Jump to content

Additional Logging Requirements


niraD
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Read the words carefully. I said that *this thread* will not change anything. A thread that isn't a train wreck might produce different results.

Why is it that a lively discussion always seems to upset some people? What don't you like about this thread?

 

 

I plan to work towards that using other means available to me.

What "other means" are you referring to? Is there some way apart from the Geocaching.com Web Site Forum that is more appropriate or more effective for us to use when advocating such a change -- or are you speaking of some "other means" only available to you as a Moderator?

 

If you're still talking about a new category definition or a new attribute, I'm with you -- it's not a perfect answer, but I'd kinda like to see the change as well.

 

 

I am quite satisfied that I presented my views and explained my position. Many people agreed with me. Others disagreed. I don't feel compelled to repeat myself ad nauseam.

 

And yes, I continue to believe that I ought to be able to go to the coordinates for a traditional cache, find the container, sign the log and log a "found it" online -- all without looking at the cache description. Caches with additional logging requirements ought to be flagged as such, either through an attribute or by placing them in the mystery/unknown category.

 

In other words, just what I said several pages ago.

No, you're mixing up two different issues here: "Should special requirements caches be listed as Traditionals?" is a totally separate question from "Should a cacher who chooses to hunt a cache without reading the description be responsible for the consequences?" You and I apparently agree on the former. It was the latter point on which I disagreed with you "several pages ago," and it was that specific point of discussion that Runaround got confused about, which is why I responded to him the way I did.

 

There are many OTHER reasons (beyond logging requirements) why skipping a cache's written description is irresponsible and risky. The potentially bad consequences are obvious to most folks, and are easily avoidable. I made that point in my response to you, the one you chose not to answer several pages ago. I don't have a problem with anybody skipping descriptions when caching so long as they're willing to take responsibility for their decision to do so and they don't try to blame someone else when problems result. Doesn't that make sense, Lep?

Link to comment
Why is it that a lively discussion always seems to upset some people? What don't you like about this thread?

A "lively discussion" generally involves both sides at least paying attention to each other, instead of just pounding at the same point again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

 

This argument long ago lost any semblance of being a discussion. I regret ever having gotten involved.

Link to comment
Why is it that a lively discussion always seems to upset some people? What don't you like about this thread?

A "lively discussion" generally involves both sides at least paying attention to each other, instead of just pounding at the same point again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

You’re right – CoyoteRed is a bit annoying, isn't he?

 

But seriously: New people constantly enter the debate without having read (or understood) points that have been previously made. Earlier participants have the option of either (1) repeating themselves, or (2) risking that their silence might be mistaken for agreement or concession -- as was the recent case with Leprechauns. I choose (1), you evidently prefer (2). That's your right, and it’s fine by me either way.

 

I'm tempted to believe, however, that if the discussion were currently moving in a direction so as to support YOUR position, you wouldn't have characterized it like you did. Pure speculation on my part, yes, but ... that’s MY right.

 

 

This argument long ago lost any semblance of being a discussion. I regret ever having gotten involved.

Are you SURE you're not just saying that because you ran out of rational responses to support your opinion? Just curious.

 

Maybe I’m mentally defective, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. As I’ve said before, I think it has been a useful and important debate on the several related issues that have been raised. I’ve taken no personal offense, and I sincerely hope I haven’t personally offended anyone else. That doesn’t mean I have to accept anyone’s bogus logic, however – especially when said bogus logic is in such abundant supply, and especially when the very existence of one of my oldest and most popular cache hides is being threatened!

Link to comment
That doesn’t mean I have to accept anyone’s bogus logic, however – especially when said bogus logic is in such abundant supply, and especially when the very existence of one of my oldest and most popular cache hides is being threatened!

That was indeed priceless. I wan't going to respond anymore, but seeing completely bogus logic used in the very same sentence complaining about bogus logic surely deserves some kind of style points!

 

And also nicely sums up the level of this discussion, I think.

