Avernar

That's what I'm trying to figure out. From what my friend told me it wasn't a guideline violation. So are power trails. Ah the P word. Was waiting for that. Power trails are much worse than that. Most could be a single multi. I can assure you that this series was not created for the smiley count. It's a very difficult series with stages considerably geographically separated. Our area is non-multi log. One cache was like that and I even noticed people deleting their multiple logs eventually. As I said, it's not about the smiles. The theme of the series requires you to "advance" from one stage to the next. Why don't I just show you, the first cache has been published: Goju Ryu: White Belt Actually, I made one mistake. The first cache is also an Unknown/Puzzle as it requires you to solve a puzzle first. Doesn't change anything though. Exactly!

Here's a bunch which I've complete or working on: Bruce Almighty Away Mission/Species 448788 Both are amazing series and would be lessened if they were forced to be traditionals.

Almost forgot. There's an excellent series here called Bruce Almighty. I've been working on the series for years, grabbing a cache every now and then. The first cache has recently been archived. I'm glad they rest haven't been auto archived by a reviewer as I can still finish the series. Eventually the CO, not the reviewer will archive the rest once the others stop getting visitors and/or he's satisfied that people had a chance to complete the series.

There's a logic error in your statement. You're linking the fact they don't care about the numbers as justification for the other reasons they want it a multi. Which brings me to the second problem in your statement. They wanted him to turn all the Unknowns into Traditionals, not one multi. Same number of caches, same number of listings, same maintenance issues. Care to back up that claim with some facts? If that were true then they should force everyone putting out a bunch of themed set of traditionals to list them all as a multi. The two reasons I've heared from COs as to why they put out a multi were: 1) Get around the proximty rule 2) Try to get the finder to follow a specific path. No. This has come up before. The reviewer should NOT go through the other caches figuring things out. That makes them the owner of the cache and Groundspeak has maintained that they're a listing service to avoid being sued. If a CO goes missing the reviewers do not go out and archive all their traditionals. They let the users file a NA and then archive the caches. So until Groundspeak puts in the guidelines that if when a CO goes "missing" all their caches get archived, this argument is false. That's the problem with the guidelines. Groundspeak refuses to put in all the details. In fact, Unknown caches are called puzzle caches in the guidelines. The Unknown puzzle type is a catch all type. If your cache doesn't quite fit the other categories it should be listed as an Unknown. Take a traditional cache with a complicated lock on it. It's clearly a traditional but most people would list it as an Unknown as they're a special case here. From what he told me it would be and amazing series. I hope Groundspeak doesn't ruin it.

So why isn't it against the guidelines? They don't place any restrictions on where the coordinates for the Unknown/Puzzle come from other that how to find them must be on the cache page. A mystery cache that tells you to go to a sign and get some numbers would also not be allowed. That sign isn't permanent and can be taken down or changed any time by a third party. With a series, the CO gets to control where the coordinates are and can prevent missing information like this. So then that series shouldn't be allowed either then. If one traditional cache goes missing then all the other mystery caches can't be found. It's the exact same thing. I've never seen your type of series in my area or any other that I've visited so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed either? The frog has been know to be swayed by public opinion in the past. As for precedence, you'll notice I didn't post examples of past caches in my original post. All I asked where why they aren't allowed anymore. Cache permanence and missing stages? No different than a multi. I too would like to know the rest of the story but Groundspeak has never mentioned anything about this. Making it a multi would not solve anything other than getting around Groundspeak's arbitrary decision. It would suffer all the same problems as a series. In fact it would be worse. The listing would be huge and might even hit the limit on size. If a stage goes missing then the entire serise would get disabled instead of just the stage that has the problem. In my friends case these caches would take most of a day or even multiple days to complete. If the multi were disabled because stage 6 is misisng that would keep people from starting even though they have 5 days or more of work to do to get to stage 6 even. And what if the final goes missing permanently, now someone who has done weeks of work and travel has absolutely nothing to show for it. I'm not bringing up past caches as examples. I want to know why it's not allowed now. Especially since it does not violate the guidelines in any way, shape or form.

