Jump to content

niraD

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    14367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by niraD

  1. The whole point is that the cache owner does not think that the cacher fulfilled the requirements for the find.
  2. Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log. All we can do is delete them or encrypt them. So if you find an online log entry for your cache that doesn't meet your standards (it doesn't match any signature in the physical log book, it isn't in verse, it doesn't include a photo of your sig tokens, whatever), all you can do is delete it.
  3. In my (limited) experience with frustrating puzzles, a lot of them will have an "aha moment" when you see how the puzzle works. It's really hard to give a hint for such a puzzle without giving it away, since once you see the trick, the puzzle is easy. The challenge is to see the trick. And many that appear to require specialized knowledge really don't require anything of the sort. It's all window dressing to distract you from the simple way the coordinates were hidden in the cache description. I'm really good at overthinking puzzles. I do the same thing with parlor games like "Aunt Emma" or "The Good Book".
  4. When it comes to updating the cache-type guidelines, I think there are basically two camps. One argues that post-find logging requirements should be banned (like virtuals, webcams, etc.). The other argues that the guidelines for puzzle/mystery/unknown caches should be updated so it can truly be a "catch-all" cache type, even for caches where the container is at the posted coordinates. There are caches with logging requirements that make them feel more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than a traditional cache, but according to the letter of the current guidelines, any cache with a container at the posted coordinates is a traditional cache, not a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.
  5. Frankly, I'm not worried about cache owners pushing the envelope with their logging requirements. But hey, I'm a newbie, so what do I know. I suppose I'm applying KBI's test: are we better off with a cache with a logging requirement, or with no cache at all? I think we're better off with a cache with a logging requirement, as long as the cache is identified properly so those who want to seek/avoid such caches can do so. BTW, who has the authority to create a poll? I don't see a "new poll" button, so apparently, I can't.
  6. I don't think we need to put any limits on logging requirements that we don't put on other aspects of caches. Caches that require illegal activities (to reach, find, or log) shouldn't be approved. Caches that require unpleasant activities (to reach, find, or log) won't be found or logged by many cachers. As you pointed out, it's a good idea for the logging requirements to be clear: either you did it or you didn't do it. The logging requirements I've seen have been clear.
  7. You've met the cache owner's requirements for posting a "Found It" log, whatever they might be. Examples have been discussed in this thread, if you need specific examples. Caches with logging requirements exist, their owners enjoy hiding them, and at least some cachers enjoy meeting the logging requirements and logging their finds. Other cachers dislike them. So what's the best way to list these caches, so cachers can avoid or seek them, according to their own preferences.
  8. How far can one go in making someone solve challenging puzzles, traverse difficult terrain, identify cunningly camouflaged containers, etc.?
  9. Clearly there are differences of opinion regarding the merit of caches with additional logging requirements. I doubt fans of such caches will convert their opponents, or vice versa. (Ditto for fans and opponents of puzzle caches, micro caches, etc.) But it seems to me that we do have concensus that such caches are not in the spirit of a "traditional" cache, and that they should be listed in a way that makes it easier for cachers to avoid or seek them, according to their own preferences. Is that correct?
  10. They both sound like great caches to me. And they're both labeled as puzzle/mystery/unknown caches, so they won't show up on listings of traditional caches. My concern is only with such caches that are listed as traditional caches.
  11. I'm not sure "red tape" is the best icon. For one thing, it's a rather pejorative image. For another, the only red in the existing icons is the red circle-slash for the caches that do not have the depicted attribute. My favorites so far are a log book with a "++" on it, or a log book with a list of things to do on it.
  12. Retrieving the cache is a separate issue. You may need special equipment to get to, to find, or to retrieve the cache. We already have a mechanism for that (terrain or difficulty ratings, depending on why you need the special equipment). There are caches in the area that are much easier if you have a UV flashlight, but they are rated appropriately to reflect the need for special equipment. Again, I don't want to eliminate anyone's caches, and I do read the cache description before attempting to find a cache. I just think that some caches have additional logging requirements that are more appropriate for the puzzle/mystery/unknown category than for the traditional category. I think special logging requirements are a different kind of thing. The cache can be easy to get to (terrain) and easy to find (difficulty), but can still be a challenge to log (e.g., leave a 1903 or 1905 coin to replace the 1904 coin left by the previous cacher). I think special logging requirements change the nature of the cache.
  13. Yes on both counts. The owners clearly explain the requirements in the cache descriptions, and also say that they will delete any "Found It" logs that do not comply with the requirements. And there are "Note" logs posted by cachers who found the caches and signed the physical logs, but who have not met the additional logging requirements.
