Additional Logging Requirements

[+The Jester]

...

 

I never said there was a simple way! I said there was a way. You're the one who's insisting that a 181-cache numbers run, using all the latest paperless, description-skipping technology should somehow excuse you from meeting requirements that other, less worthy finders are held to.

Now you are twisting what I said, just to try and support YOUR point (another troll character trait). Where did I say anything about "description-skipping"? On that trip I read every cache page, both before the trip while planning it (where I did skip those caches that I didn't like, didn't appeal to me, or I wouldn't have time to do) and while hunting the caches. MY point was I couldn't remember every single detail of every page I read.

 

Thank you for putting me on a pedestal above those "other, less worthy finders". It's gratifing that my worthiness is recognised from coast to coast. Are you so petty that you have to drag everyone who disagree's with you down to your level? Or are you jealous that I have technology you can't afford? BTW, it's not the "latest" - it's a used palm and an older laptop - nor is it failsafe as several logs of mine talk about on that trip.

 

When did going paperless equal description-skipping? The idea is cut down on paper, not information. Please keep to the point and stop the negative implications in your (IMO) poor arguements. If you need to belittle every one and every point against you, that shows your position is weak.

 

I'd also like to hear your response to my earlier point about an interesting story not shared because of required logging limits.

[Mushtang]

To me, you come across just as strongly as CR. You are "demanding" some things be included to suit you regardless of the problems people point out. Where is the difference between you?

 

Fair enough. I wasn't aware that I came across that way, it was not my intention.

 

However, the site currently allows caches with special requirements to log them. The site also defines what the different cache types are. In these definitions, some of the special requirement caches discussed in this thread clearly belong in the Traditional catagory.

 

What the OP has stated many times, is that he'd like to see the Mystery/Puzzle definition changed to include special requirement caches. Those of us that apparently agree with KBI and his poetry cache have said we'd support this, and KBI has said he'd glady change the type for his cache if that happens. But as it stands, it doesn't make sense to change the cache types.

 

Changing a cache type is fine. Eliminating a kind of cache completely is what I'd disagree with.

 

I'm not suggesting that things be included to suit me, I'm suggesting that things that people enjoy not be removed to accomodate one person's (or a few people's) idea of what geocaching should be.

 

"Change those caches to suit me" is different than "Don't force us to change our caches to suit you, go find other caches that suit you and leave these to be enjoyed by everyone else." If you don't like 'em, don't look for 'em.

 

I also have an issue with someone insisting that Traditionals always be findable without reading the description.

[+LandRover]

The *ENTIRE* cache description, save for the extraneous logging requirement to share a memory about a dearly departed person, reads as follows: "A short hike about a quarter of mile from the parking lot. About 3 steps off the trail. Cache is in paintball tube."

This may be nit picking but the cache page does not say you have to share a memory about a dearly departed person, it only asks that you share a memory.

FWIW: I too was not thrilled with having to share a memory so I put off finding this closest to home cache for quite sometime, but eventually HAD to find it, when I did I shared the memory of the BIRTH of my granddaughter, about as far from a departed one as you can get.

[+New England n00b]

To me, you come across just as strongly as CR. You are "demanding" some things be included to suit you regardless of the problems people point out. Where is the difference between you?

 

Fair enough. I wasn't aware that I came across that way, it was not my intention.

 

However, the site currently allows caches with special requirements to log them. The site also defines what the different cache types are. In these definitions, some of the special requirement caches discussed in this thread clearly belong in the Traditional catagory.

 

What the OP has stated many times, is that he'd like to see the Mystery/Puzzle definition changed to include special requirement caches. Those of us that apparently agree with KBI and his poetry cache have said we'd support this, and KBI has said he'd glady change the type for his cache if that happens. But as it stands, it doesn't make sense to change the cache types.

 

Changing a cache type is fine. Eliminating a kind of cache completely is what I'd disagree with.

 

I'm not suggesting that things be included to suit me, I'm suggesting that things that people enjoy not be removed to accomodate one person's (or a few people's) idea of what geocaching should be.

 

"Change those caches to suit me" is different than "Don't force us to change our caches to suit you, go find other caches that suit you and leave these to be enjoyed by everyone else." If you don't like 'em, don't look for 'em.

 

I also have an issue with someone insisting that Traditionals always be findable without reading the description.

Why? Why do you and KBI insist we have to play the game YOUR way, and your way only. As it is now, we HAVE to read each and every Traditional cache page to manually filter out your Type-A caches - there is no way to block it out so we can just go on a spontaneous cache outing? Why do you want to force use to cache your way? Why do we have to prepare YOUR way? Why do you NOT want us to go find a plain old simple traditional without pre-planning our outing the way YOU say we MUST? KBI passes it off as 'personal responsibilty' that we don't read each and every traditional cache page - that's just dumb. A multi? yes, you gotta read it, a mystery? If you wanna solve teh puzzle beforehand, yeah you gotta read. But a simple "go to waypoint 'X' to find the box? *sigh* Way to suck the fun out of going caching, by spanking people after the fact.

[+niraD]

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?

[+Recdiver]

<snippage>

My post earned some valid criticism that I really ought to have read the cache page. Those folks are entitled to that opinion, and yes, in most cases I do read the cache page. But not always, especially when finding a large number of caches in a new area. Less reading, more hiking. I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

Wow wouldn't that be nice. Some times you feel like a nut some times you don't. If all I want to do is grab a couple of caches on my way home from work it would be nice be able to pull up a couple three traditionals and go for it without having to worry about anything but finding the cache. YMMV

[CoyoteRed]

Clearly there are differences of opinion regarding the merit of caches with additional logging requirements.

