Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

Additional Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

I've seen a few that have additional requirements, but not for logging, just for "extra credit" [not an extra smiley]. It interesting to see what people will do for "extra credit".

Share this post


Link to post
Additional logging "requirements" should go the way of web-cam and virtual caches. Grandfather the stinkers we have, put new ones on that other site.

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?

Edited by niradw

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is when a user doesn't have a camera or didn't read the description but still found the cache. So why would you get your cache find deleted? You did find it, after all.

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 don't think the objection is to the fun request - just the enforcement of it. The juggling at the location should be fun not something that rains on a geocacher's parade if they didn't do it for whatever reason.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be dumb to make a new logging requirements just cause someone is so board that you need all this extra proof that you found the cache. I would find it log it and if they delete my log ohh well never hunt their caches again...

Share this post


Link to post
So why would you get your cache find deleted? You did find it, after all.

 

That's what I'm wondering. You found it. No amount of extra whatever can change that fact.

 

I have absolutely no problem with keeping with a theme. Writing a poem, encrypting the log in the same code as the puzzle, or whatever is keeping with a theme, and as long as it is voluntary, I have no problem with it. But the hoops a person is forced to jump through should end when they sign the log. Signing the log book in the cache is the end of the hunt. All you should be required to do next is put it back like you found it.

 

Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>. . . Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

 

Is this an example of, in others words: If you want to do that, start your own site, or - go elsewhere because they like that kind of stuff, or an inadvertant go see Waymarking, or heres how we are going to do this now or, ? I agree with everything you've said, but this part had me pondering........(And I dont direct this directly to you CR.)

 

I used no quotes, because I am Not intending to quote any specific poster, but more the general "feel" of these boards over time.

 

Some points make sense, some require lots of re-tooling & additional aspects to a very simple "game"(et al)

I wont bother qouting official pages or anything - but a "traditional" cache is about the last place to begin changing things around, isnt it?

Not to say bigger, more intensive queries are the answer - but an old saying said something to the effect that "just because you Can do something, doesnt mean you Should. . . . . "

Just my .02+IMO

Share this post


Link to post

I think "jumping through hoops" best describes this situation :laughing:

 

I don't think the objection is to the fun request - just the enforcement of it. The juggling at the location should be fun not something that rains on a geocacher's parade if they didn't do it for whatever reason.

 

I think hoop-jumping is exactly what the OP was objecting to. [Edited to add: Well, no. The OP emphasizes later in this thread it is unexpected hoop-jumping...i.e. being listed as a traditional. I, however, don't like hoops for logging a find.] Maybe it's fun for some to compose find logs in French iambic pentameter, but I found the cache and don't need that extra hoop.

 

I recently had a find deleted for a virtual...there were 4 verification questions, including

4. This last question will take some thought.

Think and think, and think a lot.

What is my favorite TV show?

 

I'm not sure that was required to confirm I found the location.

Edited by beejay&esskay

Share this post


Link to post

The one cache with an extra requirement that 'bugged' me was sending (not posting) a picture of yourself at the site - but how do you attach a picture to email from GC?

Share this post


Link to post

What's worse are the cache owners who grade the extra requirement. I found one cache where you were required to describe your worst caching experience in the log. I told the story of a draconian cache owner who required cachers to tell stories about their worst caching experience in their log. The guy didn't like my log and threatened to delete it. I saved him the trouble and added the cache to my ignore list.

 

If extra logging requirements are here to stay, I'd like to see the caches classified as mystery/puzzle/unknown so I can filter them out of my PQ's. Let the existing caches stay and just apply the revised guideline to new caches.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>. . . Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

 

Is this an example of, in others words: If you want to do that, start your own site, or - go elsewhere because they like that kind of stuff, or an inadvertant go see Waymarking, or heres how we are going to do this now or, ? I agree with everything you've said, but this part had me pondering........(And I dont direct this directly to you CR.)

