Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

Additional Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

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

Nope. You can log it as a find, but the cache owner has the final say as to whether it "sticks" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Oops, sorry...

Ain't no thang. <_<

 

I just wanted to clarify, that's all. Not looking to step on toes. Thanks for the response. :blink:

 

 

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.

I also agree that there's a need for a fix or change regarding this issue. My position is that an entirely new cache category, although not an ideal solution, is the best idea presented so far. I'll proudly be the first to have my poetry cache fly the new flag!

 

The new category would need a name that means something like: "Traditional, but not paperless-friendly."

 

 

That does not always happen -- CR and I have enjoyed many a debate from opposite sides.

I'll confess I enjoy these debates as well. Most of mine have been in Off Topic -- as you can tell from my anemic post count. Guess I figured it was time to emerge from the hole for a while.

 

 

Hey by the way, while I’ve got your 'official' attention:

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

 

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?

Whaddya think?

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."

Not really.

 

Whether you call it "Unknown," or "Unknown/Mystery," it doesn't apply here. There is nothing unknown or mysterious about a cache when the logging requirements are clearly spelled out on the cache page AND the cache is located exactly at the posted coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

Re: the guidelines for listing a cache

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.

Well, yes. That was my original point. The owner points out that the cache is at the published coordinates and has a log book, so it isn't a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache. And if the additional logging requirements were to write my log in rhyming verse, I might buy it. But when the additional logging requirements go well beyond that, the cache feels a lot more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than some that are actually listed as such.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

The existence of such caches isn't the issue (at least to me). Whether such caches are (or should be) listed as traditional caches is the issue to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Whether you call it "Unknown," or "Unknown/Mystery," it doesn't apply here. There is nothing unknown or mysterious about a cache when the logging requirements are clearly spelled out on the cache page AND the cache is located exactly at the posted coordinates.

Okay, so if I understand you: A cache should still be "traditional" if the additional logging requirements are completely known (e.g., write your log in rhyming verse). Is that correct?

 

What about additional logging requirements that are at least partially unknown (e.g., find and photograph certain sig tokens left by the owner in local caches)? Would that make it a mystery/puzzle/unknown cache?

 

And just to throw out an idea, what about a cache with a padlocked log book, where you have to pick the lock to sign the log book? There's a cache at the posted coordinates, there's a log book in the cache, and once you sign the log book, you can log the find at gc.com. IMHO, this is not a traditional cache, but the current guidelines would allow the owner to argue that it is.

 

PS: I did search for an existing discussion before starting this one, but obviously I missed the other one. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to introduce another shade of grey, I find it less troublesome for a cache listed as a traditional to have additional logging requirements that can be reasonably fulfilled by someone at their desk after signing the book than the ones that have requirements in the field.

 

If I'm called on it, at a keyboard, I can log in a haiku or translate to klingon or whatever if I must.

 

But if I had to exchange a penny in a cache with one from the next consecutive year, perform a trade of a certain item, take a picture of the cache site, or whatever, that's much less practical for a traveller to do after the fact.

 

Oh, and the pick a padlock cache mentioned above _is_ a traditional cache, it's just one with a high difficulty. I can choose to deselect that from my PQ if I'm travelling.

 

For example, if I arrive at a site and find one of those cheapie bike locks, I can have it open in a minute. Sigh the logbook inside and that's a traditional. Using only the GPS, I was able to complete the task. If you then have to email the cache owner the combination (I probably didn't write it down and I'm unlikely to remember it as that's a one-time need) that isn't something you are likely to do. You could not complete the task using only the coordinates and whatever ingenuity you had in the field and that does not seem like a traditional to me.

 

The core of the problem is that in every other way, "traditional" means "to complete this, proceed to the given coordinates at the top of the page and find an dsign something". The extra logging thing is pretty much the only exception that prevents a traveller from loading a GPS with waypoints listed as traditionals and just hunting by following the arrow.

Share this post


Link to post
The existence of such caches isn't the issue (at least to me). Whether such caches are (or should be) listed as traditional caches is the issue to me.

I agree. I think your concern is valid, and that the website owners should consider addressing it.

 

In your original post you made four very intelligent suggestions:

 

1. Add a new type for "additional logging requirements" caches

I would not be strongly opposed, except to ask: How many categories is too many? How many more will eventually be added to address other similar concerns? What will this potentially confusing complexity do to the game? If TPTB think the benefit outweighs these and other issues, then maybe it's the way to go. If they do, I'll be happy to change the category of my poetry cache.

 

2. Add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"

I like this idea a lot, but I don't think I can speak knowledgably about it -- I never cache paperless, but, according to other posts from those who do, there are some issues there. Is it just a software fix? I don't know -- I plead ignorance.

 

3.Update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are the "catch-all" of cache types, and that the container for these caches is usually not at the posted coordinates

You and I have already pretty much agreed that this category, as currently defined, doesn't really apply.

 

4.Update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are not the "catch-all" of cache types, but are for caches where the container is not at the posted coordinates

No need for any update there. The Official Guidelines already say that. It's very specific:

The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location
.

 

 

So ... what to do? Smarter folks than me will probably come up with a happy solution, but I'd like to offer one more idea. It's a version of your #3 above: Rename and Change the category.

 

Instead of "Mystery or Puzzle Caches" we could rename it more broadly, such as "Non-Traditional Caches," or maybe "Alternative Caches."

 

I even modified the existing description to allow for the caches in question. My changes are highlighted:

The “catch-all” of cache types, this form of cache often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates
, and/or additional logging requirements.
The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.
The only commonality of
For
this cache type
it
is
possible
that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. Unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the proper vicinity searches and to keep the mileage of Travel Bugs that find their way into the cache reasonably correct.
Alternately (or additionally), the cache may, like a 'traditional,' be located at the posted coordinates, but the cache owner’s description may list additional logging requirements, mandatory elements such as a story, a rhyme, a joke, or an attached photo to be included in either the physical cache log and/or the online log.

 

Of course another idea would be to skip all this and simply update all documentaion related to "paperless" caching with a friendly reminder to read the cache page description, or risk missing critical instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Just to introduce another shade of grey, I find it less troublesome for a cache listed as a traditional to have additional logging requirements that can be reasonably fulfilled by someone at their desk after signing the book than the ones that have requirements in the field.

 

If I'm called on it, at a keyboard, I can log in a haiku or translate to klingon or whatever if I must.

 

But if I had to exchange a penny in a cache with one from the next consecutive year, perform a trade of a certain item, take a picture of the cache site, or whatever, that's much less practical for a traveller to do after the fact.

...which is why one should always take care to read the cache page BEFORE hunting the cache. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

The extra logging thing is pretty much the only exception that prevents a traveller from loading a GPS with waypoints listed as traditionals and just hunting by following the arrow.

That's not true at all. What about warnings or owner requests that are specific to the cache? How many times have you seen details like "there is no need to search on the south side of the fence -- that is private property, and off limits" or "please don't destroy the cache container -- part of your challenge is figuring out the secret to getting it open."

 

I still say there is NO excuse for NOT reading a cache's description before heading out on the hunt.