 

Clearly.

 

I'm wondering if you have an idea of just what limit is to be placed on any logging requirement if were to be officially sanctioned. Is it going to be something similar to the "Wow" subjective determination like that of virts? How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

[+niraD]

How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

How far can one go in making someone solve challenging puzzles, traverse difficult terrain, identify cunningly camouflaged containers, etc.?

[+eigengott]

How far can one go in making someone solve challenging puzzles, traverse difficult terrain, identify cunningly camouflaged containers, etc.?

 

This is about things you have to do *before* finding the cache and writing into it's logbook. But this whole thread is about (arbitrary) requirements after the find.

 

Definition for a find: You've written your name into the physical logbook.

Definition for a log requirement: ?

[+niraD]

Definition for a find: You've written your name into the physical logbook.

Definition for a log requirement: ?

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.

[+Runaround]

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?

 

Works for me.

[+KBI]

Yet ANOTHER cacher who wants to dictate how others should play the game.

Have you looked in the mirror lately? Isn't that what YOU are doing as the cache hider? YOU are insisting that we do it YOUR way or YOU won't allow the log.

I was responding to Happy Humphrey's post in which he made his intent clear regarding logging requirements:

"I have no problem with the cache owner suggesting some special way of logging, and as long as the task is not onerous, pointless or time-consuming I'll

probably

comply...."

... as well as his pronouncement regarding how the game SHOULD be played:

"If there is a creative aspect to the cache, it should

always

be as

part of the trail

. E.g. you have to finish off the last line of a poem to obtain a keyword which gives you the coordinates."

 

"Once I've found a cache, I simply want to record this minor achievement. The log book is signed, the treasure in my hands. Geocaching complete."

Sounds like a made-up rule to me. I couldn't find it anywhere in the official descriptions or guidelines. He never said whether he'd be willing to simply avoid the caches he doesn't approve of -- so by insisting instead that my cache be stripped of its creative element and reverted to some 'corrected' version that meets with his approval, he's clearly wanting to dictate how others should play the game. Hence my post.

 

 

 

Yet ANOTHER cacher who wants to dictate how others should play the game.

Have you looked in the mirror lately? Isn't that what YOU are doing as the cache hider?

No, as the cache hider I'm NOT telling others how to play the game. I'm only telling others what's required to log MY CACHE. If you want to play the game without having to worry about my little rule, you need only make sure NOT to hunt my cache. It's really pretty easy.

[+KBI]

I never said there was a simple way! I said there was a way. You're the one who's insisting that a 181-cache numbers run, using all the latest paperless, description-skipping technology should somehow excuse you from meeting requirements that other, less worthy finders are held to.

Now you are twisting what I said, just to try and support YOUR point (another troll character trait). Where did I say anything about "description-skipping"? On that trip I read every cache page ...

 

I was responding to this:

I write the log, post it without refering back to the page, and so I might miss the requirement while writing the log (which could be three weeks later).

Again, this is nothing more than excuses. The cache owner sometimes goes to quite a bit of trouble to write things in the description that you may need to know. When you choose to casually dismiss this information, you do so at your own risk. You made it clear that you posted "without refering back to the page" after working through a 181-cache numbers run. You chose not to read what you very well might have needed to read in order to get credit for a find.

 

What part of that did I twist?

 

 

MY point was I couldn't remember every single detail of every page I read.

What the heck is so hard about scanning back over the description, if necessary, before logging? I do it. Most responsible cachers somehow manage to do it. If your cache-per-hour rate is so intense that you can't keep up with what you're doing, then how is that the cache owner's fault? Take responsibility for your own choices!

 

 

 

Are you so petty that you have to drag everyone who disagree's with you down to your level?

What level is that? I don't follow you. Please elaborate.

 

 

Or are you jealous that I have technology you can't afford?

When did I mention anything about my budget? If you're going to accuse people of "troll character traits," then you might want to avoid exhibiting such traits yourself.

 

No, I'm jealous of your ability to justify blowing off your own personal responsibility and to instead move the blame for your lack of adequate homework and caching etiquette onto the innocent cache owner.

 

 

When did going paperless equal description-skipping? The idea is cut down on paper, not information. Please keep to the point and stop the negative implications in your (IMO) poor arguements. If you need to belittle every one and every point against you, that shows your position is weak.

There have been NUMEROUS people in this thread, including you, who have repeatedly attempted to convince me that they shouldn't have to be bothered to read cache descriptions in the process of finding or logging a cache. The excuses seem to almost always involve PQs, GSAK -- paperless caching. You yourself referred specifically to GSAKs "semi-automatic logging feature" which apparently allows you log without looking back at the description. Nobody made you use such a feature -- you chose to do so.

 

Paperless caching is a wonderful thing. I'm all for it. It is, however, a convenience. Paperless caching does NOT relieve the cacher of basic geocaching etiquette and responsibilities. You skip reading those descriptions at your own peril.

 

I never said "going paperless equals description skipping." Those are YOUR words. Be careful: Trying to put words in someone else's mouth in order to defend your position can be an indication that YOUR position is weak.

 

 

I'd also like to hear your response to my earlier point about an interesting story not shared because of required logging limits.

I don't see the problem. My poetry cache page contains almost 100 'Found It' logs, and quite an impressive number of those poems tell very interesting stories about the finder's experiences. If they managed to do it, then why can't you?

[+StarBrand]

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?

