Jump to content

Additional Logging Requirements


niraD
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

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

 

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

 

Well, I went back to see who KBI was responding to and, lo and behold, I just proved a point. KBI doesn't read the whole thread or ignores what he wants to ignore. Case in point, the number of posts addressing me after I said I put him on my ignore list. Kind of shows what I was talking about when I did it.

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

Well, I went back to see who KBI was responding to and, lo and behold, I just proved a point. KBI doesn't read the whole thread or ignores what he wants to ignore. Case in point, the number of posts addressing me after I said I put him on my ignore list. Kind of shows what I was talking about when I did it.

 

Another inconsistency. Since when does "CR ignoring KBI" mean that "KBI has to ignore CR"? If you make a dumb comment, everyone, including those of us on your ignore list, are still free to point it out.

 

You lost a debate with him in another thread, you ran out of logical arguments and decided to put your hands over your ears and say, "I'm not listening to you". I talked to him yesterday and he hadn't put you on an ignore list, so why do you think he's not going to point out the dumb things you say....

 

Oh, I'm beginning to understand more clearly why you think putting people on your ignore list will help you.

Link to comment

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

The hamster did that earlier in the thread. Quite eloquently I might add.

If by "eloquently" you mean "tried weakly, but soon conceded," then yes, I remember (and since nobody else can link this stuff, I guess I will):

 

1. 'The hamster' made his argument against being responsible for reading the cache page here.

2. I challenged the logic of that argument here.

3. In this post he told me: "Saying "read the cache page" does have merit. It is a good discussion."

 

Granted, it's not a clear concession, but (1) it sure sounds that way, (2) he hasn't made any further attempts to argue against my position, and (3) it's a whole lot closer to being a concession than a winning argument, as you seem to claim.

 

Since then, many others have trotted out ever-weaker arguments for why a cacher needn’t be held responsible for reading what the owner of a cache posts on the cache page, none of which are valid. Here’s a brief recap:

 

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

"But I had a hectic day."

"My PALM died on the trail."

"There were too many to read."

"I wasn't planning on caching, but I saw there was a cache nearby."

"That's the only way to make it a challenge."

"There's never anything important on the cache page anyway."

"I use PQ's and GSAK ..."

"I didn't have time"

"That owner's just being all 'Type-A.'"

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

"Why should I be forced to cache YOUR way?"

"That type cache should have been banned anyway -- so what if others thought it was fun?"

 

And 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 online. Having not done my homework I didn't know I was supposed bring a camera. With no photo I was unable to log a "Found It," so I posted a note instead. Who did I blame? Myself! It never occurred to me to blame the cache owner for my own lack of responsibility. I learned to either read up ahead of time, or risk wasting my time on the trail.

 

Runaround, 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?

 

 

You've decided his answer is invalid as it does not fit your paradigm.

If by "KBI's paradigm" you mean "plain old easy-to-follow logic" or "a common sense, 'golden rule' philosophy of personal responsibility that doesn't put up with any whiny BS," then no, nobody has answered the question yet.

 

Wanna try tackling the question yourself?

 

 

The hamster is a very wise rodent. Give me a way to filter out the "red tape caches" and I'll be a happy cacher.

Yes he is. I’m with you there. Give me a way to flag my "red tape cache" and I'll be a happy cache OWNER. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Well, I went back to see who KBI was responding to and, lo and behold, I just proved a point. KBI doesn't read the whole thread or ignores what he wants to ignore.

So it's okay for you to put your tougher debate opponents on your ignore list, but it's not okay for others to ignore things you say? Fine. For now I'll pencil that down as "CoyoteRed Contradiction #23."

 

Case in point, the number of posts addressing me after I said I put him on my ignore list.

Exactly. You "said" you put me on your ignore list. As there appears to be no indication of that from my end, all I can do is take your word for it -- and based on your history there was no justification for believing you, so I assumed there was a good chance you were bluffing. Turns out I was at least partly right: You just said you read my post, didn't you? If you were ignoring me, how did you know how many posts I addressed to you?

 

Kind of shows what I was talking about when I did it.

If you want to make yourself look silly, that's your choice. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I wasn't very impressed with your tactic of running away and hiding from someone every time your well of valid arguments runs dry. Anytime you're ready to re-engage me in debate, I'll be here patiently waiting -- but first you've got some catching up to do. I've been very busy responding to YOUR posts! :ph34r:

 

[EDIT: Typey typey typey!]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
And 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 online. Having not done my homework I didn't know I was supposed bring a camera. With no photo I was unable to log a "Found It," so I posted a note instead. Who did I blame? Myself! It never occurred to me to blame the cache owner for my own lack of responsibility. I learned to either read up ahead of time, or risk wasting my time on the trail.