 

In the other (parallel) thread on this topic, RichardMoore put it very eloquently:

 

I believe that you should ... read the cache page. Not only could it avoid problems while searching for the cache, but I think you owe it to the cache owner. We've all seen cache pages that obviously took quite a bit of effort to research and write. Some give the history of the area. Some will tell you to go a little further and check out a monument or a view when the hider couldn't place the cache there.

The minute that you spend reading the cache page could not only solve problems before they come up, and could make the find more fulfilling, but it's a sign of respect and appreciation for the hider's effort.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey by the way, while I’ve got your 'official' attention:

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

 

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?

Whaddya think?

Sorry but you can't attract my official attention. Here's why: My moderator account is "Keystone." Posts made with this account are not made in my capacity as a moderator. Makes it easier for folks to know if I'm serious, or just participating like everyone else in a healthy discussion. Second, once I *have* chosen to engage in the debate, it wouldn't be fair for me to switch hats and then apply the evil wrath of the moderator's toolbox to silence those who disagree with me. Since I'm debating, I can't be impartial in this thread. That is why we have lotsa moderators.

 

Also the other thread was started to talk about clearly misclassified cache types. It was I who took it somewhat off topic by introducing the discussion of additional logging requirements. Sorry 'bout that.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey by the way, while I’ve got your 'official' attention...

Sorry but you can't attract my official attention. Here's why: My moderator account is "Keystone." Posts made with this account are not made in my capacity as a moderator. Makes it easier for folks to know if I'm serious, or just participating like everyone else in a healthy discussion.

News to me. All I know is I see a hamster wearing a badge that says "Moderator."

 

I understand now ... I think. :rolleyes:

 

 

Second, once I *have* chosen to engage in the debate, it wouldn't be fair for me to switch hats and then apply the evil wrath of the moderator's toolbox to silence those who disagree with me. Since I'm debating, I can't be impartial in this thread.

You misunderstood. I wasn't asking for any dissidents to be silenced. I was just wondering whether the two threads should be consolidated somehow in order to prevent interested parties from being inadvertantly left behind ... like I was.

 

 

Also the other thread was started to talk about clearly misclassified cache types. It was I who took it somewhat off topic by introducing the discussion of additional logging requirements. Sorry 'bout that.

No biggie. It's just that each of the two threads includes comments that are relevant in the other. Hopefully by now I've left behind enough street signs to direct everyone from here to there and back.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Nope. You can log it as a find, but the cache owner has the final say as to whether it "sticks" or not.

 

True, but that's not what I'm talking about. You need not log a cache on gc.com in order to claim the find. You can certainly keep a personal count--which could include caches listed on other sites and private caches--and any cache you've legitimately found could be included.

Share this post


Link to post

I think what a lot of folks are not seeing here is the potential for abuse.

 

Think back on the issue with virts. Why were they locked down? What about code word caches?

 

Say Groundspeak does officially sanction logging requirements. What are the limits? What are the ground rules?

 

I envision someone in the name of "creativity" would create a logging requirement that you had to pose with full frontal nudity. What about posting personal information. I don't care to have to post a phone number so he could speak to me directly as a requirement. What about posting a spoiler to a local cache? 500 word essays in perfect German? The possibilities are as endless as what was being posted as a virtual cache.

 

Okay, sure the reviewers can catch any or all of those requirements, but where do you draw the line? Are you prepared for the angst-filled threads of folks with unapproved logging requirements.

 

See where I'm going with this? Never mind it's not the function of the logs to make finders jump through hoops that have nothing to do with the finding of the cache or the verification of said find. Never mind it is wrong to delete a legitimate find. Logging requirements are as bad an idea as was virtual caches and will cause similar problems. Let's have a bit of forethought on this issue.

 

I repeat, it is best for this tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post

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!"

See, you're still trying to mean "get credit for the find" is the same as "log on gc.com." This is simply not the case.

 

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

 

CR, the purpose of my rhyming log requirement is not to make you angry.
I understand that. I've posted logs with certain requests and have even posted within a theme without even being asked. The point is not that the poem is requested. It's that the poem is required and has the threat of a legitimate log being deleted if the logger doesn't comply.

 

I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question.
That's because the question is irrelevant. It's not about avoiding caches that is bad for the hobby. It's about eliminating caches that is bad for the hobby.

 

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.

Documenting that you can claim you've found the cache when you've found the cache is kind of silly, don't you think?

 

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?

Oh, your transparent argument blurring the lines of finding the cache and logging the cache. Calling my positions and posting inconsistent and hypocritical. I'd be happy to argue the issue, as well, without you debating my debating skills.

 

No, I'm definitely NOT Mushtang. (If you ask nicely I might explain more about how he and I are related.)
Don't really care. Odd though that you two use the same tactics.

 

 

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 ... <_<

Thanks for the offer and when I'm out that way next I'll make doubly sure to find it. I'll even log it as a find and to prove a point I'll forgo the poetry so you can follow through. I'll still be able to say I found it, because, well, I found it. I'd like to see the machine required for me to un-find it.

 

EDIT: Weird. I wrote this post first, but apparently didn't push the right button for it to post. Lucky, Firefox saves textareas and I was able to post without having to re-write anything.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post

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

Nope. You can log it as a find, but the cache owner has the final say as to whether it "sticks" or not.

 

True, but that's not what I'm talking about. You need not log a cache on gc.com in order to claim the find. You can certainly keep a personal count--which could include caches listed on other sites and private caches--and any cache you've legitimately found could be included.

CR, you're welcome to find ANY of my caches and NOT log them online. If that's what you meant, then yes, you're right, there's nothing I can do about it.

 

What the heck does any of that have to do with this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

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!"

See, you're still trying to mean "get credit for the find" is the same as "log on gc.com." This is simply not the case.

 

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

If logging your find online is "irrelevant" to you (in your words), then why are you even participating in this discussion?

 

Except for your previous post, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Sure sounds like backpedaling to me.

 

 

CR, the purpose of my rhyming log requirement is not to make you angry.
I understand that. I've posted logs with certain requests and have even posted within a theme without even being asked. The point is not that the poem is requested. It's that the poem is required and has the threat of a legitimate log being deleted if the logger doesn't comply.

So if finding the lead-up stages of a multicache are required, as opposed to voluntary, in order to locate the final, you’d feel justified in somehow bullying your way around those as well?

 

Please tell us: Exactly what level, type, and difficulty of caching challenge is acceptable to CoyoteRed?

 

Hey, it occurs to me that logging a cache online "requires" you to use some kind of computer. It's not voluntary, CR!! You have to use a computer!! How can you stand that?

 

 

I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question.
That's because the question is irrelevant. It's not about avoiding caches that is bad for the hobby. It's about eliminating caches that is bad for the hobby.

The question IS relevant. In fact it’s only relevant because YOUR comments have made the question necessary in the first place. You’re pretty much the one who is advocating the “elimination” of my poetry cache simply because YOU don’t happen to like it.

 

“Bad for the hobby” is your opinion, nothing more.

 

Do you normally make it a habit to try to dictate how others should play the game?

 

And by the way – are you STILL afraid to answer the question? :rolleyes:

 

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.

Documenting that you can claim you've found the cache when you've found the cache is kind of silly, don't you think?

You made that pronouncement as if it were a rule. I had never heard of such a rule, so naturally I requested a link.