 

Works for me.

me too

[+KBI]

Why? Why do you and KBI insist we have to play the game YOUR way, and your way only. As it is now, we HAVE to read each and every Traditional cache page to manually filter out your Type-A caches - there is no way to block it out so we can just go on a spontaneous cache outing? Why do you want to force use to cache your way? Why do we have to prepare YOUR way? Why do you NOT want us to go find a plain old simple traditional without pre-planning our outing the way YOU say we MUST? KBI passes it off as 'personal responsibilty' that we don't read each and every traditional cache page - that's just dumb. A multi? yes, you gotta read it, a mystery? If you wanna solve teh puzzle beforehand, yeah you gotta read. But a simple "go to waypoint 'X' to find the box? *sigh* Way to suck the fun out of going caching, by spanking people after the fact.

I never said you have to "cache my way." I merely defended a logging requirement that exists at my cache -- a cache you can easily avoid.

 

I never said you have to "prepare my way." I merely pointed out a truth -- that if you hunt and log a cache WITHOUT reading the cache description, you risk problems. Seems like such a basic common sense rule to me that I've never even thought to question it. I go on spontaneous cache outings, too, but if you're going to go on a spontaneous cache outing without reading up un the caches then you must understand and accept the risks involved. As has been pointed out before, there are LOTS of important tidbits of information in those descriptions, some of them CRITICAL to finding the cache, some of them CRITICAL to preventing it from being muggled, some of them CRITICAL to preserving the hide method, some of them CRITICAL to your very SAFETY. Why do you insist on defending such irresponsibility?

 

I never said you should have to "read each and every Traditional cache page to manually filter out [caches with logging requirements]." Didn't you hear? I'm on YOUR side there! I've stated repeatedly that I'd be PROUD to have my cache sport the proposed flag that would warn you it's one of those particular caching challenges that you seem to hate so much.

 

 

 

(Man. Dare to mention 'personal responsibilty' around some people and they sure get strangely defensive! Why is that?)

[+KBI]

<snippage>

My post earned some valid criticism that I really ought to have read the cache page. Those folks are entitled to that opinion, and yes, in most cases I do read the cache page. But not always, especially when finding a large number of caches in a new area. Less reading, more hiking. I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

Wow wouldn't that be nice. Some times you feel like a nut some times you don't. If all I want to do is grab a couple of caches on my way home from work it would be nice be able to pull up a couple three traditionals and go for it without having to worry about anything but finding the cache. YMMV

Sure. It would be nice to go through life being able to do risky things without having to concern with possible consequences.

 

What YOU want is the category defined as "Caches where you may freely skip or ignore the entire posted description without fear of negative results."

[+KBI]

Clearly there are differences of opinion regarding the merit of caches with additional logging requirements.

 

Clearly.

 

I'm wondering if you have an idea of just what limit is to be placed on any logging requirement if were to be officially sanctioned. Is it going to be something similar to the "Wow" subjective determination like that of virts? How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

You want a limit on logging requirements?

 

Is there a limit to how difficult a puzzle for a puzzle cache is allowed to be?

 

Is there a limit to how many stages a multi-cache can have?

 

Is there a limit to how small a micro is allowed to be?

 

Is there a limit on how many caches there can be of any given type, size, or difficulty?

 

 

CoyoteRed, why must something be 'officially sanctioned' in order to be a part of the game anyway?

 

CoyoteRed, why do you feel the need to try to restrict how much fun other people are having when it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU??

[+Team 5150]

My post earned some valid criticism that I really ought to have read the cache page. Those folks are entitled to that opinion, and yes, in most cases I do read the cache page. But not always, especially when finding a large number of caches in a new area. Less reading, more hiking. I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

 

I totally agree with you. I don't have the time/ability to read the cache page everytime I look for a cache. I try not to use the cache page at all to help me find most caches. They usually give you too much info and make it too easy.

Edited May 11, 2006 by greenninja5150

[+KBI]

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?

 

Works for me.

me too

Me three.

 

 

So, what's the next step? Should someone maybe compile a list of the various suggested ideas for listing these caches, and start a poll?

 

These are the ones I'm aware of:

• Change the definition of "Traditional" to include caches with logging rquirements.
  
• Change the definition of "Mystery/Unknown" to include caches with logging rquirements.
  
• Add a completely new category: Caches with Logging Rquirements.
  
• Add a completely new category: Ignore THESE Cache Descriptions And Cache Worry-Free!
  
• Add a new attribute: Cache Description Contains Logging Rquirements.
  
• Remind all cachers of the perils involved in ignoring a cache's written description.
  
• Allow cache owners the ability to delete the text of a finder's log WITHOUT deleting their smiley or changing their find count.
  
• Keep everything status quo and continue whining at each other.
  
• Have KBI shot dead, then give him a fair trial -- all in rhyming verse.
  

Did I miss any?

 

Jeremy, are you still reading this? Are you considering a change that might satisfy the consensus?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why do you and KBI insist we have to play the game YOUR way, and your way only. As it is now, we HAVE to read each and every Traditional cache page to manually filter out your Type-A caches - there is no way to block it out so we can just go on a spontaneous cache outing? Why do you want to force use to cache your way? Why do we have to prepare YOUR way?...

 

If you reverse that, the question is the same.

 

Why do you want to force the cache owner to play the game your way, to allow your log, your way on your terms and thus forcing the cache owner to dishonor those who did what was requested with the cache?

 

When you impose your vision of what a find is, it's being imposed universally on all caches and on all cache owners. The reverse isn't true, cache rules, no matter how obnoxious the hoops are to jump through impact one cache and the relativly few people who would seek it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...[*]Have KBI shot dead, then give him a fair trial -- all in rhyming verse.