 

Thank you for perfectly describing a virtual hunt.

 

From the guidelines:

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there.

 

 

And this:

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

 

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the poster, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the poster, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

 

Anyone hunting this type of cache should expect some extra logging requirements. It says so in the guidelines. That said, GC.com has given us a way to filter these caches out without having to read every cache page. There is a unique cache type that I can filter out of a PQ.

 

Now let's examine a traditional cache:

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

 

Now, per the guidelines, show me where I need to write a poem to complete a traditional cache. You're good at quoting. Go ahead, give it a try.

 

An additional logging requirement is merely a way for a cache owner to exert extra, and unnecessary, control over their cache outside of the guidelines. It should either be a cache type of its own or have a attribute that could be used for a null filter.

Link to comment
Thank you for perfectly describing a virtual hunt.

You're welcome. The point is that I took responsibility for my mistake when I failed to read the virtual's cache page. Did you miss that point, or are you intentionally trying to obfuscate?

 

Thank you for once again dodging the direct question I asked you.

 

 

Now, per the guidelines, show me where I need to write a poem to complete a traditional cache. You're good at quoting. Go ahead, give it a try.

No, the guidelines don't say you need to write a poem to complete a traditional cache. I have never even remotely suggested that the guidelines say you need to write a poem to complete a traditional cache.

 

My cache page says you need to write a poem to complete my traditional cache. Do you have a problem with that? If so, then let me ask you another apparently tough question that nobody else has been able (or willing) to answer:

 

Why can't you simply avoid my poetry cache if you don't want to write a poem?

 

(Hint: You might want to skip the "I can't/don't/didn't read the cache page." excuse.)

 

 

An additional logging requirement is merely a way for a cache owner to exert extra, and unnecessary, control over their cache outside of the guidelines.

It's MY CACHE! I put it there! It doesn't belong to you, it doesn't belong to Groundspeak -- it belongs to ME. I'll exert whatever control over the cache I feel like. If and when Groundspeak does outlaw caches with logging requirements I will immediately archive the cache and pitch the container into the nearest Dumpster -- I will not continue as the owner of a pointlessly lame 1/1 micro.

 

If you insist that a poetry cache should be voluntary, then go out and place a voluntary poetry cache. I'll even help you write the description -- if you don't mind a dorky KBI poem, that is. :mad:

 

Besides, that's why they call them guidelines instead of rules. What I'm doing is not sneaky, it's not hidden, it's only intended for fun and entertainment, and most importantly it's allowed by the folks who run this website. My poetry cache has been providing people good entertainment for almost three years now. Think about it: I can't exert any "extra and unnecessary control" over you if you simply avoid my cache, right?

 

Writing the poem when logging my cache is voluntary because doing the cache at all is voluntary. ALL caching is voluntary. I have never made any cacher do anything. It thoroughly amazes me how many people are getting all wrapped around the axle at the mere existence of my cache. Just skip it if you don't like it! :mad:

 

 

 

It should either be a cache type of its own or have a attribute that could be used for a null filter.

For the third time, I agree with you completely on that point. Do we really need to make it four?

Link to comment

Let's not forget there is a major difference in an additional logging requirement for verification purposes and one that has nothing to do with verifying the find.

 

Actually, with virts the most common form was emailing the owner some sort of information to verify the find.

Link to comment

CoyoteRed wants my poetry cache banned. KBI (repeatedly) asks:

Why can't you simply avoid my poetry cache if you don't want to write a poem?

CoyoteRed still refuses to answer, arguing instead that:

Let's not forget there is a major difference in an additional logging requirement for verification purposes and one that has nothing to do with verifying the find.

 

See what I mean, Runaround? Tap dance, tap dance, tappity tappity tappity ... anything but address that rather direct, but somehow difficult question.

Link to comment

It's MY CACHE! I put it there! It doesn't belong to you, it doesn't belong to Groundspeak -- it belongs to ME. I'll exert whatever control over the cache I feel like. If and when Groundspeak does outlaw caches with logging requirements I will immediately archive the cache and pitch the container into the nearest Dumpster -- I will not continue as the owner of a pointlessly lame 1/1 micro

 

Groundspeak could reasonably require that finds (on their site) not be deleted just because hoops were not jumped through. It would still be your cache and you still control it...you just don't control Groundspeak.

 

I hadn't realized this was a lame micro unless you enjoy writing poetry. Maybe that should be the first line of the description...which I did read when I visited Cumming GA a while ago...and decided I'd rather not do hoop jumps after I had found that cache.