 

I'm not exactly sure what point you were trying to convey. If my posts come across as "if you want to play this way then go away" then that is not my intent. I'm thinking more of a "site function" clarification, much like the logs are not for general commentary or other site functionality used for that which it was not intended. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>. . . Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

 

Is this an example of, in others words: If you want to do that, start your own site, or - go elsewhere because they like that kind of stuff, or an inadvertant go see Waymarking, or heres how we are going to do this now or, ? I agree with everything you've said, but this part had me pondering........(And I dont direct this directly to you CR.)

 

I'm not exactly sure what point you were trying to convey. If my posts come across as "if you want to play this way then go away" then that is not my intent. I'm thinking more of a "site function" clarification, much like the logs are not for general commentary or other site functionality used for that which it was not intended. Nothing more.

Yep. This is one of those serendipitous moments when CR and Lep agree on something. Usually when that happens, it means their point has merit!

 

I view the posts as advocating the preservation of the basic traditional cache (go to the coords, find the container, sign the log), by "tagging" something like an additional logging requirement, which muddies the concept of the basic traditional cache. Far from messing with the basic concept, we instead seek to protect its sanctity.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't have any caches with additional logging requirements, but I've found several that have them and I think they're fun. There are so many caches out there it's good to find some that are different and try to add to the fun.

 

Having a cache with logging requirements listed as a Traditional when it should be listed as a Mystery is the real issue, right? I think what we're talking about here is a specific case of a larger problem. Caches that are listed as something other than mystery when they shouldn't be.

 

Is there an easy way to go back and change all the ones that are incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmmm - food for thought after reading through this.

 

I am revising my poetry cache listings to remove "requirement" and replace with "please". I have not and will not delete logs of legit finds. Sorry for offending any cachers with the "requirements". However, many thanks are in order for those that have played along.

 

I still like the idea of at least an attribute for these. I will work one up but am thinking a list of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
I think hoop-jumping is exactly what the OP was objecting to.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Having a cache with logging requirements listed as a Traditional when it should be listed as a Mystery is the real issue, right?

Exactly.

 

Is there an easy way to go back and change all the ones that are incorrect?

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)?

Share this post


Link to post

I do expect to see the puzzle cache definition clarified in the listing guidelines in the forseeable future. Less clear is whether the problem being discussed in this thread will be solved through a guidelines re-definition versus the addition of a "logging requirements" attribute to a traditional cache. Since you are not a premium member, and thus cannot filter by attributes, I'm betting I know where your sentiments lie. <_<

 

As always, if a cache is listed with an incorrect type, the cache owner cannot change it -- only the volunteer cache reviewer. If you spot one, it is best to work with the owner and have the owner contact their reviewer. Contact the reviewer directly only if the owner isn't cooperative. But give them a chance!

Share this post


Link to post

I think "jumping through hoops" best describes this situation <_<

 

I don't think the objection is to the fun request - just the enforcement of it. The juggling at the location should be fun not something that rains on a geocacher's parade if they didn't do it for whatever reason.

 

I think hoop-jumping is exactly what the OP was objecting to. Maybe it's fun for some to compose find logs in French iambic pentameter, but I found the cache and don't need that extra hoop.

 

I recently had a find deleted for a virtual...there were 4 verification questions, including

4. This last question will take some thought.

Think and think, and think a lot.

What is my favorite TV show?

 

I'm not sure that was required to confirm I found the location.

What is my favorite TV how? Are you serious? That's just stupid, even if the virtual was something FROM a TV show. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like you just need to make these terrain 5. If I have a logging requirement that you have to SCUBA dive to log my cache or rappel off a cliff, it would be terrain 5. So if you have to write your log in haiku or take your picture in a funny pose it should be terrain 5 (or perhaps difficulty 5 - A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.)

Share this post


Link to post

I think that I shall never see

a geocache hidden by Mr. T

that makes me pen some poetry

so that I can know with certainty

if my smiley's to be or not to be.