Did I miss any?

 

Jeremy, are you still reading this? Are you considering a change that might satisfy the consensus?

 

A logging rule attribute would work as I think was originally suggested.

 

Beyond that I wouldn't mind a "RTFCP" where RT is "Read The" and CP is "Cache Page" and if you don't check the box you can't do the cache. But thats mostly for reasons other than logging rules.

[+The Jester]

 

I never said "going paperless equals description skipping." Those are YOUR words.

How about here:

all the latest paperless, description-skipping technology

[+Happy Humphrey]

Perhaps I've missed something here .

 

It seems very simple.

 

I get to the cache (by hook or by crook) and sign the logbook - how do "special logging requirements" stop me? What part of "Found it" have I failed on here?

 

I get home and add another "Found it" record to the geocaching.com database, primarily so I'll know in the future that I found this cache.

 

Then the cache owner spots my record and deletes it, because at the time I couldn't be bothered to take a photo of me standing on one leg (even though I intended to when I set out). This is rather annoying, as I just wanted to add the cache to the list of caches I'd found: and yes, I'd found this cache.

 

I can understand having a "log delete" facility to allow bogus or offensive entries to be removed, but misusing it in this way seems rather arrogant.

 

If you want to prevent someone logging a cache without standing on one leg (or whatever), then you just have to make the logbook physically unavailable unless you're on one leg (now that's an idea!).

 

I'm not making up a rule: it's just a fact that once the logbook is signed, you've logged the cache (whether or not you reflect this log on an internet facility).

 

If you want to request that the finder writes a log in a special way, or performs some post-find activity, then go ahead: but be prepared for some people to ignore the request. Particularly if the task seems onerous or pointless. If it's really fun - then why try and enforce it, as everyone will enjoy complying anyway!

 

HH

[CoyoteRed]

How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

How far can one go in making someone solve challenging puzzles, traverse difficult terrain, identify cunningly camouflaged containers, etc.?

 

 

You're asking what's the difference between the requirements for finding a cache and logging a cache, and to what kind of hoops you can make a person jump through in order to complete said tasks.

 

By asking this, I think it is clear that you've not thought through the ramifications of allowing logging requirements to be part of the hobby.

 

I'll start with the end first and what is really the most important part. To satisfy a logging requirement you have to satisfy the cache owner. This is very subjective. We're already had reports of cache owners deleting logs because it wasn't "good enough."

 

Satisfying the requirements of finding a cache is very definite and you will know with certainty that you were good enough--you've signed the logbook. Period. End of story. You sign the logbook, you found the cache.

 

So, on one day a person's log might be "good enough" and on another it isn't. This never happens with finding the cache.

 

This alone should tell anyone logging requirements is not a good idea.

 

But let's look at it from the point of view of creating a hunt versus coming up with a logging requirement.

 

One important thing is on this site all cache hunts have to be able to be completed from the information on the cache page (or another webpage) and you can't have any part of the hunt where you are required to contact the owner, or anyone else, for further clues. A very definite limit built in which will prevent any subjective "I'll give this person this clue, but I don't like this person so they only get this other clue."

 

Another aspect is each stage, puzzle, or clue all work towards a definite end, another location, or clue. How you craft this is most definitely limited. It all has to fit within the framework of moving a person along to a definite end. How do you write a poem to get to the next stage?

 

When crafting a logging requirement, literally, the sky's the limit. Anything you can translate into something you can transmit over the internet is game. I've given examples earlier in this thread.

 

So, I ask you again. What would be the limits you place on logging requirements? You know my answer. What's yours?

[Mushtang]

Why? Why do you and KBI insist we have to play the game YOUR way, and your way only. As it is now, we HAVE to read each and every Traditional cache page to manually filter out your Type-A caches - there is no way to block it out so we can just go on a spontaneous cache outing? Why do you want to force use to cache your way? Why do we have to prepare YOUR way? Why do you NOT want us to go find a plain old simple traditional without pre-planning our outing the way YOU say we MUST? KBI passes it off as 'personal responsibilty' that we don't read each and every traditional cache page - that's just dumb. A multi? yes, you gotta read it, a mystery? If you wanna solve teh puzzle beforehand, yeah you gotta read. But a simple "go to waypoint 'X' to find the box? *sigh* Way to suck the fun out of going caching, by spanking people after the fact.

 

OUR way? The site is set up to allow it. It already exists. It's the SITE's way. It's JEREMY's way. You said it yourself in the quote above, "As it is now...". We're not saying that you must change to suit US. In fact, we've already said several times that we'd agree with redefining the cache type definitions to move them out of Traditional, but as they're defined now that's where they belong.

 

To you and CR and others that are insisting that all Traditionals be set up so that you can find them without reading the description, I'd say why are YOU insist that we have to play the game YOUR way? We can give you (and have given you) examples of caches with logging requirements that a lot of people have found and enjoyed. Why would you insist that YOUR wishes be imposed and remove THEIR enjoyment?

[Mushtang]

So, I ask you again. What would be the limits you place on logging requirements? You know my answer. What's yours?

 

I've got an answer. The limits are whatever the cache owner wants to place on them. And you have the choice to find that cache or not. Right?

 

So I ask you again. If you don't like em, why not just skip em? Why can't you agree with allowing people to enjoy a cache that clearly so many in the past already have enjoyed, because you're only willing to do stuff before you sign the log and not after? Why suggest that these caches (or the ability to have additional requirement caches) be eliminated from the site just because YOU don't like them?