 

(If writing find logs in verse is so much fun, why don't I see this done on other caches. I don't know of any caches where the owner has said "any find logs written in verse will be deleted.")

Link to comment

See what I mean, Runaround? Tap dance, tap dance, tappity tappity tappity ... anything but address that rather direct, but somehow difficult question.

 

Label the cache as an Unknown and the problem is solved. Keep it as a Traditional and the problem persists. After all, a log in poem form is a verbal puzzle.

Link to comment

A lot of discussions because cachers are too lazy to read the cache description. I cache paperless, yet I always read the cache descriptions either online or on my PDA before headng out.

 

If people are in such a friggin hurry to get a smiley that they can't read the cache description and requirements, then they get what they deserve if they don't post appropriately.

 

I did a numbers run in Nashville to get > 100 caches one day, yet before I went I did go out and read all the cache descriptions and comply with special logging requirements on a couple of them.

 

The nice thing about geocaching is the variety of caches and ways to play. Don't like it - don't log it.

Link to comment
Groundspeak could reasonably require that finds (on their site) not be deleted just because hoops were not jumped through. It would still be your cache and you still control it...you just don't control Groundspeak.

Groundspeak can do whatever they like with their site. It's their website. And as I just said (and you quoted), if they change the rules to prohibit what I'm doing, that's fine -- the poetry cache will simply go away.

 

Which prompts my curiosity enough to ask you a question: In your opinion, would losing a cache that so many have enjoyed be good for the sport, or bad for the sport?

 

 

I hadn't realized this was a lame micro unless you enjoy writing poetry. Maybe that should be the first line of the description...

It is ... almost. Line three (or five, depending on how you count lines) begins:

 

No puzzles to solve, no running around;

It’s a straightforward cache like most typically found.

 

It’s easy to spot, but the next step is worse.

When you web-log your find,
you must put it in VERSE!

The cache size is of course indicated in the standard way.

 

 

...which I did read when I visited Cumming GA a while ago...and decided I'd rather not do hoop jumps after I had found that cache.

See? CoyoteRed and Runaround and the rest of you guys, are you listening? It CAN be done! Here's somebody who didn't want to write a poem, so he chose not to do the cache! He (she?) actually READ the cache page! How hard was that?

 

 

 

(If writing find logs in verse is so much fun, why don't I see this done on other caches. I don't know of any caches where the owner has said "any find logs written in verse will be deleted.")

Like I said, I didn't WANT to copy other's ideas. I wanted to set up a challenge that was unique -- and at the time it was, but I understand that there have been others placed since that time which work the same way.

 

Besides, whether or not you think it's fun doesn't really matter, does it? You already skipped it -- that's fine. I don't blame you for bypassing it if you don't want to write a poem. My cache has almost 100 poem-smileys from people who sure seemed to enjoy it, and I've gotten several compliments regarding the cache. One person even gave the ultimate compliment: She wants to copy it!

 

As long as Geocaching Freedom continues to exist in its current state -- the poetry cache stays. :D

Link to comment
Label the cache as an Unknown and the problem is solved.

The Mystery/Unknown category doesn not apply to my cache. The container is located exactly at the posted coordinates, and the logging requirement is clearly spelled out in the description. There is nothing 'mysterious' or 'unknown' about my poetry cache.

 

 

Keep it as a Traditional and the problem persists.

It's only a problem for those cachers who fail to read the description before hunting.

 

 

After all, a log in poem form is a verbal puzzle.

That's a stretch. We've been stretching excuses, now we're stretching definitions?

 

And I notice you STILL haven't answered my question:

 

Runaround: 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?

Link to comment

Wether or not extra logging requirements should exhist as a requirement (I'm somewhere in the middle), wasn't the original intention of this thread something else? Wasn't it something to the effect of, "These caches DO exhist. How can avoid downloading one listed as a regular that once I get home to log it, I find that I needed to juggle hamsters AND take a pic?"

 

There's a difference betweeen asking someone to write in verse which CAN be done after the fact then telling someone once they get home from the vacation that they didn't complete all the cache requirements.

 

If there was another way to filter out these things, the shoulds can cache them and shouldn'ts can filter them out and the shoulds that are going on a power caching vacation won't waste their time when that's not the objective.

Link to comment

RUFFLEDOSTRICH, I think most folks here would agree with you that there is a consensus on that point. Near as I can tell we're now just kind of waiting to see whether the Decision Makers think some kind of response is in order.

Link to comment

From a related thread:

 

When it comes to updating the cache-type guidelines, I think there are basically two camps. One argues that post-find logging requirements should be banned (like virtuals, webcams, etc.). The other argues that the guidelines for puzzle/mystery/unknown caches should be updated so it can truly be a "catch-all" cache type, even for caches where the container is at the posted coordinates.