Link to comment
That doesn’t mean I have to accept anyone’s bogus logic, however – especially when said bogus logic is in such abundant supply, and especially when the very existence of one of my oldest and most popular cache hides is being threatened!

That was indeed priceless. I wan't going to respond anymore, but seeing completely bogus logic used in the very same sentence complaining about bogus logic surely deserves some kind of style points!

 

And also nicely sums up the level of this discussion, I think.

Look, anyone can say "you're wrong" without offering any explanation, as you just have. You just accused me of bad logic. Care to explain your accusation, or was that just another empty attack? Please, either back up your otherwise meaningless statement, or stop the nonsense.

 

You've presented a perfect example of what I was referring to: People making noise instead of arguments. Personal attacks, red herrings, strawmen, obfuscation -- anything to avoid meeting the actual argument head on.

 

I also notice you conveniently ignored my direct question to you in the same paragraph -- it's in the part you failed to quote -- although I must say that your refusal to answer is, in itself, a very meaningful answer. Fizzy, you said yourself that "a 'lively discussion' generally involves both sides at least paying attention to each other." I'm giving you a great opportunity here to demonstrate what you mean! All you have to do is explain why you think I'm wrong. That would be a lot more impressive than just throwing verbal rocks.

Link to comment
<snip>

I am quite satisfied that I presented my views and explained my position. Many people agreed with me. Others disagreed. I don't feel compelled to repeat myself ad nauseam.

 

And yes, I continue to believe that I ought to be able to go to the coordinates for a traditional cache, find the container, sign the log and log a "found it" online -- all without looking at the cache description. Caches with additional logging requirements ought to be flagged as such, either through an attribute or by placing them in the mystery/unknown category.

 

In other words, just what I said several pages ago.

I haven't been following this thread, but I agree with The Leprechauns.

 

There is a cache here that is a "Traditional," but in order to log it you have to trade a foreign coin that hasn't already been logged into the cache. Since the cache has been around for a while, this is very hard to do now and, for me, necessitates a trip to a rare coin store before I try to find the cache . . .

 

Another cache requires you to log three other caches first, even though it is listed a "Traditional."

 

I think rather than an Attribute, these caches could be a different Type of cache altogether, like "Special." :)

 

I'm not opposed to the "Additional Logging Requirements." I would just like to know ahead of time what is involved. I use a waypoint name on my GPSr that tells me the cache name, the Type and Size of the container, as well as the Difficulty and Terrain. Although I should read the description before I start my hunt, that waypoint name gives me enough information to start, or not start, the hunt before reading the description in my Palm.

 

For instance, if, after a glance at my GPSr, I see that the cache is a Virtual, obviously I will read the description first. Same for a Multi. However, if I am on a road trip and I look at the GPSr and see the cache is a Regular-sized Traditional, I probably won't read the description, unless I am having trouble finding the cache.

 

If I see that a cache is a Regular-sized Traditional and I go to the coordinates and find it and sign the log and then, after I get home, find out I needed to do something else while I was in the area in order to log my find, I wouldn't be very happy . . . :cry:

Link to comment

Yeah, it was real "fun" being forced to write a story about a fond memory of someone who had passed away, or else risk having my find deleted -- even though I *found* the cache and *signed* the log. Excuse me, but one reason for the trip was to get over the lingering effects of my friend's untimely death. It was nice to be out geocaching again and enjoying it.

 

 

This isn't directed at you, but at everyone here who is whining over additional requirements:

 

Then don't do it! Cache hiders are good enough to get the ammo box, set up the cache...and PROVIDE the sport for you. There's lots out there to do, skip it if you don't think it looks like fun. If you don't want to play the game, who's force-feeding you?

 

I saw an expression this week, and it reminds me of the forums. "Every argument is really people saying, 'If you were more like me, I'd really like you a whole lot more.' "

 

Enjoy the diverse richness of caches. Imagine if they were all the SAME? Variety is the spice of life. Appreciate the ones that stand out to you. Ignore the ones that don't look delicious. We all come in different sizes, shapes and colors, and it'd be a shame if caches didn't, too.