[Ferreter5]

Thanks for the quote-fest, it's been thoroughly annoying.

 

If a cache owner wants to delete my online Found log because I didn't happen to meet a logging requirement, then I:

 

Still enjoyed finding the cache.

 

Put the cache on my Ignore list so I don't forget I've already found it.

 

Get on with enjoying life.

 

Cheers!

Edited May 11, 2006 by Ferreter5

[Mushtang]

Thanks for the quote-fest, it's been thoroughly annoying.

5 of your 8 posts so far in this thread quoted someone else. Was it annoying then?

 

If a cache owner wants to delete my online Found log because I didn't happen meet a logging requirement, then I:

 

Still enjoyed finding the cache.

 

Put the cache on my Ignore list so I don't forget I've already found it.

 

Get on with enjoying life.

 

Cheers!

Kewl. That's one of the reasons the ignore feature is there, and I wouldn't suggest that you should cache any differently.

[Ferreter5]

5 of your 8 posts so far in this thread quoted someone else. Was it annoying then?

Aye, but I don't have a zillion quotes in a single post nor do I quote-fest repeatedly. Quote-festing (aka an excessive use of quoting) is a debate technique often used in forums.

[+niraD]

So, I ask you again. What would be the limits you place on logging requirements? You know my answer. What's yours?

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.

[Mushtang]

I hope it's okay if I nit pic a little. Everyone reading this, expecially Ferreter5, please know this is all in fun and I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

5 of your 8 posts so far in this thread quoted someone else. Was it annoying then?

Aye, but I don't have a zillion quotes in a single post

You do have at least one post with multiple quotes.

 

nor do I quote-fest repeatedly.

I don't know if that's true. You've quoted 6 posts now. I think the definition of "repeatedly" would mean that you've done it more than once.

 

Quote-festing (aka an excessive use of quoting)

What is excessive? You've quoted in 6 posts so far in this thread. Is 9 or more excessive?

 

is a debate technique often used in forums.

Because it's easier to show someone what they've said as you're debating them. Even then, sometimes people reply with, "I never said that, you're putting words into my mouth".

[CoyoteRed]

The logging requirements I've seen have been clear.

 

So you're drawing on your personal experience that because the ones you've seen to this point have been clear and not outrageous, then they all would be clear and not outrageous.

 

Well, I wonder if folks had the same thoughts back when code word caches were being first thought up. ...or virts. ...or moving caches. ...or burying caches. ...or a whole host of tangents that have now been eliminated.

 

No, no one will push the envelop to such extremes as tossing a split tennis ball out next a road and calling it a cache. Who would do such a thing? No one would waypoint a rotting bird carcass and call it a virt. Nope. Who would do such a thing?

 

Based on past experience I think the geocaching community should be very wary of logging requirements. Someone will come along and push the envelop.

[+niraD]

Based on past experience I think the geocaching community should be very wary of logging requirements. Someone will come along and push the envelop.

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.

[+Runaround]

 

No, no one will push the envelop to such extremes as tossing a split tennis ball out next a road and calling it a cache. Who would do such a thing? No one would waypoint a rotting bird carcass and call it a virt. Nope. Who would do such a thing?

 

Based on past experience I think the geocaching community should be very wary of logging requirements. Someone will come along and push the envelop.

 

You forgot about the abandoned tire virt and the old tennis shoe virt.

[CoyoteRed]

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.

 

Well, I disagree with you there as well. Many caches are now no more because of a "feature" that was not desirable. Hardly miss them. Don't think about them at all. Plenty more still exist and are enjoyed today when an undesirable feature was removed.

 

Also, I think the argument, the "KBI test," is a bit disingenuous as a logging requirement has little or nothing to do with the cache itself. The argument is yet another strawman. KBI's example poem cache need not change not one whit. Same goes for plenty of caches with logging requirements. The only thing that needs to change the threat of log deletion. So, someone is not going to put out a cache because he can't force someone to write a glowing log for his cache? If so, we don't need it.

 

So, let me think, would I want a cache that is bad for the hobby or no cache at all? Hmmm...

 

You can apply the same reasoning to just about any other undesirable tangent that has come along or exists today. Would I want a cache with [undesirable trait] or no cache at all?

 

Personally, I think it a no brainer. In many instances TPTB have as well and that's why we have the rules we have. After all, they didn't use your logic of just identifying codeword caches for folks to avoid. They eliminated them. Same goes for many other tangents.

[Mushtang]

Personally, I think it a no brainer. In many instances TPTB have as well and that's why we have the rules we have. After all, they didn't use your logic of just identifying codeword caches for folks to avoid. They eliminated them. Same goes for many other tangents.

 

I think you're forgetting your history a little. As I remember it, TPTB realized that code word caches didn't contain a log book to sign and therefore they weren't a cache as they'd defined it. A while later they decided that all the other non-logbook caches should also be removed, but also realized that if they put them on a different site then they could still be enjoyed.

 

And your references to the tennis ball thrown out the window cache, or the dead bird virt, is more CR faulty logic. It's taking one thing and calling it something else. These things are definitely examples of bad caches, but in one case it's just a lame cache, and the other it's something that the approvers are there to prevent.

 

Pushing the envelope is a good thing! That's how we come up with exciting and wonderful additions to the hobby. If everyone bought tupperware and hid them in the woods under piles of parallel sticks, how boring would geocaching be? It's the differences that make it more fun.

 

If you don't like em, don't search for em.