The "Unknown" cache-type can also be used if you don't want to tell what flavor of hunt it is. It already can handle the "catch all." It's unfortunate that the description didn't reflect this when it was changed.

 

From the Wayback Machine. It used to be clear that you could mark a cache as Unknown if you didn't want to give away the hunt--this could include traditionals.

Hey, as long as we're yearning for the way things used to be, I just noticed something else on that that old page: In the definition of "Traditional Cache " it says "Some caches are themed, so make sure to read the description before going on a hunt."

 

Doesn't that sound like good advice, CoyoteRed? :lol:

Link to comment

A minor change to the cache description will satisfy everyone;

 

No puzzles to solve, no running around;

It’s a straightforward cache like most typically found.

 

It’s easy to spot, but the next step is worse.

When you web-log your find, you must please put it in VERSE!

No need to delete any web-logs, and most finders will log in verse anyway. Those that don't want to (or can't!) can either ignore the cache, or find it and simply record the fact.

 

It's supposed to be a fun game, why the angst? Where's the fun in deleting logs / having them deleted?

 

HH

Link to comment
A minor change to the cache description will satisfy everyone;

 

No puzzles to solve, no running around;

It’s a straightforward cache like most typically found.

 

It’s easy to spot, but the next step is worse.

When you web-log your find, you must please put it in VERSE!

No need to delete any web-logs, and most finders will log in verse anyway. Those that don't want to (or can't!) can either ignore the cache, or find it and simply record the fact.

You apparently haven't been reading the thread. (Not that I blame you -- it's gotten kinda long-winded, thanks to some crank who I won't name, but his initials are "KBI" :( )

 

 

I've already responded to that point:

 

An additional logging requirement is merely a way for a cache owner to exert extra, and unnecessary, control over their cache outside of the guidelines.

If you insist that a poetry cache should be voluntary, then go out and place a voluntary poetry cache. I'll even help you write the description -- if you don't mind a dorky KBI poem, that is. :(

In other words, HH: If you think there should be a voluntary poetry cache, then by all means go out and create a voluntary poetry cache!

 

 

As to your second point:

 

It's supposed to be a fun game, why the angst? Where's the fun in deleting logs / having them deleted?

I answered you the first time you asked. Guess you missed it:

 

If it's really fun - then why try and enforce it, as everyone will enjoy complying anyway!
Really? You mean like:
... at the time I couldn't be bothered to take a photo of me standing on one leg (even though I intended to when I set out).

 

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

 

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

That answer your question (again)?

 

 

Now, if you DO decide to read back over the thread, or at least the last page or two, you’ll also notice that I’ve challenged several other folks like yourself to answer a very relevant and fairly simple question, yet so far nobody’s been willing to even acknowledge it, much less attempt an answer:

 

Why can't you simply avoid my poetry cache if you don't want to write a poem?

 

(Hint: You might want to skip the "I can't/don't/won't/didn't read the cache page." excuse.)

 

Care to take a crack at it? You'd be the first!

Link to comment

A minor change to the cache description will satisfy everyone;

 

No puzzles to solve, no running around;

It’s a straightforward cache like most typically found.

 

It’s easy to spot, but the next step is worse.

When you web-log your find, you must please put it in VERSE!

No need to delete any web-logs, and most finders will log in verse anyway. Those that don't want to (or can't!) can either ignore the cache, or find it and simply record the fact.

 

It's supposed to be a fun game, why the angst? Where's the fun in deleting logs / having them deleted?

 

HH

 

That's it exactly.

 

When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?

Link to comment
When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?
Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log. All we can do is delete them or encrypt them. So if you find an online log entry for your cache that doesn't meet your standards (it doesn't match any signature in the physical log book, it isn't in verse, it doesn't include a photo of your sig tokens, whatever), all you can do is delete it.
Link to comment
Why can't you simply avoid my poetry cache if you don't want to write a poem?

 

Because it isn't simple. These need to be categorized differently. I am all for extra requirements so long as they stand out as such. I know you want to dismiss the whole read the page argument but it IS a valid one. Simply for the challenge of it and other similar reasons - I respect those that don't read the page or use the clues. Most - probably 98% will read and comply - but some won't. Thus, I have removed wording from my pages threatening deletion until these caches can be re-classified somehow as not being a simple "tradional" cache.

 

Again - I plead for a new cache category for such caches.

Link to comment
When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?
Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log. All we can do is delete them or encrypt them. So if you find an online log entry for your cache that doesn't meet your standards (it doesn't match any signature in the physical log book, it isn't in verse, it doesn't include a photo of your sig tokens, whatever), all you can do is delete it.