 

Based on your brand new definition of a “find,” however, I guess the whole point is moot.

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post
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?
Oh, your transparent argument blurring the lines of finding the cache and logging the cache.

That new “definition” trick is YOUR little dodge, not mine.

 

 

Calling my positions and posting inconsistent and hypocritical.

Again, show me that I’m wrong.

 

 

I'd be happy to argue the issue, as well, without you debating my debating skills.

CR, it was YOU who brought up debating skills. You all but accused me of being a sock puppet of someone else. Are you suggesting that you should be allowed to fling such personal attacks at others, but that nobody else should be allowed to criticize you in return?

 

Sorry, but I don’t put up with such double-standards.

 

 

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

Yes, you do. YOU brought it up.

 

 

Odd though that you two use the same tactics.

See – you DO care. In fact, it appears to fascinate you.

 

Again, how is that relevant to this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
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 ... <_<

Thanks for the offer and when I'm out that way next I'll make doubly sure to find it. I'll even log it as a find and to prove a point I'll forgo the poetry so you can follow through. I'll still be able to say I found it, because, well, I found it. I'd like to see the machine required for me to un-find it.

Each cacher has his or her own special unique way of playing the game. Some behaviors are orthodox, some are borderline ... and then others are just plain weird.

 

Yes, the cache is in a public place. No, I can't stop you (or anyone else) from signing the physical logbook -- you're welcome to do so anytime. I can't even stop you (or anyone else) from muggling it for that matter. Again, I agree with the fact that I can't stop you from signing the paper log with your crayon. And again: What the heck does that have to do with the issue in this thread?

 

CoyoteRed, if it makes you happy to intentionally log a requirement-violating smiley on the cache page just for the purpose of watching it get deleted, then who am I to spoil your entertainment? Who knows, I might just decide to leave it there. Like they say: “No person is completely worthless. At the very least, one can always serve as a bad example.” :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Say Groundspeak does officially sanction logging requirements. What are the limits? What are the ground rules?

 

I envision someone in the name of "creativity" would create a logging requirement that you had to pose with full frontal nudity. What about posting personal information. I don't care to have to post a phone number so he could speak to me directly as a requirement. What about posting a spoiler to a local cache? 500 word essays in perfect German? The possibilities are as endless as what was being posted as a virtual cache.

Spoilers? Phone numbers? Full nudity? Is this a joke? Are you now attempting to demonstrate a "strawman" argument? If so, you're doing an excellent job.

 

 

 

Okay, sure the reviewers can catch any or all of those requirements, but where do you draw the line? Are you prepared for the angst-filled threads of folks with unapproved logging requirements.

 

See where I'm going with this? Never mind it's not the function of the logs to make finders jump through hoops that have nothing to do with the finding of the cache or the verification of said find.

If the hoop to be jumped through is specified as a requirement on the cache page, then yes it is a function.

 

 

Never mind it is wrong to delete a legitimate find.

If it violated a clearly stated requirement, then the log is, by definition, NOT legitimate.

 

(By the way, I didn't just hear you confuse "find" with "log," did I? Seems like I heard a new clarification on that recently ...)

 

 

Logging requirements are as bad an idea as was virtual caches and will cause similar problems. Let's have a bit of forethought on this issue.

 

I repeat, it is best for this tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated.

There are a lot of cachers who don't like micros. Is it best for that tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated?

 

There are a lot of cachers who don't like puzzle caches. Is it best for that tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated?

 

There are a lot of cachers who don't like event caches. Is it best for that tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated?

 

Just because you dislike a certain type of cache doesn't mean others share your opinion. I'm certainly glad you weren't around when micros got started -- I LIKE micros.

 

As you've continued to make it an issue, I'll ask the question once again: Why not simply avoid the caches you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
What the heck does any of that have to do with this discussion?

 

It has everything to do with the discussion.

 

Now that we've finally established that we can find a cache and not log them online. We've also established that a find is not contingent on logging that find online. The find stands whether it is logged online or not.

 

I suppose next we should explore whether a legitimate "Found It" log can be deleted for reasons that relate to the cache page only and doesn't affect the hunt for the cache in any way. I suppose we are exploring the cache owner's right, not the ability, to delete a log, any log, at will.

Share this post


Link to post

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

If logging your find online is "irrelevant" to you (in your words), then why are you even participating in this discussion?

 

Well, I resisted for a long time, but I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are a troll. My words? Hardly. If you really, really believed what you are writing then I doubt you are really in the profession you claim. You need better reading comprehension than that. The only alternative is you're a troll.

 

To clarify, you can't even accurately paraphrase what I'm saying. What I said and what you are trying to twist my words to mean are two completely different things. You're not really trying to argue the issue.

 

So, that's it. I've wasted for too much time on you as it is. Welcome to the ignore list with your friend--just in case you don't know why I'm not going to be responding anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
What the heck does any of that have to do with this discussion?

 

It has everything to do with the discussion.

 

Now that we've finally established that we can find a cache and not log them online. We've also established that a find is not contingent on logging that find online. The find stands whether it is logged online or not.

"WE" never established anything. Sorry, I don't put up with being intentionally misquoted. YOU established that you don't care whether you log online -- yet you continue to insist that my cache be "eliminated" simply because you don't like the on-line logging requirement.

 

I would point out that that is a glaring contradiction, but I understand you don't like me criticizing your debating skills.

 

 

I suppose next we should explore whether a legitimate "Found It" log can be deleted for reasons that relate to the cache page only and doesn't affect the hunt for the cache in any way. I suppose we are exploring the cache owner's right, not the ability, to delete a log, any log, at will.

What do you mean "next?" We've been discussing that for several posting cycles now.

 

NOW we're finally back somewhere near the topic.

 

And yes, as the cache owner, that is my right.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! CR is really showing his stuff here. I wish I'd been in on this for the past day, but wasn't at a computer.

 

CR is using his same old tactics. Claiming that he never said stuff he said (even when it's quoted by him), ignoring the point by not answering the question but instead replying with a suggestion that someone has a reading comprehension problem, suggesting that things be changed to suit him because that's the way he prefers to cache, and when he loses an argument throws the winner on his ignore list.

 

Pretty lame CR. But any other behavior would have been a surprise.

 

By the way, the next time I'm in Charleston I'm going to make it a point to find some of your caches and see what you do with my online logs.

 

KBI, how do you like being my sock puppet? It's funny that he claims we both have similar styles of debating since he's now lost a debate to each of us in the last week. I'll leave it to you to keep pointing out the flaws in his logic and the inconsistencies in this thread since I've been out of it for a while and you've been doing a great job so far. He won't see them but other people will enjoy it I'm sure.

 

And to keep this on topic, I don't think that a cache that clearly states the requirements in the description should be a mystery either. There's no mystery or puzzle to it. Suggesting that they have to be listed in a different cache type just so those folx that don't want to bother with reading a cache page is a waste of time for the hiders. They read the descriptions and have adheared to the definitions.

 

And for those people that don't like caches that are different than the way they used to be and want them banned from GC.COM, I'd suggest starting your own cache web site and becoming the ultimate ruler there. Stop suggesting that everyone else conform to the way you'd like to play the game just because you think you know what's best. You don't have to save us from ourselves, we're quite capable of making our own choices based on what is mentioned on the cache page. Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

If logging your find online is "irrelevant" to you (in your words), then why are you even participating in this discussion?