[+KBI]

I never said "going paperless equals description skipping." Those are YOUR words.

How about here:

all the latest paperless, description-skipping technology

Exactly!

 

"Going paperless equals description skipping." Those are your words. Describes an equation.

 

"All the latest paperless, description-skipping technology..." Those are my words. Describes two separate things (going paperless and/or skipping descriptions) you can do with the technology.

 

Two different phrases, two different meanings -- see?

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

Instead of getting all defensive and flailing around with faulty logic, why not respond to the actual content of my response and try telling me again why not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page?

[Pto]

 

Pushing the envelope is a good thing! That's how we come up with exciting and wonderful additions to the hobby. If everyone bought tupperware and hid them in the woods under piles of parallel sticks, how boring would geocaching be? It's the differences that make it more fun.

If you don't like em, don't search for em.

 

If people Didnt think ouside of the small box we're starting to be narrowed into- then caching would have been boring a long time ago. It can only get worse by narrowing ones mind.....

 

 

Instead of getting all defensive and flailing around with faulty logic, why not respond to the actual content of my response and try telling me again why not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page?

 

Amazing nobody is touching that one. . ..

I did like the one reply about "just being jealous because you couldnt afford one" . . ..

[+KBI]

Perhaps I've missed something here .

 

It seems very simple.

 

I get to the cache (by hook or by crook) and sign the logbook - how do "special logging requirements" stop me? What part of "Found it" have I failed on here?

You're right: You haven't failed at "Found it." If you ignore the logging requirements, however, then you've failed to complete the cache as designed by the cache hider. When you saw there was logging requirement you didn't like, what thought process led you to do the cache anyway? Why didn't you just ignore it?

 

 

I get home and add another "Found it" record to the geocaching.com database, primarily so I'll know in the future that I found this cache.

 

Then the cache owner spots my record and deletes it, because at the time I couldn't be bothered to take a photo of me standing on one leg (even though I intended to when I set out). This is rather annoying, as I just wanted to add the cache to the list of caches I'd found: and yes, I'd found this cache.

You think that's annoying? Do you know how annoying it is as a cache owner when someone screws something up because they couldn't be bothered with a requirement?

 

As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying: "... because at the time I couldn't be bothered to comply with the owner's instruction to re-hide the cache the way I found it (even though I intended to when I set out)."

 

 

I can understand having a "log delete" facility to allow bogus or offensive entries to be removed, but misusing it in this way seems rather arrogant.

Oh, I dunno. Posting a puzzle, and then hiding the cache coordinates behind the puzzle so the cache owner can say "Ha ha ha let's see if you're as smart as I am" could seem arrogant as well -- at least to someone who has a problem with the puzzle, that is.

 

 

If you want to prevent someone logging a cache without standing on one leg (or whatever), then you just have to make the logbook physically unavailable unless you're on one leg (now that's an idea!).

Then tell me how to do that with my poetry thing in a way that would be acceptable to you. I'm always open to clever ideas!

 

 

I'm not making up a rule: it's just a fact that once the logbook is signed, you've logged the cache (whether or not you reflect this log on an internet facility).

It's already been pointed out in this thread that logging at the cache vs. logging online are two different things. That's not relevant to this discussion.

 

 

If you want to request that the finder writes a log in a special way, or performs some post-find activity, then go ahead: but be prepared for some people to ignore the request. Particularly if the task seems onerous or pointless.

Yes, that's obvious. I knew that when I first placed the cache. Besides, how is that any different from other caches with tough challenges?

 

 

If it's really fun - then why try and enforce it, as everyone will enjoy complying anyway!

Really? You mean like:

... at the time I couldn't be bothered to take a photo of me standing on one leg (even though I intended to when I set out).

 

I've already answered that one more than once, but for now I'll continue repeating myself:

 

Why did I make it a poetry cache? Because, being my very first hide I didn't want to copy anyone else's idea, yet I wanted to avoid creating plain, boring lameness. I wanted to submit something that involved SOME type of mental challenge. Why did I make the poem thing a logging REQUIREMENT? That's what makes it a challenge! Would you bother solving a tough puzzle for a puzzle cache if the description said "well, the cache IS located at the posted coords, but you really should solve the puzzle anyway" ...?

[+KBI]

How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

How far can one go in making someone solve challenging puzzles, traverse difficult terrain, identify cunningly camouflaged containers, etc.?

... To satisfy a logging requirement you have to satisfy the cache owner. This is very subjective. We're already had reports of cache owners deleting logs because it wasn't "good enough."

 

Satisfying the requirements of finding a cache is very definite and you will know with certainty that you were good enough--you've signed the logbook. Period. End of story. You sign the logbook, you found the cache.

 

So, on one day a person's log might be "good enough" and on another it isn't. This never happens with finding the cache.

An excellent point, CR. I hadn't thought of it that way. That made me stop and think for a while, which is one of my favorite reasons for participating in debates like this. Thanks!

 

On the other hand, the subjectivity/objectivity argument still isn't a good enough reason to have such hides banned. Whether a cache includes logging requirements or not is a completely different question from whether a cache -- any cache -- is badly designed, badly placed, badly submitted, or badly managed by the owner. If someone's getting ridiculous about anything, whether it's too many stages in a multi, a stupid logging-requirement rule, or over-punishing finders who post spoilers, then let's deal with those folks one at a time. That's partly the reviewer's job, but more appropriately it's up to each individual cache hunter to make their own assessment and decide whether to accept or decline each challenge. No reason to call for the wholesale dismantling of some popular corner of the sport just because somebody here or there gets carried away.