Share this post


Link to post
I do expect to see the puzzle cache definition clarified in the listing guidelines in the forseeable future. Less clear is whether the problem being discussed in this thread will be solved through a guidelines re-definition versus the addition of a "logging requirements" attribute to a traditional cache. Since you are not a premium member, and thus cannot filter by attributes, I'm betting I know where your sentiments lie. <_<

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.

Share this post


Link to post

It does sound like a "new" cache type instead of using a mystery cache. There's no mystery if you have to do the Lambada at the location or take a picture of yourself with a silly hat. It sounds more like a task cache concept which semi-fits within the concept of geocaching. But honestly I would think that if you want someone to jump through hoops at a location you could make it a new Waymarking game and forego the container entirely.

 

Optional actions do fit though, and are fun too.

Share this post


Link to post

What about caches that require you to email the cache owner the code word in the cache (in addition to signing the log) to verify you found the cache. Should these be a different cache type? What about mystery and multi-caches with this requirement?

 

It seems some people want the following definition for a traditional cache:

A traditional cache is one where you are not required to read the cache page.

 

So if the cache is available only at certain hours, you need to pay admission, you need to ask for someone to let you in, etc. it should be an unknown/mystery or some other type so the you can filter these out and know if you have the coordinates in your GPS, you can just go and find the cache and not worry that it might have required a bit a preparation on your part.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the attribute can use an 'Information' icon (triangle with an 'i' inside of it), meaning there is additional information in the description that you need in order to log the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
It seems some people want the following definition for a traditional cache:

A traditional cache is one where you are not required to read the cache page.

 

So if the cache is available only at certain hours, you need to pay admission, you need to ask for someone to let you in, etc. it should be an unknown/mystery or some other type so the you can filter these out and know if you have the coordinates in your GPS, you can just go and find the cache and not worry that it might have required a bit a preparation on your part.

 

Not in the least.

 

Hours of operation, fees, etc. are not part of a requirement beyond what any visitor to the area or spot would encounter. Logging requirements are a completely different animal from the activities you mention.

Share this post


Link to post

What about caches that require you to email the cache owner the code word in the cache (in addition to signing the log) to verify you found the cache. Should these be a different cache type? What about mystery and multi-caches with this requirement?

 

It seems some people want the following definition for a traditional cache:

A traditional cache is one where you are not required to read the cache page.

 

So if the cache is available only at certain hours, you need to pay admission, you need to ask for someone to let you in, etc. it should be an unknown/mystery or some other type so the you can filter these out and know if you have the coordinates in your GPS, you can just go and find the cache and not worry that it might have required a bit a preparation on your part.

I'm not saying that I want that definition for the reason you gave. If I pulled up to a park at night, wanting to find a cache in the park, I would be checking both the signs at the gate and the information on the cache page in my laptop computer, to see if it's legal to be in the park at 11 pm.

 

But if I pull up in the parking lot of a Super Wal-Mart at 11 pm, and the coordinates take me to within ten feet of a lamp post, there is not a compelling reason to pause before spending my 30 seconds at the special spot the owner wanted to show me. So what if that cache page had a requirement to upload a photo of me posing with the lamp post? If it's a traditional cache, I'd never know about it.

 

The example cache that I discussed above was the third of four caches I found along a nice paved bike/hike trail in broad daylight, and accessed from a public park. I read the first cache page to get parking coordinates, and wandered down the trail to find all four. Not needing the hints, and never needing to stray more than 50 feet from marked trails, I didn't need to look at the other cache pages.

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post

The icon should be some red tape jumping through flaming hoops with someone in a lab coat and a clipboard watching and checking off things.

Edited by Ferreter5

Share this post


Link to post
It seems some people want the following definition for a traditional cache:

A traditional cache is one where you are not required to read the cache page.

 

Nope.

 

If I find the cache and sign the log, I'm done. Everything beyond that is optional.