 

Maybe we need a new log type.

 

"Found it and jumped through your hoops". :(

 

Those who didn't want to jump could still log the traditional "Found it" for having found the cache.

Link to comment
When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?
Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log. All we can do is delete them or encrypt them. So if you find an online log entry for your cache that doesn't meet your standards (it doesn't match any signature in the physical log book, it isn't in verse, it doesn't include a photo of your sig tokens, whatever), all you can do is delete it.

 

Maybe we need a new log type.

 

"Found it and jumped through your hoops". :(

 

Those who didn't want to jump could still log the traditional "Found it" for having found the cache.

 

Why not just log a note or a DNF if you don't want to meet someone's requirements for logging the cache? Add the cache to your ignore list after you log it. You can post in your note that you really did find the cache. The smiley is just a smiley. You have the satisfaction that you found the cache. Maybe even a badge of pride. Some people in So. California have printed up t-shirts that say "HaZzMaTt Deleted My Log"

Link to comment

I have a cache with an additional logging requirement, but it would never occur to me to delete a log from somebody who really didn't want to comply.

 

I guess there will always be control freaks out there who want to micromanage how people get to do their caches. It's part of human nature. I'm usually happy to comply, but my opinion of the hider as a person is, quite naturally, affected.

Link to comment
When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?
Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log.

 

Why would you want to do that? They found the cache and fulfilled the accepted requirements for verifying the find. The log type does say "Found It."

 

How does writing a log in verse verify the find?

 

So, acknowledging the find as a note is okay, but not as a smilie? What gives?

Link to comment
Why would you want to [delete a "Found It" entry or convert it to a "Note" entry]? They found the cache and fulfilled the accepted requirements for verifying the find.
The whole point is that the cache owner does not think that the cacher fulfilled the requirements for the find.
Link to comment
I am all for extra requirements so long as they stand out as such.

Thank you. Another voice of reason.

 

 

I respect those that don't read the page or use the clues.

I do too, as long as they accept responsibility for any problems that result from their choice not to read the description.

 

 

Again - I plead for a new cache category for such caches.

I'm with you. It would go along well with the paperless methods.

Link to comment
Maybe we need a new log type.

 

"Found it and jumped through your hoops". :blink:

 

Those who didn't want to jump could still log the traditional "Found it" for having found the cache.

Not on mine they couldn't. :)

Link to comment
I have a cache with an additional logging requirement, but it would never occur to me to delete a log from somebody who really didn't want to comply.

I have found caches with additional logging requirements, but it would never occur to me to gripe or whine about them when I freely chose to hunt a cache I could have avoided in the first place. All caching is voluntary.

 

 

I guess there will always be control freaks out there who want to micromanage how people get to do their caches. It's part of human nature. I'm usually happy to comply, but my opinion of the hider as a person is, quite naturally, affected.

I guess there will always be control freaks out there who want to find fault and try to dictate how other cache owners create and manage their caches. It's part of human nature, but my opinion of the critic as a person is, quite naturally, affected.

Link to comment
I guess there will always be control freaks out there who want to find fault and try to dictate how other cache owners create and manage their caches.

Wow. We really do have control issues, don't we? Was there someplace in my post that I advocated some sort of control over how you placed or managed your caches?

 

It's too bad that, for you, placing a cache is more about exerting control over the actions of others than it is about giving them an interesting and enjoyable experience. We have a couple cache hiders in my area that seem to have the same problem. As a result, their caches tend not to be very much fun, so most of the non-obsessed cachers in the area just ignore them.

 

I really don't understand the mindset of someone who places caches for reasons other than the enjoyment of people who find them. But I understand that such people exist, and I don't believe that new rules will discourage them. Really, the only effective thing to do is to go along with their little game when you log the cache, or just ignore them.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
When reporting a cache find, why must a threat of log deletion be held over anyone's head?
Perhaps because there's no way for cache owners to convert a "Found It" log into a "Note" log.

 

Why would you want to do that? They found the cache and fulfilled the accepted requirements for verifying the find. The log type does say "Found It."

 

How does writing a log in verse verify the find?

 

So, acknowledging the find as a note is okay, but not as a smilie? What gives?

 

Find ≠ Smilie.

 

1. Many people find caches and never log online.

2. Many people log online finds (smilie) for things that CR (and others) believe are not finds (attended their own event, log a bonus cache, forgot to sign log).

 

All KBI is asking for is the ability as a cache owner to control the online logs for his cache. He wants to have additional requirements to log online. That doesn't mean you didn't find his cache, it just means you can't log it online.