No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method. Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score. Oh I know they're out there. However, it wSmy understanding that GC wants them either separate Traditionals or a multi. They may have been allowed in the very early 2000's however. Huh? You said they've never been allowed but you know they're out there. Can't be both. There are two series in SW Ontario that have been published in 2006 and 2007 so it's not an ancient thing like you say. The mystery caches have a link to the first cache in the series so spending 2 seconds clicking on a link is hardly confusing or having to backtrack. You know exactly what the first cache is. And the name of the series usually indicates it's a series. An attribute for this has also been requested. I don't by the database maintenance argument. This is no different from a CO failing to disable any other cache type. There's already a mechanism in place for missing COs, the needs archive log. If I see a series I can't complete because previous stages are missing I'll NA them. So? Groundspeak doesn't care how many similes one gets. Until they disallow multiple found logs on a cache this argument is moot. I've seen several multis where the CO asked people to log a found for each stage and Groundspeak never shut this down. Yes, so there's nothing wrong with the concept of having the coordinates for one stage in a previous stage. But there comes a time where a multi is so complex that it makes sense to break it down into individual listings. So that final bonus should not be allowed either based on the arguments in this thread. If any of the traditionals go missing then the bonus becomes unfindable. All the maintenance, archival and database "problems" mentioned here also apply to bonus caches. I don't really care if you or anyone else hasn't seen this type of thing. I haven't seen many other types of caches setups out in the world and that's no reason to disallow something. If that's the only difference then a series should be allowed. I've already mentioned that Groundspeak doesn't care about the find count as the allow multi logs on events and even stages of a multi. Again, that's a maintenance issue not a listing issue. If the CO is on top of things like they agreed to then this is not an issue. My friend even told them that if anything goes missing he'll temporarily put in the coords to the next stage until he fixes the missing cache. Standard in what way? Neither type is disallowed or endorsed by the guidelines. I've already wrote that the bonus cache would suffer all the "problems" mentioned here by the others.

No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method. Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score.

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series. The reviewers refused to publish any of the unknown caches and appeals has told him to just turn them into traditional caches. I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

Not a mailbox, a newspaper box. Newspaper boxes are exactly like geocaches. They're owned by someone, left unattended in public places, and there's a request that you trade 50 cents for one newspaper.

Newspaper boxes are left unattended in public places. By your logic I can put in my 50 cents to open it then take all the papers because "it is pretty much public property".

By us. We can't use a past example to sway a reviewers decision. You need to reread what you wrote and see how silly it is. You want the reviewers not to look a past rulings and always decide things on a case by case basis? If they did that then people would be crying that the reviewers were inconsistent. What are you talking about? A vendor and customer are not peers. The vendor gets to make the rules on what goes on in their store. A store can sell an item for whatever reason at a discounted price to one person and it doesn't mean the next person can force them to sell one to them at the same price. They don't have to do anything. It's their web site and their rules/guidelines. They can say it was a full moon yesterday as the justification for their decision and it won't affect the decision one bit. How they arrived at that decision is irrelevant to getting the decision changed.

Yep. But that's not the case here. No precedent. I think you're unclear on the no precedent concept. It only applies to us when we're trying to influence a reviewer's decision. We can't point to a past decision and tell them they have to rule the same way. The reviewers can choose to rule a certain way on an unclear guideline and then always rule that way from then on. If you want to call that a precedent then that's fine but it's not a binding precedent. They can choose to make an exception or they can choose to be consistent. The no adoption after an archive rule is not an unclear or ambiguous guideline. I'd even consider it a rule. The fact that they've always followed that rule with no exceptions means precedent has nothing to do with it. They're doing what Groundspeak explicitly told them to do.