Well, I resisted for a long time, but I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are a troll.

Now that you've resorted to all out name-calling, I'll assume you have finally exhausted your supply of actual, rational arguments.

 

 

My words? Hardly.

Oh yeah? Then why did you re-quote it yourself?

 

Here, I'll quote it yet again:

I can find the cache. I can sit around at any meeting and proclaim that I found the cache. Folks can go to the cache and see my signature (stamp) in the log book. I have found the cache. It's irrelevant if I've logged my find on gc.com.

Can you see it now?

Share this post


Link to post
If you really, really believed what you are writing then I doubt you are really in the profession you claim.

Again with the personal attacks. Please return to the argument – if you have any actual argument left, that is.

 

 

You need better reading comprehension than that. The only alternative is you're a troll.

Again, if I’ve misconstrued you, then straighten me out. There's really no need for you to revert to toddler-style name-calling

 

 

To clarify, you can't even accurately paraphrase what I'm saying. What I said and what you are trying to twist my words to mean are two completely different things. You're not really trying to argue the issue.

If you need to correct or clarify yourself, then please do so. I’m not stopping you. If I've failed to understand anything you've tried to say, then what's the point in saying "you misunderstood me" over and over? Just clearly re-state what you were truly trying to express, and I'll try again. Honest.

 

 

 

So, that's it. I've wasted for too much time on you as it is. Welcome to the ignore list with your friend--just in case you don't know why I'm not going to be responding anymore.

Ignore list – so what does that mean, that you won’t be able to see my posts anymore? Or for all I know you’re going to PRETEND that you can’t see my posts anymore.

 

Either way it’s clear to me that you feel you are no longer able to rationally participate in the debate, so you’ve chosen the electronic equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALA ... am I right?

 

Fine. Do whatever you like. Run and hide from the debate if you think that's your best option. Me, I'll come back here from time to time and see if there are any more good points like the many that others have posted, and continue to participate as appropriate.

 

And hey, just in case you ever decide to come back and read this anyway, I’ll repeat the question you once again forgot to answer:

 

Instead of demanding their elimination, why not simply AVOID the caches you don't like?

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, CoyoteRed!

 

Just testing. Did you remember to block BOTH of my account names? If not, here's that question again -- the one you keep forgetting to answer:

 

Instead of demanding their elimination, why not simply AVOID the caches you don't like?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes that's right, it's me -- KBI! :shocked:

Share this post


Link to post

Don't we say in the info sheets we put in caches for muggles that accidentally come upon a cache that they can feel free to come on GC and log the cache? If you found it, you found it. A cache owner shouldn't be able to control a find count. A find count is personal to each cacher. If they feel they found it, the hider shouldn't be able to discredit that.

 

I once found a cache that was the end of a cache series by accident while scouting a place to plant. The whole idea of the series was to collect parts of the coordinates in the micros throughout the city. I hadn't found any of the micros yet, but logged the end mystery cache (which fortunately was listed that way). My log was promptly deleted. I wasn't allowed to actually find the cache until I found the whole micro series apparently.

 

Granted, this is what got me into micros when I thought a bout in the woods was all I was into. But this is almost what made me quit geocaching almost before I begun because I was infuriated about the polotics in a sport that I deemed something I could do without having to deal with people. Ha! (This also ended up being a great cache series and now I'm friends with the owner. Go figure.)

 

My deal is that maybe the cache owner shouldn't have SUCH totelitarian dictation over logging. They should be able to delete offensive text, but not the smiley.

 

As for these juggling after you hunted and found and SLed? It's fun, but why not just make it a fun option? I have a cache that SUGGESTS making a tall tale about the use of a strange structure, but I certainly haven't deleted those logs that didn't participate in the story part. If you SL, you should be able to log it.

 

What's to stop someone from deleting ALL find logs just because they don't like another cacher?

 

MUST INCLUDE A PAINFUL DEATH EXPERIENCE IN A LOG? You've GOT to be kidding me. "I will deny you of your smiley if you don't share your frownie feelings"?????????...is that the deal? C'mon now.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't we say in the info sheets we put in caches for muggles that accidentally come upon a cache that they can feel free to come on GC and log the cache? If you found it, you found it. A cache owner shouldn't be able to control a find count. A find count is personal to each cacher. If they feel they found it, the hider shouldn't be able to discredit that.

I think that note is to try and discourage muggles from taking the cache away if they find it on accident, and to get them to join the fun instead. Not that a cacher should feel free to log the find and completely disregard the requirements of the cache in order to log the find.

 

The cache owner is the owner of the cache, and this site is just the listing service for it. This site makes the rules for what it will and will not tolerate from a cache it lists, and the rest of us abide by them or we list our caches elsewhere. Since this site allows the cache owners to dictate what the logging requirements are, and allows owners to delete finds if the requirements are not met, you're going to see that happen. You can always decide not to look for those caches that you don't enjoy, but if you look for one with logging requirements and don't abide by them on purpose, why would you feel the owner shouldn't be able to delete your find?

 

I once found a cache that was the end of a cache series by accident while scouting a place to plant. The whole idea of the series was to collect parts of the coordinates in the micros throughout the city. I hadn't found any of the micros yet, but logged the end mystery cache (which fortunately was listed that way). My log was promptly deleted. I wasn't allowed to actually find the cache until I found the whole micro series apparently.

 

Granted, this is what got me into micros when I thought a bout in the woods was all I was into. But this is almost what made me quit geocaching almost before I begun because I was infuriated about the polotics in a sport that I deemed something I could do without having to deal with people. Ha! (This also ended up being a great cache series and now I'm friends with the owner. Go figure.)

That's a good example of a cache that the owner spent a lot of time preparing that, according to you, was a great series. If he had allowed your original find to stay then for all he knew you might not have gone back to experience the series as he intended. If you somehow had found the cache on purpose without finding all the micros (maybe you ran around to other finders and got the coords), instead of on accident while looking in the woods for something else, would you still feel like your log should remain instead of being deleted?

 

My deal is that maybe the cache owner shouldn't have SUCH totelitarian dictation over logging. They should be able to delete offensive text, but not the smiley.

It's their cache. Why can't they be able to delete online logs of people they know didn't sign the logbook? Some hiders check the two logs against each other and delete finds that way. What would you do if people were logging your cache but their name wasn't in the logbook?

 

As for these juggling after you hunted and found and SLed? It's fun, but why not just make it a fun option?

Some owners do, others are more strict about it. Instead of suggesting that people make the requirements of their caches optional, wouldn't it make more sense to realized that finding those caches is optional to you, and if you don't want to do the required thing then don't find the cache?

 

I have a cache that SUGGESTS making a tall tale about the use of a strange structure, but I certainly haven't deleted those logs that didn't participate in the story part. If you SL, you should be able to log it.

Kewl. You're one of the owners that isn't strict about it. What if someone suggested that you HAD to enforce your tall tale policy instead of making it optional? Would you do it, or tell them to go play the game their way and let you play it yours?