 

I doubt owners of caches with extra logging requirements get upset at the folks who find the cache, sign the log, and never log their finds online NOT doing the extra stuff. Heck, the finder found it. To the finder it's a find and recorded by whatever means they choose (sign log, log online, hand scribbled notes in their own notebook, only kept in their head, whatever).

 

Fun, optional, extra logging activites should be just that, optional.

Share this post


Link to post

If I find the cache and sign the log, I'm done. Everything beyond that is optional.

 

I doubt owners of caches with extra logging requirements get upset at the folks who find the cache, sign the log, and never log their finds online NOT doing the extra stuff. Heck, the finder found it. To the finder it's a find and recorded by whatever means they choose (sign log, log online, hand scribbled notes in their own notebook, only kept in their head, whatever).

 

Fun, optional, extra logging activites should be just that, optional.

 

From what I have seen, the owners won't get upset. But some will delete your log entry.

Share this post


Link to post

If I find the cache and sign the log, I'm done. Everything beyond that is optional.

 

I doubt owners of caches with extra logging requirements get upset at the folks who find the cache, sign the log, and never log their finds online NOT doing the extra stuff. Heck, the finder found it. To the finder it's a find and recorded by whatever means they choose (sign log, log online, hand scribbled notes in their own notebook, only kept in their head, whatever).

 

Fun, optional, extra logging activites should be just that, optional.

 

From what I have seen, the owners won't get upset. But some will delete your log entry.

 

When I do cache maintenance I'll cross out the names of people who signed the log and didn't log on-line. And it doesn't matter whether or not they fufilled any extra requirements. If you don't log on-line, it's not a find. :)

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't log on-line, it's not a find.

 

No, it's not a smilie. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post

If I find the cache and sign the log, I'm done. Everything beyond that is optional.

 

I doubt owners of caches with extra logging requirements get upset at the folks who find the cache, sign the log, and never log their finds online NOT doing the extra stuff. Heck, the finder found it. To the finder it's a find and recorded by whatever means they choose (sign log, log online, hand scribbled notes in their own notebook, only kept in their head, whatever).

 

Fun, optional, extra logging activites should be just that, optional.

 

Agreed. If you don't log online, the requirements for logging online don't matter.

 

Therefore, if you use your GPS unit to find your hotel while on a business trip (something I do almost every time I go out of town), you can also consider that a "find" and not get a "smiley", right? You're not logging your find online, so don't limit yourself to waypoints listed on the site when you count your finds.

 

However, logging online to me is just as important as signing the log in the cache. I get a find, I get a smiley, my find count goes up, and all is right with the world.

 

If the owner of the cache wants me to do something other than sign the log for my find to count, then I'll decide to either do the requirement, or skip the cache. It's his cache, so he gets to make the rules on what a find is.

Share this post


Link to post
If the owner of the cache wants me to do something other than sign the log for my find to count, then I'll decide to either do the requirement, or skip the cache. It's his cache, so he gets to make the rules on what a find is.

Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?

Share this post


Link to post
If the owner of the cache wants me to do something other than sign the log for my find to count, then I'll decide to either do the requirement, or skip the cache. It's his cache, so he gets to make the rules on what a find is.

Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?

 

Is there a list of definitions of cache types?

Share this post


Link to post
Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?

Is there a list of definitions of cache types?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?

Is there a list of definitions of cache types?

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.

Strictly speaking, there isn't anything there about "extra" logging requirements being precluded from the category - just that the cache is at the location and has a logbook.

 

The discussion is: SHOULD they be a different category. Yes, probably.

Share this post


Link to post

Aha! So THIS is where the conversation went! :ph34r:

 

How did it migrate from this thread? (Until today I thought I had killed it with this post.)

 

 

 

Note to the Moderators: Should the two threads be consolidated?

Share this post


Link to post
Great! But at what point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache?

Is there a list of definitions of cache types?

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.

 

Then by that definition, at no point do such rules mean that the cache is no longer a "traditional" cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmmm - food for thought after reading through this.