You're not helping that goal very much. So you're allowed to be off topic but we're not? Again, this is an open forum which means other people will present stuff that they consider relevant to the conversation even if you don't. Seems to me you should have posted this to a blog if you wanted to keep things one sided. You're trying to act as a referee here while also being a participant. Just imagine a hockey game where the referee was one of the players. The other team would quickly start to get very frustrated at the very least. Some friendly advice, if you do want to cut a side topic short try to do so without getting the last word in. Otherwise you'll end up doing the opposite. As I said, you're either the referee or a player. If you're serious about keeping this mature, reasonable, and informative then ignore all my comments above and just focus on the following: Yes, there is a lot of inconsistency with the reviewers decisions sometimes but they are volunteers and not soldiers in an army. You can't fault the reviewers for making a decision and standing by it. If you think they were wrong then you have the option of going to appeals. Now if appeals is not consistent with their decisions you have the right to be annoyed. How is picking and choosing which precedent to follow any different from not following a precedent at all and making a decision based on the current situation? To an outside observer they would be indistinguishable. Let's take precedent out of the picture and look at it based on the current situation. The CO basically gave Groundspeak and the reviewers the finger by geociding with the message "I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site." Then he made a mistake about the adoption procedures and came crawling back asking for a favour. Now if I was the reviewer, after that slap in the face I'm not going to stick my neck out for him and go against company policy regarding adoption and unarchive the cache. I'd be professional about it and inform him of the policy and tell him that he can go to appeals and have them fix it. I'm not saying this is what the reviewers were thinking as I'm not a mind reader. They've collectively made a decision and gave a way for it to be possibly reversed. Now it's up to someone to get the ball rolling and start the procedure.

Exactly. So the container doesn't matter then to the challenge aspect. Therefore you can substitute any other 5/5 cache to replace the missing stat you were going to get from this cache. Which is my point. Not once did "A final container is necessary because you need to get a +1 on your D/T matrix" ever came up. Sorry, you don't get to make up the rules in this forum. I can bring any past precedent, other debates, etc, into my argument that I want as long as it's supporting my argument. As the OP, the fact that you acknowledged my argument and presented a counter point solidifies my opinion that it part of the topic. I'm getting really tired of your debating style of presenting a counter point then telling me I can't reply for whatever reason. You can do three things here: 1) Reply to things in my argument which I will reply back. 2) Ignore things in my argument. 3) Close the thread. Your choice but as long as you keep picking option 1 you have no right to tell me to keep quiet.

Then why did you bring it up if you don't want it answered? To make a point while trying to suppress a counter argument? They'd probably be happy they completed the challenge. While I agree it might be a little anticlimactic it's not going to affect their decision weather or not to continue pursuing the challenge to completion. You missed the point. It's the other way around. Those people who were defending the final container never mentioned anything about the D/T of the final container.

Oh the irony!

Find that thread in the Geocaching Topics forum where people were arguing that the entire final container for a challenge cache doesn't matter and should be abolished. The D/T rating of the cache never once came up in that debate. None of my friends has ever said this was a factor. The people in this thread have said this is not a factor. None of the people beta testing my challenge cache calculator program have ever requested I prioritize the challenges by D/T. I'm not saying there's no one else who thinks the D/T is a major factor, I'm saying nobody else has said stepped up and said so.

Never said it didn't make sense. You prefer it was a 5/5. I have nothing against that. I disagree with you saying it's not a replacement if it wasn't a 5/5. So the 5/5 thing is about your satisfaction? That's not a very persuasive argument. D/T matters: thebruce0 D/T doesn't matter: Keith Watson, Dr House, Tequila, Northernpenguin, Avernar 5 to 1 there so far. That doesn't seem the consensus here. That's a subjective argument; while some may, others may not. There have been comments even just in this thread (though I can also say that I've also had plenty of personal feedback and support for the position of adoption) that don't see why unarchival and adoption is an issue, and that logging a replacement cache is not the same. This I would like to see here. I'd like whoever else wouldn't be happy with a replacement that wasn't 5/5 to speak up. +1's are standard forum shorthand for I agree fully with what they said. You telling us to grow up is calling us immature. After you going on a rant about attacks I find this amusing.

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority. What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would. I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts. +1 I am really starting to feel sorry for the residents of hell who are no use to all this freezing weather, but: +2 +3 The shipment of industrial snow blowers has just cleared customs.