 

What's to stop someone from deleting ALL find logs just because they don't like another cacher?

Nothing. Except that would be seriously rude.

 

MUST INCLUDE A PAINFUL DEATH EXPERIENCE IN A LOG? You've GOT to be kidding me. "I will deny you of your smiley if you don't share your frownie feelings"?????????...is that the deal? C'mon now.

I agree. That would be be over the top for me. If someone listed a cache near me with that requirement I would choose not to even look for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Can someone point out to me where it is a requirement that one read the cache page before, during, or after a cache hunt?

 

Cache owners who are strict enforcers of extra logging requirements on Traditional caches are bullies. They are saying "you may play the game as long as you play it my way". I'm not going let them push me around. I love birdwatching, even more so than geocaching. I often combine the two. Even if someone hid a Traditional cache that required people to list all the birds they saw in their log, I might not comply. My log is my business and I'll decide what I say and how I say it, provided it meets the guidelines of the website. If I feel like talking about birds, I will. If I'm in the mood for "TNLN TFTC", then that's all I'm going to do. If you delete the log, you're only fooling yourself. My name is still in the logbook for everyone to see. If the extra requirement is that important, list the cache as mystery/puzzle/unknown.

Share this post


Link to post

Can someone point out to me where it is a requirement that one read the cache page before, during, or after a cache hunt?

On KBI's poetry cache, it's right there in his description as a requirement. I don't think it's written in any gc.com guidelines, but it's also not listed that you turn on your GPSr - they sort of assume in order to use the coords you'll turn it on without being told. If they told you everything you had to do, step by step, it would take you 20 years to read it all.

 

There are some folx that don't use a GPSr to find caches. What would you think if they started complaining that traditional caches have the coords removed from the cache page?

 

Cache owners who are strict enforcers of extra logging requirements on Traditional caches are bullies.

It is, however, written in the guidelines that you're not supposed to call other people names in the forums.

 

They are saying "you may play the game as long as you play it my way".

Not quite. It's more like they're saying, "you may log my cache as long as you log it the way I want you to." They're not trying to change the entire game to suit themselves, only their own cache. Nothing says you HAVE to find a cache with logging requirements if you don't want to abide by them. Right?

 

So would you agree that people that try to change the entire game to suit themselves are the real bullies?

 

I'm not going let them push me around.

Good job! Stand up for yourself and don't let The Man keep you down! That's just good advice. However, nothing says you HAVE to find a cache with logging requirements if you don't want to abide by them. Right?

 

I love birdwatching, even more so than geocaching. I often combine the two. Even if someone hid a Traditional cache that required people to list all the birds they saw in their log, I might not comply. My log is my business and I'll decide what I say and how I say it, provided it meets the guidelines of the website. If I feel like talking about birds, I will. If I'm in the mood for "TNLN TFTC", then that's all I'm going to do. If you delete the log, you're only fooling yourself. My name is still in the logbook for everyone to see.

The cache pages that I've seen that are strict about the requirements only state that the online log will be deleted, not that they're going to go out to their cache and rip your name out of the log book. They're not even going to dispute that you actually found the container and held it in your halds. They will only delete the online log and probably ask you politely to log again, but this time include the required stuff (poem, picture, whatever). I don't think they're trying to fool anyone.

 

If the extra requirement is that important, list the cache as mystery/puzzle/unknown.

Why? What's unknown about a cache where the extra requirements are listed on the cache page clearly? There's no mystery or puzzle to solve either. It's simply a cache that an owner has added something else to.

Share this post


Link to post

I once found a cache that was the end of a cache series by accident while scouting a place to plant. The whole idea of the series was to collect parts of the coordinates in the micros throughout the city. I hadn't found any of the micros yet, but logged the end mystery cache (which fortunately was listed that way). My log was promptly deleted. I wasn't allowed to actually find the cache until I found the whole micro series apparently.

I'm glad it worked out in the end, however I wouldn't dream of deleting a log of cacher who found a cache without outright cheating. (A completely different scenario.) We have cache where the first finder intuited and skipped a stage--probably the hardest stage of the hunt. Did we get all upset and delete the log? Nope, we just said more power to you.

 

We've skipped steps in a multi. We were stuck on a stage and Sissy intuited the meaning of a clue in the description. We continued the hunt.

 

If someone is able to find your cache with just the information on the cache page, then it's a legitimate find. Doesn't matter if they didn't find the way you intended for them to find it.

 

Pretty much, any way you find a cache and sign the log is a legitimate find. Some I don't like, but I'll deal with the problem instead of having to draw some arbitrary line.

 

The only exception I'm likely to make personally is organized cheating like using a cheat site to get the coords and just racking up smilies. That's simply not fair for the folks who put in the work to find the cache. However, I'll deal with that if it ever happens.

 

What's to stop someone from deleting ALL find logs just because they don't like another cacher?
Nothing. There is a difference between the right to delete a log and the ability to delete a log. The differences in everyday life are common knowledge, the most famous one is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Of course, you have the ability to do it, but not the right to do it and might be punished if you do.

 

MUST INCLUDE A PAINFUL DEATH EXPERIENCE IN A LOG? You've GOT to be kidding me. "I will deny you of your smiley if you don't share your frownie feelings"?????????...is that the deal? C'mon now.

When I mentioned earlier in the thread that folks would go over the top with the requirements I was blasted with "that's only your opinion." Of course, it's my opinion and it just happens to be true. This illustrates that. It would only get worse and worse until TPTB have to clamp down on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't we say in the info sheets we put in caches for muggles that accidentally come upon a cache that they can feel free to come on GC and log the cache? If you found it, you found it. A cache owner shouldn't be able to control a find count. A find count is personal to each cacher. If they feel they found it, the hider shouldn't be able to discredit that.

Take the example of my poetry cache. Logging with a poem is a stated requirement. Whether the finder finds the micro because they (1) stumbled accross it as a muggle, read the stash note, and decided then and there to join up; or (2) researched it on Geocaching.com -- they would still be responsible for having read the descriptions and requirements on the cache page. Would I delete a non-poetic log by a newbie who joined Geocaching because of my poetry cache? NO! I'd likely add a note welcoming him/her, and follow up with an email reminding them of the requirement. Do I think the newbie would actually skip the poetry in the first place? Well, in the three-year history of the cache, only about 2% of finders (two people out of ~100) have logged non-poetically, and one of them elected to comply anyway ... so I would guess 'no.'

 

Of course, that 'two percent' number only tells PART of the story, you say -- and you would be right: What about those who read the description and chose not to search for the cache at all, avoiding it completely? Well, that's a good point, and guessing at that number of people (who decided to simple leave it alone) would be pure speculation, but there is ONE thing we can conclude for sure: None of them would be CoyoteRed.

 

 

I once found a cache that was the end of a cache series by accident while scouting a place to plant. The whole idea of the series was to collect parts of the coordinates in the micros throughout the city. I hadn't found any of the micros yet, but logged the end mystery cache (which fortunately was listed that way). My log was promptly deleted. I wasn't allowed to actually find the cache until I found the whole micro series apparently.

That IS a little harsh -- no warning, you say? If it were me I'd either appeal to the cache owner, or just forget about it. I would never think of deleting even a spoiler log without first offering to let the finder modify it himself.