 

I am revising my poetry cache listings to remove "requirement" and replace with "please". I have not and will not delete logs of legit finds. Sorry for offending any cachers with the "requirements". However, many thanks are in order for those that have played along.

Do what you like, but I won't be changing my poetry cache.

 

If you don't like writing poems, then don't hunt the poetry cache. What's so difficult about that?

 

I don't normally carry a camera, but I also don't whine about caches that require uploaded photos in order to log them. I simply don't log them.

Share this post


Link to post
But if I pull up in the parking lot of a Super Wal-Mart at 11 pm, and the coordinates take me to within ten feet of a lamp post, there is not a compelling reason to pause before spending my 30 seconds at the special spot the owner wanted to show me. So what if that cache page had a requirement to upload a photo of me posing with the lamp post? If it's a traditional cache, I'd never know about it.

Yes, you would know about it -- if you had read the cache page first.

 

Paperless caching is a convenience. It does not relieve one of the basic responsibilities and etiquette of Geocaching.

 

 

The example cache that I discussed above was the third of four caches I found along a nice paved bike/hike trail in broad daylight, and accessed from a public park. I read the first cache page to get parking coordinates, and wandered down the trail to find all four. Not needing the hints, and never needing to stray more than 50 feet from marked trails, I didn't need to look at the other cache pages.

Correction: In your judgment you didn't need to look at the other cache pages. If that judgment later proved to be faulty -- and hey, I've done the same thing myself -- that's not the cache owner's fault. You consciously chose not to read those descriptions -- that's not the cache owner's fault. Choices come with consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
So why would you get your cache find deleted? You did find it, after all.

 

That's what I'm wondering. You found it. No amount of extra whatever can change that fact.

 

I have absolutely no problem with keeping with a theme. Writing a poem, encrypting the log in the same code as the puzzle, or whatever is keeping with a theme, and as long as it is voluntary, I have no problem with it.

But CR, finding the cache is voluntary in the first place.

 

Nowhere does it say you have to hunt every hide. What's wrong with "If you don't like jumping through hoops, don't do the 'jumping through hoops' cache?"

 

ALL caching is voluntary -- therefore, according to your own stated logic, you should have no problem with ANY type of cache.

 

 

But the hoops a person is forced to jump through should end when they sign the log. Signing the log book in the cache is the end of the hunt.

I've never seen that documented anywhere. Sounds like one of your own personal made-up rules.

 

 

Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

So just because you don't like a particular variant of the game ... it should be eliminated?

 

Interesting.

 

Suppose I don't happen to like caches that involve codes. Or maybe I think letterbox hybrids are a "tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated." In those cases, wouldn't you suggest that I simply avoid those types? Or would you be with me in demanding that they be permanently archived?

 

Why should the mere existence of a photo, poetry, or hoop-jumping cache bother you? Again, if you don't want to do the extra logging requirements, then simply don't do the cache. There's absolutely no reason to take fun away from the folks who happen to like those types of hides.

 

[EDIT: tpyo]

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

The guidlines say:

 

just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache

 

This indicates that while an additional logging requirement (like a code word) and no log book is not allowed, it does not say anything about an additional logging requirement and a log book. The policy has always been that its up to the owner of the cache to police the logs. If the owner of a cache wants to allow ppl to log a cache more than once, they can do that too. I know of at least one cacher who found the same LC cache 198 times, and while I though it was wrong, it was ok with the owner and therefore ok with TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting.

 

Yes, interesting indeed that your strawman would rival that of any Burning Man event.

 

Puzzle caches have a requirement before the signing of the log. You do things in order to find the cache. It's the same with many variants. These things are finding requirements. Things you have to do (or is designed for you to do) in order for you to find the cache.

 

A logging requirement is just that, something you have to do in order to log the cache. It has nothing to do with finding the cache.

 

Now, the "Found It" log-type is supposed to be used to report that you've found the cache. You want to tell me how a logging requirement fits in with reporting that I found your cache? You want to tell me why I should jump through a hoop to tell you I found your cache?

