humongous listing to find the relevant section I'm working on. Assuming it all fits on a single listing. Since Team Goju's series is geographically diverse, I will have to force the multi to load on my GPSr if I'm far away from the posted coordinates. Even with it loaded, finding it on the GPSr will be difficult as it won't show up near the top of the list.

Nope. I'm surprised you can't see it. There's a daisy chain (bonus in a bonus) structure in that series. It's basically a four cache daisy chain except the second and third "bonus" caches have been split into more that one cache. So what's the rule now? "You can't have the coordinates of one bonus in another bonus, except when the first bonus is really two or more caches"

Which to many people means the rule is in the guidelines and an explanation of the rule with details is in the knowlege books. Rules should not be in the knowledge books and missing in the guidelines when you ask people to agree to the "guidelines". Irrelevant. The cache listing page asks if I've read and understand the guidelines. I have no need of following a zillion links to the knowledge books if I believe I understand the guidelines. Not only that but the links between sections are not the greatest. For example I can easily get to the 2.2 section which defines the cache types but I can't seem to get to the 4.13 section which restricts bonus caches. Asking someone to agree to something where it's listed in order is one thing. But asking them to agree to something that jumbled together where you can't be sure you've read every item is another. A summary that includes all the rules is what's needed. Each rule can be very brief and then link to a more detailed page. People are tired getting caught be hidden rules burred deep in the knowledge books. So put the guidelines in the same framework as the knowledge books. It doesn't have to be in a hard to update spot. No mention of bonus caches and unknown cache restrictions on that page. That just proves my point. The "everything you've agreed to" doesn't have everything. And here's the other problem. Now we're expected to agree to the knowledge books even though there's stuff in there that has nothing to do with the guidelines. What else are we agreeing to in there? Does Groundspeak own my car now? The whole guideline/knowlege book thing is a mess. What's needed is a guideline document that's a single page or multi page where you can click "next page" (none of this back and forth tree structure junk) that lists all the rules. The knowledge books should just be there for definitions, clarifications, etc.

Nope. You're twisting my example around. The second set of things are not "laws". The knowledge books are not guidelines. I nor anyone else has indicated anywhere when submitting a cache that we agreed to the knowledge books. I did no such thing. I said they're not a bonus. A continuation doesn't mean it's the same cache. Just like a sequel to a movie is not the same movie. Again, I can create a multicache where the stages can be done in any order without relying on the other caches just like a power trail. Since multicaches are in the guidelines and power trails are not therefore a power trail should be listed as a multicache. The fact remains, allowing power trails to stand as separate caches and allowing traditionals with a bonus cache to stand as separate caches while not allowing chained caches is an arbitrary decision.

MONEY!!! Guess it it about the numbers, the ones with two decimal places.

They are separate documents. They're even hosted on different domains. It doesn't matter if the guidelines have links to the knowledge books if it's only for reference. There's a difference between "See this article for more information" and "You must follow section 4.5 of the knowledge books". You're agreeing to the guidelines, nothing more. The knowledge books are more like a wiki. I even believe that different people wrote different sections. I wouldn't be surprised if that one section of the knowledge books was just one reviewers idea of what a bonus cache needs to be.

Voted. It precisely the ill conceived sorts of guidelines like this that have resulted in many of the alternative listing sites being created in the first place. When there is some rationale behind a guideline it is more likely to be accepted. Clearly trespass laws, or the concerns of a park that might fear that geocaches are sometimes buried, are strong rationale for the guidelines in these areas. A rationale to encourage geocachers to find new areas to place caches is stated as one of the goals for the saturation guidelines. We can understand that Groundspeak as a business doesn't want to have cache pages used for commercial advertising. But this rule appears to be someone saying they prefer a multi cache to a chained series of bonus caches. Guidelines that appear to be simply someone's idea of what's a better cache either are not good guidelines or the rationale hasn't been explained well enough. +1

Fixed that for you. Why can't the guidelines be organized the same way then? The other problem is that you don't have to agree to the knowledge books when listing a cache. I too would like to know the rationale behind that restriction. Since Groundspeak doesn't enforce one gc code equals one smilie the "smilie for each stage" argument is moot. The maintenance argument doesn't make sense as it also would apply to a bonus cache. What's the difference between one cache becoming unsolvable and more than one? The owner disappearing argument also doesn't make sense because what if an owner with multiple N/M caches disappears. Same thing. As I said, if this is a concern then they should implement an auto archive if the owener is MIA for X number of months. Otherwise let the community file the N/As and they'll disappear like every other abandoned cache.

As I said, listing them as unknown is not forbidden by the guidelines, or even the knowledge books. I still find this sadly funny that they're using this faulty logic to deny the listing. As I said, a traditional with a bonus fits the definition of a multicache yet they're perfectly fine. I'm really starting to get fed up with the no precedent excuse. They're using it to hide their lack of consistency. If the cache is the same a previous one and no factors have changed then they should come to the same conclusion. If they find they're coming to different conclusions from the same facts then the guidelines are ambiguous and need to be tightened up.

No, I wasn't somewhat different. Is was succinct. I was hoping Team Goju would eventually come in here a flush out the details. I didn't want to make stuff up that I wasn't sure of. The maintenance thing is bull puckey. If a other cachers are allowed to maintain hundreds and thousands of caches, using it as an excuse to not publish a couple of dozen is just wrong.

This is what bothers me the most. They don't even know why they really want to deny the series. Maintenance issues? Seriously? After thousand cache power trails are not a maintenance issue but this is? And the CO agreed to maintain the caches when submitting them. Are they now calling him a liar? You mean interpretation of the knowledge books. You know. That document you didn't have to agree with when submitting your caches. The one that says you shouldn't do it and not you can't do it. The interpretation problem is that they're considering the other caches as "Bonus" caches. They are clearly not bonus caches in any sense of the word.