 

 

My deal is that maybe the cache owner shouldn't have SUCH totelitarian dictation over logging. They should be able to delete offensive text, but not the smiley.

Actually -- I think I could live with that. That's a suggestion I hadn't thought about. Just because I want finders to post with a poem doesn't mean I want to damage their total find count. That might be a good option for owners to have as an alternative.

 

However, as Mushtang pointed out, there are some owners who regularly square the physical log with the online log, as is their right. If you ink is not in the book, your smiley gets booted. I don't have a problem with that -- If I may extrapolate CoyoteRed-style for a moment -- that ability prevents cache pages from theoretically filling up with hundreds of bogus finds for every legit one.

 

 

As for these juggling after you hunted and found and SLed? It's fun, but why not just make it a fun option?

Good point, but ultimately that's up to the owner. You might just as well look at a 37-stage-four-state puzzle-multi and ask "WTF? Why not just a couple stages?" -- but again, ultimately that's up to the owner.

 

 

What's to stop someone from deleting ALL find logs just because they don't like another cacher?

Nothing. Nothing but good old-fashioned, common sense get-along courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Can someone point out to me where it is a requirement that one read the cache page before, during, or after a cache hunt?

It's not a codified requirement. It's a common sense rule.

 

Analogy: Nowhere does it say you have to do any finacial research before purchasing a stock -- but there are those who do it despite common sense, and they usually lose thier shirt.

 

Analogy: Nowhere does it say you have to read the instructions before setting up your brand new computer, but, if you don't, and plugging things together out of order causes something to fry -- do you think the manufacturer who wrote those large-lettered warnings in the book you skipped is going to have any sympathy? Maybe, but that's up to them.

 

I think the old saw is "look before you leap."

 

Cache owners who are strict enforcers of extra logging requirements on Traditional caches are bullies. They are saying "you may play the game as long as you play it my way". I'm not going let them push me around. I love birdwatching, even more so than geocaching. I often combine the two. Even if someone hid a Traditional cache that required people to list all the birds they saw in their log, I might not comply. My log is my business and I'll decide what I say and how I say it, provided it meets the guidelines of the website. If I feel like talking about birds, I will. If I'm in the mood for "TNLN TFTC", then that's all I'm going to do. If you delete the log, you're only fooling yourself. My name is still in the logbook for everyone to see.

If you KNOWINGLY violate the rhyming rule when logging my cache, you log it anyway, and then intentionally refuse to edit your log when you get a friendly, poetic email from me -- then who's the bully?

 

If you are demanding that my cache be changed or eliminated just to suit your personal preferences -- then who's really saying "you may play the game as long as you play it my way".

 

EVERY geocache is voluntary. Who says you have to search the cache in the first place -- why not just avoid it? Is there NOBODY on your side of this debate who's willing to tackle that simple question???

 

 

If the extra requirement is that important, list the cache as mystery/puzzle/unknown.

Doesn't apply to mine. There is nothing mysterious or unknown about the poetry cache, and there is no puzzle.

 

Again, I'm not entirely opposed to that category being modified, if that is what eventually happens. If it does I'll gladly move my cache to the new category.

Share this post


Link to post
Can someone point out to me where it is a requirement that one read the cache page before, during, or after a cache hunt?...

 

Interesting question.

 

Before pocket queries and LOC files you had to read the cache page to even get the coordinates. Owners create the cache page with the intent that it be read. This site provides tools that let you work around owner intent. However owners will put relevent information on the cache page. They can't attach that informatino to the waypoint and force your GPS to display it.

 

There are cache pages that should be read and a lot that all you need is the waypoint. It would be interesting to allow owners to check "seeker must confirm they read the cache page before seeking the cache" That way things like land owner requests to only hunt during daylight hours etc. are given a little more priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Pretty much, any way you find a cache and sign the log is a legitimate find. Some I don't like, but I'll deal with the problem instead of having to draw some arbitrary line.

"Some I don't like, but I'll deal with the problem?" Aren't you the one who just made it clear to me that you'd rather have the website completely "eliminate" (your word) caches that make you uncomfortable instead of just "dealing" with them?

 

"Instead of having to draw some arbitrary line?" CoyoteRed, you are the KING of drawing arbitrary lines!

 

 

There is a difference between the right to delete a log and the ability to delete a log. The differences in everyday life are common knowledge, the most famous one is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Of course, you have the ability to do it, but not the right to do it and might be punished if you do.

So if I follow your analogy, you're suggesting that cache owners like me who dare to enforce clearly stated logging requirements should be ... punished? :shocked:

 

If that's NOT what you're saying -- then what's your point? What does that have to do with this topic?

 

 

Tell you what, CoyoteRed -- I'll save you some trouble. If you choose not to respond to any of my posts, I'll just assume you agree with me, and have backed off your pronouncements. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

...Cache owners who are strict enforcers of extra logging requirements on Traditional caches are bullies. They are saying "you may play the game as long as you play it my way". I'm not going let them push me around. ...

 

They are saying "You can find my cache, here are my rules, please follow them." you are saying "I'm going to ignore your rules and play this game my way" and you are bullying the cache owner. They were midnig their own business until your rule breaking log came along as a challenge. If they then respond by deleting your log they are doing nothing more than honoring those who did follow the rules.

 

You have it backwards since you took the first action to create angst.

Share this post


Link to post
There are cache pages that should be read and a lot that all you need is the waypoint. It would be interesting to allow owners to check "seeker must confirm they read the cache page before seeking the cache" That way things like land owner requests to only hunt during daylight hours etc. are given a little more priority.

That is an excellent, creative suggestion. Good work. I like it!

 

There's got to be an elegant solution like that SOMEWHERE that will make (almost) everyone happy!

Share this post


Link to post

There's got to be an elegant solution like that SOMEWHERE that will make (almost) everyone happy!

 

True. But as you're the one that used the word "almost" you defintely realize there will always be CRybabies that will complain about the site or other peoples caches no matter what you change.

 

It sure is fun debating them though, isn't it? :)

Share this post


Link to post
It sure is fun debating them though, isn't it? :)

I dunno ... right now CR seems to be "debating" only those who haven't disagreed with him yet. When he finally puts everyone on his ignore list who dares to violate his own personal strict version of the way the game 'should' be played -- he'll have nothing but a blank screen in front of him.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to get things back on the tracks for a second here....

 

I still think both sides of this debate would be happy if "value added"/"extra requirements" caches were in a new category or had some distinguishing mark so they could be filtered in/out of searches. Comments??

 

For my part, I have come to believe, as long as they are tradtional, sign the log and it counts but PLEASE play along with my extras.

Share this post


Link to post

While this isn't an additional logging requirement, you guys have been discussing the deletion of logs by Cache Owners.

 

On every one of my caches placed since 01 Jan, 2005 I have included the following at the bottom of the page

 

Any logs that contain SPOILERS will be deleted without exception, and will have to be re-entered by the seeker to be accepted.

This also applies to logs that contain content suggesting inappropriate activity or do not conform to the guidelines as listed on the Cache Page or no longer relevant.

Any needed assistance was included in the HINTS section, and was provided by the Cache Owner.