 

The intent of allowing owners to delete logs was 1) to remove truly bogus find, 2) to remove spoilers that give away too much, 3) to remove offensive or obscene logs. The ability to remove a log because it is not a rhyme or because the finder didn't post a picture was probably not what was intended. It would be hard to enforce a ban on special logging requirements without removing the owner's power to delete logs for the intended reasons. The best you can hope for is a new cache type or a special requirements attribute to warn finders of these conditions. (I personally believe that the finder has the responsiblity to read the cache page and if he doesn't for any reason, he runs the risk of having his log deleted)

Link to comment
I have a cache with an additional logging requirement, but it would never occur to me to delete a log from somebody who really didn't want to comply.
I completed my first virtual cache last weekend. Yes, it felt odd not having a physical log to sign, but I had no objections to sending the owner email with answers to the questions on the cache's description page. And I would expect the owner to delete logs that were not accompanied by email containing acceptable answers to those questions.

 

Caches with additional logging requirements seem much the same to me. They aren't virtual, because there's a container and a physical log. But there are owner-specified requirements for logging a find that go beyond finding the container and signing the physical log. If the cache owner requires something extra (not merely requests, but states it as a requirement), then IMHO the cache owner should enforce it. If the cache owner doesn't want to enforce it, then it should be stated as a request, not as a requirement.

 

And again, my main concern is that such caches not show up when I'm trying to list nearby traditional caches.

Link to comment
I completed my first virtual cache last weekend. Yes, it felt odd not having a physical log to sign, but I had no objections to sending the owner email with answers to the questions on the cache's description page. And I would expect the owner to delete logs that were not accompanied by email containing acceptable answers to those questions.

I frequently receive incorrect answers to some of the questions on my virtuals. But I don't delete the logs unless I have good reason to believe that the finder never visited the cache site.

 

The purpose of the questions for a virtual is to determine whether the finder found the virtual. In the case of one of my virtuals, the finders are often given incorrect answers by the people at the site! But I can always tell if the finder actually found the site or not.

 

The purpose of additional logging requirements is not to determine whether the person in question actually found the cache or not. That's what the cache log is. So additional logging requirements are in no way the same as the questions required to verify finding a virt.

 

Let me use my own caches as an example. This cache is placed on a very silly sign, and I thought others would enjoy posting pictures of other silly signs. So I made that an additional requirement. But if somebody really doesn't want to post a picture of a silly sign, I am not going to delete their log!

 

Here is another cache with an additional requirement. I wrote an online app that gives you a token so that everyone can verify that you actually solved the puzzle yourself. If you log a find without the token, and actually signed the log on the cache, then you are basically admitting to everyone that you didn't solve the (pretty easy) puzzle. Once again, I wouldn't delete such a log -- in my opinion, it speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Let me use my own caches as an example. This cache is placed on a very silly sign, and I thought others would enjoy posting pictures of other silly signs. So I made that an additional requirement. But if somebody really doesn't want to post a picture of a silly sign, I am not going to delete their log!
Then IMHO you shouldn't say "you'll need to [...] attach a picture" in the cache description. Language like "please attach a picture" would be more appropriate.

 

Here is another cache with an additional requirement. I wrote an online app that gives you a token so that everyone can verify that you actually solved the puzzle yourself. If you log a find without the token, and actually signed the log on the cache, then you are basically admitting to everyone that you didn't solve the (pretty easy) puzzle. Once again, I wouldn't delete such a log -- in my opinion, it speaks for itself.
Then why did you say "Finds without valid tokens will be deleted" in the cache description?
Link to comment
Then why did you say "Finds without valid tokens will be deleted" in the cache description?

I dunno. I just did. I think, after this thread, that I will remove that text. Because I certainly would not want to be viewed as I am presently viewing others who would delete such a log!

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

Link to comment
It would be hard to enforce a ban on special logging requirements without removing the owner's power to delete logs for the intended reasons.

 

Not true in the least. It would be quite easy actually. Considering many think TPTB are their namesakes, then all it would take is for them to pass down that edict and that's that.

 

Of course, their will be those who try to do it anyway, but that can be handled like any other abuse of the system. The cacher who had their log deleted sends an email to contact@, the cache owner gets an email from Hydee, and the log is restored. Do that enough times and folks will catch on. No changes to the site, only a policy change. Simple.

Link to comment
A minor change to the cache description will satisfy everyone;

 

No puzzles to solve, no running around;

It’s a straightforward cache like most typically found.

 

It’s easy to spot, but the next step is worse.

When you web-log your find, you must please put it in VERSE!