 

Let your fellow cache hunters decide on their own which caches they don't like. We really don't need hall monitors like you flashing plastic badges and protecting us from ourselves.

 

 

... let's look at it from the point of view of creating a hunt versus coming up with a logging requirement.

 

One important thing is on this site all cache hunts have to be able to be completed from the information on the cache page (or another webpage) and you can't have any part of the hunt where you are required to contact the owner, or anyone else, for further clues. A very definite limit built in which will prevent any subjective "I'll give this person this clue, but I don't like this person so they only get this other clue."

 

Another aspect is each stage, puzzle, or clue all work towards a definite end, another location, or clue. How you craft this is most definitely limited. It all has to fit within the framework of moving a person along to a definite end. How do you write a poem to get to the next stage?

Okay then, YOUR definition of the 'end' is "When you find the container." MY definition of the 'end' is "When you comply with the requirements specified on the cache page".

 

Once again CR demands that everyone else play by HIS strictly-enforced version of the game.

 

 

When crafting a logging requirement, literally, the sky's the limit. Anything you can translate into something you can transmit over the internet is game. I've given examples earlier in this thread.

 

So, I ask you again. What would be the limits you place on logging requirements? You know my answer. What's yours?

You know my answer too. If the challenge reaches a little too close to the sky for your taste, then don't do the cache.

 

[EDIT: spelling, and of course more verbal diarrhea.]

Edited May 12, 2006 by KBI

[+KBI]

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.

Well, I disagree with you there as well. Many caches are now no more because of a "feature" that was not desirable. Hardly miss them. Don't think about them at all. Plenty more still exist and are enjoyed today when an undesirable feature was removed.

That's your opinion. Have you polled everyone else about whether they miss those now-banned challenges? Some of those types you mention are types I liked, some are not. I've always managed to avoid the caches I don't like. It never occurred to me to demand their removal, and all others like them, from the website.

 

BTW, it is possible for KBI to agree with you that something is 'bad for the sport.' I happen to concur with the 'buried cache' ban. Badly damaged parks and ripped up public landscaping would permanently crash the game in a hurry. Simply avoiding buried caches yourself wouldn’t prevent others from doing the digging, would it?

 

On the other hand there's nothing illegal, immoral or fattening about attempting to write a poem, is there? You can simply avoid it if you don't approve.

 

 

Also, I think the argument, the "KBI test," is a bit disingenuous as a logging requirement has little or nothing to do with the cache itself. The argument is yet another strawman. KBI's example poem cache need not change not one whit. Same goes for plenty of caches with logging requirements. The only thing that needs to change the threat of log deletion.

I promise you one thing right now: If the website decides to completely BAN logging requirements as a result of your demands, then I will comply -- not by sanitizing my cache to suit your strange needs, but by archiving it and accepting no further smileys. I will also post an 'archiving cache' note that features a link to this thread so folks who might have been planning to enjoy the cache can understand what happened. I imagine other owners of similar caches would likely react similarly. Please tell me how that would be "good for the sport."

 

 

Also, so as not to sound confused you might want to refresh yourself on the definitions of certain terms such as "strawman."

So, someone is not going to put out a cache because he can't force someone to write a glowing log for his cache? If so, we don't need it.

THAT was a strawman. The so-called "KBI test" thing was not.

 

Just trying to help.

 

 

 

So, let me think, would I want a cache that is bad for the hobby or no cache at all? Hmmm...

 

You can apply the same reasoning to just about any other undesirable tangent that has come along or exists today. Would I want a cache with [undesirable trait] or no cache at all?

Undesirable in your opinion. LOTS of other people LIKE my poetry cache. It's got almost 100 smileys to prove it. What you want to do will prevent the next 100 from having their fun. You want to explain to THEM why their fun is "bad for the hobby?"

 

 

Personally, I think it a no brainer. In many instances TPTB have as well and that's why we have the rules we have. After all, they didn't use your logic of just identifying codeword caches for folks to avoid. They eliminated them. Same goes for many other tangents.

Ultimately, that's up to the website owners. Fortunately for those of us who enjoy those caches it's not up to YOU.

[+KBI]

Aye, but I don't have a zillion quotes in a single post nor do I quote-fest repeatedly. Quote-festing (aka an excessive use of quoting) is a debate technique often used in forums.

It helps readers to keep up with the various sub-threads in the discussion. You can see exactly what the poster is responding to.

 

Do you know a better way?

[Pto]

I'm wondering if you have an idea of just what limit is to be placed on any logging requirement if were to be officially sanctioned. Is it going to be something similar to the "Wow" subjective determination like that of virts? How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

 

Logging our caches: Unless specifically mentioned on the cache signing the logbook in the cache is required. Failure to sign the logbook while logging a find online will get an email from us requesting an explanation and most likely the log will be deleted.

If you are signing the logbook as a team, but logging online individually, PLEASE, one team member mention each of the other members who were there so I know which logs to allow. At least one team member has to vouch for each other team member. ~Much appreciated.

 

Now of course "signing the logbook" is required for a find. That much is standard, Geocaching

(Apparently you check all logbooks on all your caches against all online logs.?)

 

But here is My question to You:

What if a Lazy Team of cachers didn’t read the cache page, because they were from out of town, traveling on a numbers run, using a Palm, or just and in a hurry. They went as a group. The team signed the log, and each cacher logged online -BUT failed to list each team member for You to verify to the cache log.

*It is possible a team of cachers Doesn’t want to be known by its individual members to the online community

Now, you have "subjectively" placed the requirement for them to identify themselves to a team, which as I said - they may Not want to be public.