 

I did this for various reasons, like when people post things like "I parked and walked across the train tressel instead of following the trail in the park" or "I entered the park after midnight, even though it was closed, cause night caching is so cool", or my favourite :) was an inside joke shared by the previous finders... keeping the secret of a new bridge that doesn't show on a Google Earth capture of the area (provided in the description as an inserted image). Basically a 2 mile walk out to a peninsula but when they get there, they find a new bridge that is not in the image... everyone keeps it secret to watch everyone else fall for it... then someone posts something like this "I drove around and found out there is a new bridge right at the site, so I took the unlisted short cut"

 

Sure, bravo for being observant, but this is intentionally spoiling the experience for everyone else. The cache was set up on purpose to be a surprise that everyone could share in. Posting about the new bridge, is like telling the audience how a magic trick works before it is performed.... boring. Log the find and be proud of yourself for discovering the truth beforehand, but keep it to yourself.

 

In any of these cases, I wouldn't wait for the person to edit their logs. It's bad enough that the Watchlist/Bookmark List have already received the log, but others will be getting PQ's with spoiler or illegal activities contained within...

 

Most people that create additional logging requirements are just trying to enhance the experience.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
In any of these cases, I wouldn't wait for the person to edit their logs. It's bad enough that the Watchlist/Bookmark List have already received the log, but others will be getting PQ's with spoiler or illegal activities contained within...

 

True enough.

 

I've suggested TPTB implement some better moderating of the logs than presently available. Something perfect for situations like this is simply to hide the text. The log is still posted, but the online log, the notifications, and the PQs have the text "*** Log text hidden ***" instead. This is a much needed step between encrypting and deleting the log. Of course, to the cache owner, the log owner, moderators, and admin, the log is visible with some sort of visual indication like the text in red.

Share this post


Link to post

KBI - I won't call you a troll, but you do share some of the same character traits (redefining some of the terms used and such - like your "if you don't respond I'll take it you agree with me"). CR wasn't saying eliminate caches because he doesn't LIKE them, he feels that they are BAD FOR THE SPORT.

 

BTW, you never have said you must post a rhyming log, you said a log in VERSE. Not all verse rhymes. My Merriam-Webster Dictionary has "1: A line of poetry. 2: metrical writing distinguished from poetry esp. by its lower level of intensity." So a single line can be verse (hard to rhymn one line) or there may be no rhymn at all. So you might want to change that long "poem" to specify "rhyming".

 

Oh, and loved your response "It's not a codified requirement. It's a common sense rule." but wouldn't let CR do the same - "Where is it written..." that you used several times.

 

And to answer your "why not skip hunting caches that have extra logging requirements" - it's not easy to find all of them. Using PQ's and GSAK there have been caches I've never even opened the cache page and wouldn't see such requirements. Tell me how I can know which ones they are in this situation? Aside from the "read the page" response, which means I sometimes have to read a whole lot of garbage that doesn't relate to the hunt (history, bad poetry, etc.).

 

And, in general as several posters commented on this, be careful about deleting logs because someone's name is not in the logbook - I know of many cases where a ad-hoc team signed with a team name, but logged as individuals.

Edited by The Jester

Share this post


Link to post
KBI - I won't call you a troll, but you do share some of the same character traits (redefining some of the terms used and such - like your "if you don't respond I'll take it you agree with me").

Guilty, your honor.

 

You're exactly right -- that comment of mine didn't add anything useful to the debate, other than to test whether CR had really put his fingers in his ears and shouted LALALALALA -- I mean, added me to his "ignore" list. I knew it was nothing but outright taunting, but I couldn't resist. I had actually been enjoying the discussion right up to the point that he became afraid to debate me any further (See? There I go again!) and I was hoping to lure him back.

 

BTW, he may actually have me blocked, so thanks for quoting that comment where he can see it. Maybe it will work! :)

 

Having one's own reasonable and logical questions answered with a slammed door is a bit unsatisfying, don't you think?

 

Now I have a question for you: If I'm a troll, then what is CoyoteRed? I'm still a little new, so tell me: What's the hip forum slang term for someone who resorts to emotional bluster (or just plain hiding) when they run out of logical responses?

 

 

 

CR wasn't saying eliminate caches because he doesn't LIKE them, he feels that they are BAD FOR THE SPORT.

I dunno, I thought it was a reasonably logical extrapolation. Why would he say they were 'bad for the sport' if he liked them?

 

Besides, his argument is ridiculous. They are only 'bad for the sport' in his opinion. Do you share that opinion?

 

He insisted that such caches should be eliminated. I asked him why he couldn't just simply avoid such hides instead of demanding their removal. As you can see, he chose to run away without answering.

 

 

 

BTW, you never have said you must post a rhyming log, you said a log in VERSE. Not all verse rhymes. My Merriam-Webster Dictionary has "1: A line of poetry. 2: metrical writing distinguished from poetry esp. by its lower level of intensity." So a single line can be verse (hard to rhymn one line) or there may be no rhymn at all. So you might want to change that long "poem" to specify "rhyming".

You didn't read any of the cache description, did you? No excuse there, Jester -- you can get to it easily through my profile, and I've posted lots of links. Here's another one just for you. Did I mess up the URL? Do the links not work for you?

 

Yes, the part about 'VERSE' you refer to is from my description ... but so is this excerpt:

 

You can copy my lead, or do what works for you.

A sonnet, a Seuss, a simple Haiku.

The meter don’t matter. I’m not that insistent;

As long as the rhyming is (somewhat) consistent.

 

Butcher the grammar! Use a thesaurus!

Or even cram in way too many awkward syllables. Is it legal? Of caurus!

So if you’ve got the muse, it’s time to deploy it.

You’ve been given your mission. I hope you enjoy it!

Is that a broad enough definition for you? I'd say that's pretty open-ended. A Haiku doesn't rhyme either, does it? Your Merriam-Webster definitions would be fine with me as well. I did my best to make it clear that I don't care how good or bad the poem is. I was just looking to generate a little fun -- and it's been way more that I had hoped! For three years now my wife and I have enjoyed each and every [GEO] email that has come via that cache. Some of them are hilarious!!

 

And to those unknown souls who have read the description and chosen NOT to do the cache, I say: I don't blame you. If I didn't want to have to write a poem, I'd skip it too.

 

 

 

Oh, and loved your response "It's not a codified requirement. It's a common sense rule." but wouldn't let CR do the same - "Where is it written..." that you used several times.

I didn't prevent him from doing anything. He was welcome to try the same argument. If, however, he had ever actually tried to defend any of his CR Brand made-up rules or proclamations as 'common sense,' we could have had some REAL fun.

 

 

 

And to answer your "why not skip hunting caches that have extra logging requirements" - it's not easy to find all of them. Using PQ's and GSAK there have been caches I've never even opened the cache page and wouldn't see such requirements. Tell me how I can know which ones they are in this situation? Aside from the "read the page" response, which means I sometimes have to read a whole lot of garbage that doesn't relate to the hunt (history, bad poetry, etc.).

Sorry, but "I sometimes have to read a whole lot of garbage" is NOT a good enough excuse for not reading the cache page description. (And yes, I caught that 'subtle' insult buried in there. Thanks!)