  14. Why do we have different cache types at all? Why bother distinguishing among traditional caches, multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, virtual caches, etc.? If I want a listing of traditional caches, I shouldn't get a listing that includes multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, or any other non-traditional caches. And IMHO, some additional logging requirements clearly push the cache out of the traditional category. Examples that I've seen in local caches include posting a photo of the cache owner's sig tokens (different combinations are required for different caches) and taking the coin in the cache in exchange for a coin that has a date that is numerically adjacent to the one you took (e.g., leaving a 1996 or 1998 coin in exchange for the 1997 coin you found). And I think the spirit of the guidelines agrees with me, since the unknown/mystery/puzzle type is described as a catch-all type for atypical caches. Unfortunately, it also specifies that the container is not at the posted coordinates, which is only one way for a cache to be atypical. Not yet. But I've only been doing this for a few months. There are puzzle caches that I haven't solved yet, but I plan to find them once I solve the puzzles. And there have been a few caches that seemed rather pointless, but at least I got them off whatever "nearest caches" list they were on. But I haven't seen a need for the "ignore cache" feature yet. And frankly, the additional logging requirements don't put me off finding the cache. I just don't think they should show up on my listings of traditional caches.
  15. The whole "paperless caching" discussion is a red herring IMHO. I'm a paperless cacher, but I keep the whole description in my Palm and I read it at least once (often multiple times) before finding each cache. IMHO, the issue is whether caches with additional logging requirements should show up when I search for traditional caches, when I click on the link to search for "nearby caches of this type" from a traditional cache, etc.
  16. Okay, so if I understand you: A cache should still be "traditional" if the additional logging requirements are completely known (e.g., write your log in rhyming verse). Is that correct? What about additional logging requirements that are at least partially unknown (e.g., find and photograph certain sig tokens left by the owner in local caches)? Would that make it a mystery/puzzle/unknown cache? And just to throw out an idea, what about a cache with a padlocked log book, where you have to pick the lock to sign the log book? There's a cache at the posted coordinates, there's a log book in the cache, and once you sign the log book, you can log the find at gc.com. IMHO, this is not a traditional cache, but the current guidelines would allow the owner to argue that it is. PS: I did search for an existing discussion before starting this one, but obviously I missed the other one. Oops.
  17. The existence of such caches isn't the issue (at least to me). Whether such caches are (or should be) listed as traditional caches is the issue to me.
  18. Re: the guidelines for listing a cache Well, yes. That was my original point. The owner points out that the cache is at the published coordinates and has a log book, so it isn't a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache. And if the additional logging requirements were to write my log in rhyming verse, I might buy it. But when the additional logging requirements go well beyond that, the cache feels a lot more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than some that are actually listed as such.
  19. Yes, it's in the guidelines for listing a cache, which you must indicate that you've read before you're allowed to submit a new cache for review.
  20. Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?
  21. I plan to upgrade my membership soon, but I still think these caches should not be listed as traditional caches. The "nearby caches of this type" link for a traditional cache should not list caches with additional logging requirements. One possible exception would be for additional logging requirements that could be met by editing the log (e.g., by rewriting it so it rhymes, by describing a favorite memory). But additional logging requirements that can't be met this way (e.g., posting a photo of the owner's sig tokens, posting a photo of your attempt to juggle any three items in the container) clearly push the cache out of the traditional category. IMHO, and all that.
  22. Exactly. First, we need to update the cache type guidelines. Currently, owners of such caches can (and do) argue that the container is at the posted coordinates, so it doesn't qualify as a mystery/puzzle/unknown cache. Then I think it's something that needs to be fixed on a case-by-case basis, as people complain. Unless someone wants to review thousands of cache descriptions to see which ones have additional logging requirements. Although I suppose you could narrow the list by searching for traditional caches that include words like "delete" in the description. So, let's say the guidelines are updated, and a cacher finds such a cache listed as a traditional cache. How does the cacher report it? Who can change the cache's type? Can the owner do it? Does it need to go to the reviewer(s)?
  23. Actually, my objection is to listing such caches as traditional. If someone wants to get creative and add extra hoops for finders to jump through, and finders want to jump through them, that's fine. But it is no longer a traditional cache.
  24. My thoughts exactly, if the cache is listed as a traditional cache. If it's listed as a mystery/puzzle/unknown cache, then I think the owner has a lot more flexibility, and no one should be going to the posted coordinates without reading the description anyway. I wouldn't mind a ban on additional logging requirements that can't be met by editing the log entry. I agree that it's better to design caches to require extra effort to find the container, rather than to require extra effort to log the find. But others appear to enjoy hiding and finding caches with additional logging requirements. That's okay with me, as long as these caches aren't being advertized as traditional caches.
  25. So, how should we grandfather the ones that we have? Should they be left as traditional caches? Or should they be converted to mystery/puzzle/unknown caches? Or should we create a new attribute for them? Or something else?
×
×
  • Create New...