If they are from out of town, they probably won't be able to come back and each sign individually - so what to do?

 

Wouldn’t that put You into the position of deleting the log, for your own subjective determination that a Team Identify its members to you in order to claim the find?

 

?

Edited May 12, 2006 by Pto

[Mushtang]

I'm wondering if you have an idea of just what limit is to be placed on any logging requirement if were to be officially sanctioned. Is it going to be something similar to the "Wow" subjective determination like that of virts? How far can one go in making someone jump through hoops?

 

Logging our caches: Unless specifically mentioned on the cache signing the logbook in the cache is required. Failure to sign the logbook while logging a find online will get an email from us requesting an explanation and most likely the log will be deleted.

If you are signing the logbook as a team, but logging online individually, PLEASE, one team member mention each of the other members who were there so I know which logs to allow. At least one team member has to vouch for each other team member. ~Much appreciated.

 

Now of course "signing the logbook" is required for a find. That much is standard, Geocaching

(Apparently you check all logbooks on all your caches against all online logs.?)

 

But here is My question to You:

What if a Lazy Team of cachers didn’t read the cache page, because they were from out of town, traveling on a numbers run, using a Palm, or just and in a hurry. They went as a group. The team signed the log, and each cacher logged online -BUT failed to list each team member for You to verify to the cache log.

*It is possible a team of cachers Doesn’t want to be known by its individual members to the online community

Now, you have "subjectively" placed the requirement for them to identify themselves to a team, which as I said - they may Not want to be public.

If they are from out of town, they probably won't be able to come back and each sign individually - so what to do?

 

Wouldn’t that put You into the position of deleting the log, for your own subjective determination that a Team Identify its members to you in order to claim the find?

 

?

 

Oh my, a very good point indeed. That quote from CRs own profile, Sissy-n-CR, shows yet another contradiction of his. He's willing to delete logs that he thinks "aren't good enough" but doesn't want others to have the same ability.

 

What if a team from out of town would have been happy to log each name in the log book, but they didn't know you required it because they hadn't read your profile? What if they all had print outs and had read the cache descriptions, but hadn't all signed the log book?? Would you follow through with your claim to delete their logs? This requirement isn't even listed on your cache pages, just in your profile. At least KBI is nice enough to give his requirements up front.

 

Since CR is ignoring my posts as part of his debating tactics, he won't even see this unless someone either quotes me, or repeats the questions to him.

 

Oh well, his answers would have been BS anyway.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Mushtang

[+KBI]

I just made what I hope is a fairly unbiased post in this thread suggesting that a new cache attribute be created specifically for caches with special logging requirements. That appears to be the proper thread for doing so according to Jeremy.

 

Anyone with an opinion yes or no might want to weigh in over there.

[CoyoteRed]

Wouldn’t that put You into the position of deleting the log, for your own subjective determination that a Team Identify its members to you in order to claim the find?

 

Tough. If I can't reconcile the online logs with the logbook. You don't get a find.

 

You don't want to be associated with a team then you'd better sign the logbook under your own name.

 

This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an additional logging requirement. It's the standard logging requirement. You sign the logbook, then you can claim the find. Part of a team? No problem. Either log as a team or break it out and be prepared to explain why the logbook and the online doesn't match.

 

The logbook is there for a reason. You're suggestion would make it obsolete as there would be no way to prove or disprove someone had been there with any reasonable assurance.

 

Not only that, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Edited May 13, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

Amazing nobody is touching that one. . ..

 

It's been answered in this very thread. You choosing to ignore it is not our problem.

[+KBI]

Instead of getting all defensive and flailing around with faulty logic, why not respond to the actual content of my response and try telling me again why not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page?

Amazing nobody is touching that one. . ..

It's been answered in this very thread. You choosing to ignore it is not our problem.

It's been answered? Can you provide a link, CoyoteRed?

 

I think you're mistaken. I've read the entire thread, and so far nobody has even come close to explaining how not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page.

 

If it has already "been answered in this very thread," as you say, then please post a link. If you cannot post a link, then we can only assume that you are bluffing again.

[+KBI]

Wouldn’t that put You into the position of deleting the log, for your own subjective determination that a Team Identify its members to you in order to claim the find?

Tough. If I can't reconcile the online logs with the logbook. You don't get a find.

 

You don't want to be associated with a team then you'd better sign the logbook under your own name.

 

... Either log as a team or break it out and be prepared to explain why the logbook and the online doesn't match.

You be tough, CR! Don't let anyone get away with violating your logging rules! Those scofflaws are BAD for the sport! BAD!! BAD I say!! Make 'em all toe the line!! They have no excuse -- your logging requirements are clearly spelled out in your .... profile ........ uh .... but not on your cache page? What?

 

Wait a minute ... come to think of it I believe Mushtang made some pretty good points there, didn't he?

 

Question: Why did you choose to jump all over the guy who's new to the thread instead of responding to Mushtang's post, CoyoteRed?

 

Still avoiding the difficult ones, are we? Can't say as I blame you -- Mushtang caught you in yet another embarrassing contradiction that you won't be able to explain away. Best to just ignore those really inconvenient posts, eh? Maybe they'll go away ...?

[+Runaround]

I think you're mistaken. I've read the entire thread, and so far nobody has even come close to explaining how not reading the cache page is a valid excuse for not knowing what’s on the cache page.

 

The hamster did that earlier in the thread. Quite eloquently I might add. You've decided his answer is invalid as it does not fit your paradigm.