You're the only one who has told me you pick challenges base on D/T, so that's a correct statement. Yes, people choose caches for their ratings all the time but it's not the top deciding factor for picking a challenge cache. I believe for most people it's not a deciding factor at all. Especially since most challenges have an artificial 5 as their terrain rating (which is a whole other debate). I will agree that this is a rare challenge cache in which the terrain actually can be considered a true 5 (weather canoe caches are really a 5 is yet another debate). Having a proper 5/5 in the stats would be a nice to have but would not prevent me from doing a challenge if it wasn't a 5/5. Therefore it's not a factor. As others have pointed out a replacement in the spot would also be a 5/5 so it's not a reason why the original must be unarchived. You seem to ignore this point choosing to reply with "echo" instead. I'm with Keith here, this confuses me. You're saying that the D/T rating is the least important point for adoption but the most important point for relisting. If that's your criteria then I'll adopt the cache and drop the rating to 5/4.5 as I don't consider a canoe special equipment as it's way to easy to borrow/rent one. This would satisfy your argument then. Oh, nice. "I don't agree with your opinion or how you argue your point so please shut up". I am not attacking you and I'm not happy you're implying I am. An I'm not attacking why you want it unarchived. Why must everyone in the forum cry "I'm being attacked" when someone picks apart their logic/arguments. It's a public forum. This is a debate. The point of a debate is to show the flaws in your opponents arguments. It's not an attack. Now you're rephrasing my statement to make it sound like a personal attack. "I don't know anyone who thinks like you" is much more attackish than "You're in the minority with that opinion". Saying that only one person thinks something is important as opposed to many people thinking something is important is a valid argument. That's why I accept the historical argument as many share that idea. The D/T argument however, you're in the extreme minority. I did. I think it should stay archived and a new one relisted. The point of that challenge is to find a cache 365 days consecutively. I believe most people think the same and that they're mad because they've "wasted" effort trying to complete the challenge just to have it yanked away. I believe they'd be perfectly happy with a replacement regardless of the D/T or the location. The location staying the same would be nice as the canoe trip over is a nice "icing on the cake". The D/T is still irrelevant as they'd still do it if it were listed as a 5/4.5 or lower.

Wow. You're one of the only people I know that chooses challenges based on the D/T it will give you. Everyone else takes on a challenge because they're interested in the actual challenge. As Flintstone5611 wrote, there are easier ways to get that stat than taking on a challenge. No, others just want the original cache unarchived and adopted. You want the original unarchived or a replacement with the exact D/T. Except that stating you're willing to accept a replacement hurts your case for getting the original unarchived. If you're trying to sell me a car for $8000 and tell me that it has sentimental value, you put a lot of work into it, etc. and then you let me know you would settle for $5000 well guess what, all you'd get is $5000 from me for it. So? Since you're not going to relist it what's it bother you that someone else choses to do it? Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said the that the other finders can re-log the new cache with the exact same logs since the hidden date would be the same. You care about the cache? I thought you said the location didn't matter. How can you care about the cache if you're willing to abandon one of the fundamental things about a cache, it's location? Same freaking big deal as relisting it apparently. Odd that you keep writing that since you're the biggest source of the echo around here.

Looks like you presumed wrong then. The code and D/T rating is pretty much at the bottom of the list of things that make a challenge what it is. The primary thing that makes a challenge is the challenge rules. The location of the final comes second. This is a "Find a cache for 365 days consecutively" challenge. I can put on a very steep hill and rate it a 5/4.5 and it will still be the same challenge. "We" want? Looks like its "you" want. And yeah, it pretty much negates your support for unarchving when you say the location doesn't matter. New location means new listing. So on one had you're saying it needs to be unarchived to preserve the listing and on the other hand your saying it can be moved so a new listing is required. Having it at the same location solves a few other problems. It's the same container in the same spot therefore the hidden/placed date is exactly the same. Since it's the same container that's been there since the beginning and contains all the previous signature the other cachers can just relog their finds with the same date and text. The owner would be different but so would the original if it were adopted. So that just leaves the code. Big deal.

Seriously? Because that's the rating of the original cache. I'm confused here. You're arguing it should be a 5/5 because "We repeatedly mentioned identical listings" yet you don't care about the location being the same which would not make it an identical listing.

No. Check the charger that came with the Eneloops first. If it has one LED then it's probably a four channel charger and can charge them independently. If it has two LEDs then it's a dual channel only and can only charge them in pairs.

That argument actually proves the point. PM members will just create basic acounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. Basic members will also just create additional basic accounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. If you restrict flagging to PM accounts then both PM and basic members will not create PM accounts to flag challenges down. Unfortunately that negatively affects basic members who legitimately want to rate challenges.