That was my doppelganger. I didn't realize I did use the word standard. My mistake. A reference to a weakly worded sentence in the knowledge books. A document to which hiders are not required to agree to. Clear as mud.

DanOCan, thank you for this succinct explanation. The relevant primary guideline violation is "the owner selected the wrong cache type." I can think of many examples where I've corrected the owner's choice of cache type. Sorry Keystone, but the succinct explanation still has a logic error. As I explained because that matches the definition of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be one. Just as a series of traditionals with a bonus falls under the definition of a multicache. If it's not in the guidelines section then it's not a guideline. When people click on that checkbox to say they agreed to the guidelines they've agreed to the guidelines document, not the knowledge books document. That's like you agreeing to abide by your states/province traffic laws and the police charging you based on some text from some non law book in the library. The problem I'm seeing with people getting fed up with the review process is that the information is scattered all over the place. Some of it in the knowlege books, some of it not published. If it's going to block people from publishing it should be in the guidlines, not the knowlege books. Now it looks like there's going to be a discussion about the semantics of "should not". Should not doesn't mean can't. Nor is there a definition of "Bonus Cache" in there. I define Bonus as "you did the main part, he're an extra" not "this is a continuation of the main part". I hardly consider what's in there detailed. And the language is defiantly soft (should instead of can't). Regardless of the above rant, I still want to know "why". Why are series like this forced to be a multicache whereas power trails are not?

Are we going to have another semantics lesson; this time over the meaning of the word most? Looks like it. I think when people see the word "most" they subconsciously substitute the word "all".

Because that's one of the two documents they ask you to agree to when listing a cache: As long as you have to visit each stage to find the info for the final then that's the point. Visiting the stages sequentially or randomly doesn't change the nature of a multi stage cache. How could you go to the hidden final without getting the info from the other stages? Same things as a sequential multi. You can somehow "cheat" and get the info from a friend I suppose, but that applies to both sequential and random types. Thank you for quoting that. It just reinforces my argument.

You haven't heard of that setup? I have. So have many others. Funny how the tables have turned. Usually doesn't mean always. The posted coords are usually one of the stages although I've seen them being the parking coordinates on a few occasions. The other stages are listed in the description and are non-hidden additional waypoints. The most common non sequential multicache setup is a three stage with the first two stages visible. One stage contains the north coords of the final while the other contains the west coords of the final. Definition of a multi: A cache with more than one stage. Pretty simple huh? No mention of having to be sequential. No mention of which stages must be hidden. Heck, I've seen a multi with more than one final even. The definition of a multi is definitely being confused. People are making up their own additions to the basic definition. Here's the guideline again: Where does it say it has to be sequential?

A multicache can be a sequential series of stages. It can also be a bunch of random stages and a final. Both ways of doing it are in the guidelines which I quoted above. Yet I don't see caches with a bonus being forced into being a multi.

Reread the quidelines. That is a multi as well. Not by the way the guidelines are written. Nothing in the guidelines says that the stages of the multi must be in order. And they explicitly say the stages need not be hidden. You people really should read the guidelines before trying to beat me over the head with them.

There's a couple of logical flaws to that. First, just because that kind of setup can be a multi doesn't mean it can not be. We're allowed to use the unknown type if we think that something is not quite like the existing types. There are many traditional type caches hidden as unknowns. Second, since you like quoting guidelines: Notice the wording? Starts of saying that the stages will be visible and can optionally be hidden. Hmmm. A multi with all stages visible and a hidden final. That sounds familiar. Oh, wait. A bunch of traditionals with a bonus sounds exactly like that! So I guess they expect a bunch of traditionals with a bonus to be listed as a multi then? And, since you obviously missed it, they weren't asking for it to be a multi but a bunch changed to a bunch of traditionals so your argument that they want it a multi is flawed from the beginning.

I never called it a "standard cache series" and it's not the topic so why does it matter if one, two or three other variants exists? The original CO may show up here. And I don't want it limited between the original CO and Groundspeak because it affects me and others as well.

I see it the same way. I have a series like the one you described Ace. That's not a series. It's a bunch of caches with a bonus. A series is where you do the caches in order, not randomly. If you wish to call this other type of setup a series, go ahead, but it's not the topic of this thread.

That's why I'm so mad about this hidden guideline. I was starting work on a series and would be very upset if all my work was for nothing when I learned about this guideline at publishing time. Fortunately I found out about it when my friend was declined. Unfortunately he wasted a lot of time, money and effort on his series.

Again, why does it matter that you haven't seen that particular type of series before? I never heard of a Fizzy challenge until one showed up in my area. And that was because it was copied from somewhere else. Why not. You suggesting Groudndspeak will refuse to comment?

No. That's the flaw in your logic. The other caches can still be found for several reasons: 1) Someone who has already found stage 3 can keep going. 2) Someone can ask someone who found stage 3 for the coords for stage 4. 3) The CO can change the page for 3 or 4 to show the coords to 4 before vanishing. Just like it will take several NA logs to clear out all their other caches. That's how the system works. If Groundspeak wants to change that they can very easily put in an auto archive if the CO doesn't log in every 3 months. They've refused to do so, therefore this is not an issue. So by your logic there, all power trails need to be a multi. If the CO goes missing the reviewers have to archive hundreds or even thousands of caches. You need to reread your argument to see how silly it sounds: Reviewer: I'm sorry, you can't publish these 30 traditionals because if you dissapear I'll have to waste my time archiving them all. CO: Wha? The CO has clicked the checkbox agreeing to the maintenance of his caches. Groundspeak should treat him the same way as if he were going to maintain a power trail or any other group of caches. Otherwise they're applying a double standard and basically calling him a liar.