No need to delete any web-logs, and most finders will log in verse anyway. Those that don't want to (or can't!) can either ignore the cache, or find it and simply record the fact.

You apparently haven't been reading the thread. (Not that I blame you -- it's gotten kinda long-winded, thanks to some crank who I won't name, but his initials are "KBI" :ph34r: )

 

I've already responded to that point:

 

An additional logging requirement is merely a way for a cache owner to exert extra, and unnecessary, control over their cache outside of the guidelines.

If you insist that a poetry cache should be voluntary, then go out and place a voluntary poetry cache. I'll even help you write the description -- if you don't mind a dorky KBI poem, that is. :wub:

In other words, HH: If you think there should be a voluntary poetry cache, then by all means go out and create a voluntary poetry cache!

 

As to your second point:

 

It's supposed to be a fun game, why the angst? Where's the fun in deleting logs / having them deleted?

I answered you the first time you asked. Guess you missed it:

 

If it's really fun - then why try and enforce it, as everyone will enjoy complying anyway!
Really? You mean like:
... at the time I couldn't be bothered to take a photo of me standing on one leg (even though I intended to when I set out).

 

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

 

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

That answer your question (again)?

 

Now, if you DO decide to read back over the thread, or at least the last page or two, you’ll also notice that I’ve challenged several other folks like yourself to answer a very relevant and fairly simple question, yet so far nobody’s been willing to even acknowledge it, much less attempt an answer:

 

Why can't you simply avoid my poetry cache if you don't want to write a poem?

 

(Hint: You might want to skip the "I can't/don't/won't/didn't read the cache page." excuse.)

 

Care to take a crack at it? You'd be the first!

 

Sorry about the big re-quote, but it's for a reason connected to the large and lumbering nature of the thread!

 

I did read the thread, but there were getting to be too many red herrings in here so I tried to get back to the basic issue. Which (IMO) is not "additional logging requirements", but abuse of the log deletion facility. Although I COULD simply avoid such a cache, after noting the extra requirement, I feel that I have the right to find the cache and then note the fact as a "Found it" log. On geocaching.com, for my own delight and delectation. As it's my log entry, records a genuine find, and doesn't breach any geocaching.com guidelines or rules, I don't believe that the cache owner has any right to delete the log.

 

As for the "standing on one leg" requirement: my point was that you might find the cache, having noted the requirement and intended to comply - then realise that you just don't think the requirement is worth bothering with after all. Perhaps you're on your own and there's nowhere to prop the camera up to take a photo of yourself. Had it been a fun and simple post-find requirement (like the "Secret Mission" example I gave earlier) then you're unlikely to need any heavy enforcement, so threats would be unnecessary.

That answer your question (again)?

Not really, and in fact it undermines your own argument. If a "puzzle cache" has a description which states that the cache is at the posted coordinates, so you can find the box without solving the puzzle, then it's not a puzzle cache. If a "compulsory poetry" cache allows you to find the box without writing any poetry, then it's not a compulsory poetry cache. There's a huge difference between this and one where you actually can't find the cache without writing poetry - how about that for an idea: has it been done yet?

 

HH

Link to comment
It's too bad that, for you, placing a cache is more about exerting control over the actions of others than it is about giving them an interesting and enjoyable experience. We have a couple cache hiders in my area that seem to have the same problem. As a result, their caches tend not to be very much fun, so most of the non-obsessed cachers in the area just ignore them.

 

I really don't understand the mindset of someone who places caches for reasons other than the enjoyment of people who find them. But I understand that such people exist, and I don't believe that new rules will discourage them. Really, the only effective thing to do is to go along with their little game when you log the cache, or just ignore them.

That sure is a lot of wild and baseless speculation about my motives. You're now an expert on my reasoning, are you? Even though I've clearly and repeatedly stated my true motivations in this very thread?

 

Wow. We really do have control issues, don't we? Was there someplace in my post that I advocated some sort of control over how you placed or managed your caches?

No, you didn't. I was responding to others, people who have used your reasoning to repeatedly demand that my type of cache be eliminated from the game. No reason to be defensive.

 

 

Really, the only effective thing to do is to go along with their little game when you log the cache, or just ignore them.

...and then whine about them in this thread. :ph34r:

Link to comment
I did read the thread, but there were getting to be too many red herrings in here so I tried to get back to the basic issue. Which (IMO) is not "additional logging requirements", but abuse of the log deletion facility. Although I COULD simply avoid such a cache, after noting the extra requirement, I feel that I have the right to find the cache and then note the fact as a "Found it" log.

So if I understand you correctly, you feel it's your right to blow off and ignore whatever requirements a cache owner sets out any time you happen to feel it 'abuses' your own specific version of how thw game SHOULD be played ...?