Share this post


Link to post

You tell him CR! You tell him!

 

::: runs back and hides behind CR :::

 

Gee, this being a rebel is FUN!

 

::: trots off to bait a forum mod :::

Share this post


Link to post

Puzzle caches have a requirement before the signing of the log. You do things in order to find the cache. It's the same with many variants. These things are finding requirements. Things you have to do (or is designed for you to do) in order for you to find the cache.

 

To throw a little more fuel on the fire, the guidlines for Mystery or Puzzle Caches state:

 

this form of cache often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates.

 

Since the coordinates of a traditional cache with additional requirements are already known, they don't really fit the puzzle cache definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting.

 

Yes, interesting indeed that your strawman would rival that of any Burning Man event.

Coyote, EVERY existing variant began as a "tangent in the evolution of the hobby." Multi-caches, micro caches, puzzle caches, mystery caches -- at some point each of those was a newly invented twist designed to enhance the fun. You could have made that "should be eliminated" statement at any point in the timeline of the hobby. How is pointing out the inconsistency/hypocrisy of your proclamation a "strawman?"

 

If I'm wrong about your proclamation, then tell me how I'm wrong. Argue the actual point. No need to hide behind fancy, misapplied terms.

 

 

Puzzle caches have a requirement before the signing of the log. You do things in order to find the cache. It's the same with many variants. These things are finding requirements. Things you have to do (or is designed for you to do) in order for you to find the cache.

 

A logging requirement is just that, something you have to do in order to log the cache. It has nothing to do with finding the cache.

Before signing, after signing ... what difference does it make, CR? The cache owner decides what the finder must accomplish in order to get credit for the find.

 

You don't have to like every cache. You don't have to log every cache. Don't like solving puzzles? Then don't hunt puzzle caches.

 

Don't like writing poems? Then don't hunt the poetry cache. What's so difficult about that?

 

If you prefer finds where the extra requirements only apply before you log, then why can't you just stick to those?

 

 

Now, the "Found It" log-type is supposed to be used to report that you've found the cache. You want to tell me how a logging requirement fits in with reporting that I found your cache?

Um ... because it says so right there on the cache page?

 

 

You want to tell me why I should jump through a hoop to tell you I found your cache?

How about: Because you implicitly agreed to do so when you (presumably) read the description before doing the cache.

 

You don't have to jump through the hoop -- if you don't do the cache. It's a simple concept.

Share this post


Link to post

Gee, this being a rebel is FUN!

 

::: trots off to bait a forum mod :::

Not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean you think I don't really believe my argument -- that I was merely trying to pick a fight ... for fun?

 

Or that I shouldn't argue against any idea that is presented by a Moderator? Surely ALL family-friendly points of view are invited and respected, yes?

 

Did I say something wrong?

 

No offence or personal attack was intended toward ANYONE in this thread. It's an old problem: Emotional content of text-only communication is easy to mis-interpret. Sorry If I came off sounding cranky. I'm simply responding to the ideas being presented, while defending my "special logging requirement" cache.

 

 

(Ignore this whole post if that wasn't directed at me. :ph34r: )

Share this post


Link to post
The cache owner decides what the finder must accomplish in order to get credit for the find.

 

Wrong. Signing the logbook in the cache is all you need to do in order to get credit for a find.

 

So tell me. Mushtang coaching you? Your arguments sound an awful lot alike, namely illogical and baiting. If it weren't for the find credited to your accounts, I'd accuse you of being his sock puppet because of the similarities. Never the less, you two do share hides so it makes sense you're close.

 

Additionally, I will continue to hunt caches with logging requirements and if I feel like not obliging your request to do something in order to log it found, I won't. I'll still claim the find and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post
To throw a little more fuel on the fire...

 

Not really. The category is also used for any type of cache that doesn't fit in any of the other categories. At one time it was known as an "Unknown." If you hover over the icon on the nearest page the pop up still uses the term.