 

So far in this discussion I've seen quite a few other lame excuses for not reading cache descriptions:

"I really shouldn't have to read it" (with no further explanation)

"But I had a hectic day."

"My PALM died on the trail."

"I wasn't planning on caching, but I saw one nearby."

"I use PQ's and GSAK ..." (Sound familiar?)

"I think cache types which require me to read the page shouldn't be allowed."

 

In case you think me a hypocrite: I once went out caching with a big stack of printouts that I had NOT yet read. The first stop was a virtual that required posting a photo when logging. Having not done my homework I didn't know I was supposed bring a camera. With no photo I was unable to log the find. Who did I blame? Myself! I learned to either read up ahead of time, or risk wasting my time on the trail.

 

Jester, if you choose, under WHATEVER circumstances, not to read critical information in the cache page description, yet you go after the cache anyway, then whose fault is it when that lack of critical information causes you trouble?

 

There is only one part of your argument where I have any sympathy:

... it's not easy to find all of them.

In my opinion that is pretty much the central issue in this thread, and I have agreed all along that something should probably be changed in order to allow easier sorting/filtering for those who go paperless.

 

 

 

And, in general as several posters commented on this, be careful about deleting logs because someone's name is not in the logbook - I know of many cases where a ad-hoc team signed with a team name, but logged as individuals.

Excellent point. I've never performed such a deletion myself, by the way. I'm not against the practice of auditing logbooks, but I've never physically checked up to see if any of my caches' online 'find' logs were bogus. In fact, if anyone here wants to log a poem of some kind on my poetry cache page without actually visiting the micro, please be my guest! I'm careful not to cheat when it comes to my own find count, but I really don't care whether others cheat with theirs. It doesn't affect me. I'm not the cache police.

 

Is that attitude bad for the sport? I don't know -- why don't you ask CoyoteRed? I suspect he may actually have a 'Cache Police' badge in his wallet somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

I don't necessarily have to solve the puzzle to find the cache container. It's entirely possible to find the physical container without solving the puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
The cache pages that I've seen that are strict about the requirements only state that the online log will be deleted, not that they're going to go out to their cache and rip your name out of the log book. They're not even going to dispute that you actually found the container and held it in your halds. They will only delete the online log and probably ask you politely to log again, but this time include the required stuff (poem, picture, whatever). I don't think they're trying to fool anyone.

Very true. I can keep track of my finds however I want.

 

However, the biggest benefit I get out of logging my finds online is that this fine website will help me out by keeping track of which cache's I've already found so I don't have to remember. If someone wants to take that away by deleting my find log, then this fine site also provides a handy Ignore feature so I don't have to keep track of such things myself.

 

Personally, I'm not very wrapped up in my find count. It's cool to hit a milestone or whatever, but a few deleted/missing find logs aren't going to cause me any real grief. Other folks want their online find count to be very accurate, but that's up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

I don't necessarily have to solve the puzzle to find the cache container. It's entirely possible to find the physical container without solving the puzzle.

Before signing, after signing -- I still say there's no difference.

 

Solving puzzles, defeating red herrings, working through stages, detecting camouflage, taking pictures, writing poems -- all are challenges created by fellow cachers purely for your entertainment. All are intended, generally, as requirements in your search for the cache -- that's what makes them challenges! Would you bother solving a tough puzzle if the description said "well, the cache IS located at the posted coords, but you really should solve the puzzle anyway" ...? You are correct that, in theory, for a puzzle cache, you don't necessarily have to solve the puzzle in order to find the cache container. (Whether that's actually likely is debatable, but beside the point.) So in the case of the poetry cache, who says YOU have to be the one to write the poem? How am I gonna know? Why can't you get someone to help you, or to just do it for you?

 

One of the posts to my poetry cache clearly states that the hider had his kid do it for him. Why should that bother me? Long as everybody gets some kind of entertainment out of the deal, it's all good.

 

Cache challenges are meant to be fun. If ANY of these fun 'challenges' looks instead like an annoying hurdle to you -- then just don't do it! I'm happy to respect other cachers' right to bypass my poetry cache, as long as they respect that I never had to bother hiding the dadgum thing in the first place. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Of course another idea would be to skip all this and simply update all documentaion related to "paperless" caching with a friendly reminder to read the cache page description, or risk missing critical instructions.

The whole "paperless caching" discussion is a red herring IMHO. I'm a paperless cacher, but I keep the whole description in my Palm and I read it at least once (often multiple times) before finding each cache.

 

IMHO, the issue is whether caches with additional logging requirements should show up when I search for traditional caches, when I click on the link to search for "nearby caches of this type" from a traditional cache, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course another idea would be to skip all this and simply update all documentaion related to "paperless" caching with a friendly reminder to read the cache page description, or risk missing critical instructions.

The whole "paperless caching" discussion is a red herring IMHO. I'm a paperless cacher, but I keep the whole description in my Palm and I read it at least once (often multiple times) before finding each cache.

 

IMHO, the issue is whether caches with additional logging requirements should show up when I search for traditional caches, when I click on the link to search for "nearby caches of this type" from a traditional cache, etc.

If you're going to read the description before hunting anyway, then why would it matter? Having done your homework, you've now plenty able to decide whether you still want to do this or that particular cache, right? Aren't there ever reasons other than 'logging requirements' that put you off doing a particular cache? I'm just curious.

 

I'm still not entirely opposed. If the categories are ever changed such that poetry caches like mine should no longer be considered 'traditional,' then I'll be happy to change my category. Keep in mind, though, that such a change might take a long time to phase into the system. Owners of existing 'logging requirements' caches will have to:

- become aware of the new category

- decide whether it applies to them, and

- actively make the change.

For various reasons there are plenty of them who will likely never get around to it. Note how long the 'cache attributes' have been available, yet how many caches still list no attributes at all.

Share this post


Link to post
If you're going to read the description before hunting anyway, then why would it matter? Having done your homework, you've now plenty able to decide whether you still want to do this or that particular cache, right?

Why do we have different cache types at all? Why bother distinguishing among traditional caches, multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, virtual caches, etc.? If I want a listing of traditional caches, I shouldn't get a listing that includes multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, or any other non-traditional caches. And IMHO, some additional logging requirements clearly push the cache out of the traditional category. Examples that I've seen in local caches include posting a photo of the cache owner's sig tokens (different combinations are required for different caches) and taking the coin in the cache in exchange for a coin that has a date that is numerically adjacent to the one you took (e.g., leaving a 1996 or 1998 coin in exchange for the 1997 coin you found).

 

And I think the spirit of the guidelines agrees with me, since the unknown/mystery/puzzle type is described as a catch-all type for atypical caches. Unfortunately, it also specifies that the container is not at the posted coordinates, which is only one way for a cache to be atypical.

 

Aren't there ever reasons other than 'logging requirements' that put you off doing a particular cache?

Not yet. But I've only been doing this for a few months. There are puzzle caches that I haven't solved yet, but I plan to find them once I solve the puzzles. And there have been a few caches that seemed rather pointless, but at least I got them off whatever "nearest caches" list they were on. But I haven't seen a need for the "ignore cache" feature yet.

 

And frankly, the additional logging requirements don't put me off finding the cache. I just don't think they should show up on my listings of traditional caches.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...