 

 

 

As for the "standing on one leg" requirement: my point was that you might find the cache, having noted the requirement and intended to comply - then realise that you just don't think the requirement is worth bothering with after all. Perhaps you're on your own and there's nowhere to prop the camera up to take a photo of yourself.

Yep. That confirms my suspicion regarding my last question.

 

I would have assumed that a responsible cacher who sets out to do such a cache, assuming you had actually read the description as you claim, would have gone PREPARED (with a buddy in this case, or whatever it takes) instead of whining about it later while demanding to be allowed to log it online anyway.

 

By the way, is this "required photo of yourself standing on one leg" cache something that really exists? Can you link it? Just curious.

 

 

Had it been a fun and simple post-find requirement (like the "Secret Mission" example I gave earlier) then you're unlikely to need any heavy enforcement, so threats would be unnecessary.

Regardless of how much 'fun' anyone else thinks the challenge is, I think all the screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth so far in this thread alone proves why it WOULD be necessary.

 

 

That answer your question (again)?

Not really, and in fact it undermines your own argument. If a "puzzle cache" has a description which states that the cache is at the posted coordinates, so you can find the box without solving the puzzle, then it's not a puzzle cache. If a "compulsory poetry" cache allows you to find the box without writing any poetry, then it's not a compulsory poetry cache. There's a huge difference between this and one where you actually can't find the cache without writing poetry - how about that for an idea: has it been done yet?

Not unless I want to make it a COMBINATION puzzle/poetry cache. If YOU'D like to do one, knock yourself out.

 

And I didn't undermine anything. If I hid your chance of getting your smiley behind some impossible puzzle, one you couldn't solve no matter what, would you complain similarly about that? I'm guessing no. I've never heard any calls for new puzzle cache rules or to have limits placed on their difficulty. I know of no way, as you have suggested, to preserve the poetry challenge by making it so you actually can't find the cache without writing poetry -- hence the existing rule.

Link to comment

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

No. I am no longer reading this.

:smile: Okaaaaay ... then how about just "Jeremy, are you considering a change that might satisfy the consensus?" :)

Link to comment

I know of no way, as you have suggested, to preserve the poetry challenge by making it so you actually can't find the cache without writing poetry -- hence the existing rule.

I'm not very enamoured of the "standing on one leg" cache - I think it will be too artificial (AFAIK there isn't one, it was just a random thought) - but here goes with the "poetry" cache because I think it has possibilities. Might take a couple of weeks or so! :smile::) Thanks for the inspiration!

 

Here is my latest puzzle cache - just so you know how these things can be done.

 

HH

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
I'm not very enamoured of the "standing on one leg" cache - I think it will be too artificial (AFAIK there isn't one, it was just a random thought) ...

That's what I kinda suspected. A logging requirement to photo yourself standing on one leg? I was starting to think "Man, that IS ridiculous!!" It sounded suspiciously like a strawman you'd made up -- a 'red herring' to argue against instead of discussing caches that actually exist.

 

I did read the thread, but there were getting to be too many red herrings in here ...

Hmmm...

 

:smile:

 

 

 

... here goes with the "poetry" cache because I think it has possibilities. Might take a couple of weeks or so! :D:) Thanks for the inspiration!

Good luck! Let me know what you come up with -- sounds like fun! :D

Link to comment

Purely to add a bit of levity to this thread, here are two poems I came up with:

 

POEM #1:

I read in the forums of a clown

Who wore on his head a crown

He had hidden a cache

And the hunt was a smash

But he's turned my smilie upside down

 

POEM #2:

Found it.

Found it.

Link to comment

I read in the forums of a clown

Who wore on his head a crown

He had hidden a cache

And the hunt was a smash

But he's turned my smilie upside down

Ferreter5 my lame micro did find.

(You can't really miss it. You'd hafta be blind.)

Though he did kinda diss it, I really don't mind;

It's the logging requirement he truly maligned.

 

He and his thread-ilk have often opined

that such a requirement-with-cache-find-combined

Is mean, and oppressive, and downright unkind.

Yet instead of leaving it ignored and unsigned

 

He EMBRACED the good hunt! But then soon left behind

A short poem 'splaining why it made him feel confined.

Demonstrating by action F-Five did remind

That good people may differ, yet still act refined!

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

This one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...98-212201b0441d

 

has a lot of people upset. It discriminates against women, single people, and people without sons.

 

Additional logging requirements are one thing, but saying you have to be a married father of a son to post a find, plus post pictures of your son seems a little odd. And creepy.

 

This illustrates a point. Where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...