Share this post


Link to post

Gee, this being a rebel is FUN!

 

::: trots off to bait a forum mod :::

Not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean you think I don't really believe my argument -- that I was merely trying to pick a fight ... for fun?

 

Or that I shouldn't argue against any idea that is presented by a Moderator? Surely ALL family-friendly points of view are invited and respected, yes?

 

Did I say something wrong?

 

No offence or personal attack was intended toward ANYONE in this thread. It's an old problem: Emotional content of text-only communication is easy to mis-interpret. Sorry If I came off sounding cranky. I'm simply responding to the ideas being presented, while defending my "special logging requirement" cache.

 

 

(Ignore this whole post if that wasn't directed at me. :ph34r: )

Oops, sorry... not to worry. You are expressing a contrary opinion, as is your right. And saying "read the cache page" does have merit. It is a good discussion.

 

My post was motivated by the fact that CR and I are in agreement that there's a need for a fix/change regarding this issue. That does not always happen -- CR and I have enjoyed many a debate from opposite sides. So I was poking a bit of fun at myself for advocating change. CR is much better at that than I am!

Share this post


Link to post
The cache owner decides what the finder must accomplish in order to get credit for the find.

Wrong. Signing the logbook in the cache is all you need to do in order to get credit for a find.

Wrong. That's absolutely NOT the case with my poetry cache. Says so right there in the description: "When you web-log your find, you must put it in VERSE!"

 

CR, the purpose of my rhyming log requirement is not to make you angry. I'm not trying to make ANYONE angry. If you've read the description -- which itself is nothing but a long, lame, amateurish poem -- you know that my intent was merely to create a mental challenge without copying other hiders. At the time I placed Roses Are Red I had searched the website and found no other caches like it. It went over quite well, too! In three years it has produced almost 100 smileys. Some of the poems are lame, some are funny, some are strange -- and some are actually very good! It's all in fun. I've gotten several compliments, and another cacher recently told me that she wants to copy the idea.

 

Only twice in all that time has anyone posted without a poem, and only once have I actually carrried through with the log-delete threat. One was a person who basically posted a "what he said" log after finding it with a caching buddy. I sent him a (rhyming, of course) email, politely reminding him of the requirement. For whatever reason he chose not to edit his log, so, having warned him ... I removed it. The other finder (February 27 of this year) got a similarly poetic and friendly email. He chose to edit his log (grudgingly, as you can see on the cache page) so I left it. Apparently he had skipped the description before seeking the cache (most likely due to paperless methods) but decided that posting a short, cranky rhyme was better than giving up his 'find' log. Fine with me! He met the stated requirement.

 

I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question.

 

 

Signing the logbook in the cache is all you need to do in order to get credit for a find.

As I've already pointed out, that's one of your own made-up rules. I can't find it documented anywhere on the website. If I'm wrong, please post a link.

 

 

So tell me. Mushtang coaching you? Your arguments sound an awful lot alike, namely illogical and baiting. If it weren't for the find credited to your accounts, I'd accuse you of being his sock puppet because of the similarities. Never the less, you two do share hides so it makes sense you're close.

Speaking of arguments -- what has any of this got to do with the subject? If I didn't know better I'd think you were floundering for some way to attack ME instead of debating my statements on their merits. Why not show me the faulty logic? Why not show me the baiting?

 

I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question. Do you not have an answer, or is there some other reason you're avoiding the debate?

 

No, I'm definitely NOT Mushtang. (If you ask nicely I might explain more about how he and I are related.)

 

 

Additionally, I will continue to hunt caches with logging requirements and if I feel like not obliging your request to do something in order to log it found, I won't. I'll still claim the find and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Nothing.

‘Zat so? :rolleyes:

 

In that case, I cordially invite you to find and log my Roses Are Red cache. Go ahead and post your smiley without including even a lame attempt at a poem, and see what happens ... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...