 

If you don't want to go to Spain, don't book the flight! There are a lot of other places to go.

Edited by Birdsong-n-Bud
Link to comment

Okay, time for me to throw in my two cents worth here! I happen to like many types of caches with extra logging requiirements, including sketch caches (where you must leave a sketch), poetry caches (where you must leave a poem), code-verification caches (where you must not only sign the log but also mail a special code from the logbook to the cache owner) and caches which require you to tell a tall tale. However, I personally feel that it probably most advisable that caches in this genre should NOT be listed as TRADITIONAL caches, but rather as ? caches, i.e., riddle/puzzle/unknown caches, in light of the extra requirements. Alternatively, the folks at geocaching.com may see fit to add a new cache type category, perhaps entitled "Extra requirements" or something like that, just for caches with such requirements! :laughing:

Link to comment
Okay, time for me to throw in my two cents worth here! I happen to like many types of caches with extra logging requiirements, including sketch caches (where you must leave a sketch), poetry caches (where you must leave a poem), code-verification caches (where you must not only sign the log but also mail a special code from the logbook to the cache owner) and caches which require you to tell a tall tale. However, I personally feel that it probably most advisable that caches in this genre should NOT be listed as TRADITIONAL caches, but rather as ? caches, i.e., riddle/puzzle/unknown caches, in light of the extra requirements.

It has been explained here repeatedly why the 'Mystery/Unknown' category does not apply to caches with additional logging requirements. Assuming the additional requirements are clearly described on the cache page, there is nothing 'mysterious' or 'unknown' about the examples you listed.

 

 

Alternatively, the folks at geocaching.com may see fit to add a new cache type category, perhaps entitled "Extra requirements" or something like that, just for caches with such requirements! :laughing:

I agree with you there, which would appear to put us among the strong majority. There seems to be a consensus. Many folks here have collectively made an excellent case for such a change. Unfortunately the website owners seem to have actively chosen 'no response' as their response, and have more than hinted that they are pretty much ignoring this debate. I guess that's somewhat analogous to a court case being thrown out by the judge -- not even worthy of consideration.

 

Oh well. They do a remarkably awesome job of running things around here otherwise. My guess is they have some very good reasons for choosing to stay with the status quo instead of adding a category, adjusting category definitions, or even doing something as non-disruptive as making a new cache attribute available. I just wish they would either tell us that something is in the works, or let us in on their reasons for not wanting to change anything.

Link to comment
Okay, time for me to throw in my two cents worth here! I happen to like many types of caches with extra logging requiirements, including sketch caches (where you must leave a sketch), poetry caches (where you must leave a poem), code-verification caches (where you must not only sign the log but also mail a special code from the logbook to the cache owner) and caches which require you to tell a tall tale. However, I personally feel that it probably most advisable that caches in this genre should NOT be listed as TRADITIONAL caches, but rather as ? caches, i.e., riddle/puzzle/unknown caches, in light of the extra requirements.

It has been explained here repeatedly why the 'Mystery/Unknown' category does not apply to caches with additional logging requirements. Assuming the additional requirements are clearly described on the cache page, there is nothing 'mysterious' or 'unknown' about the examples you listed.

Alternatively, the folks at geocaching.com may see fit to add a new cache type category, perhaps entitled "Extra requirements" or something like that, just for caches with such requirements! :laughing:

I agree with you there, which would appear to put us among the strong majority. There seems to be a consensus. Many folks here have collectively made an excellent case for such a change. Unfortunately the website owners seem to have actively chosen 'no response' as their response, and have more than hinted that they are pretty much ignoring this debate. I guess that's somewhat analogous to a court case being thrown out by the judge -- not even worthy of consideration.

 

Oh well. They do a remarkably awesome job of running things around here otherwise. My guess is they have some very good reasons for choosing to stay with the status quo instead of adding a category, adjusting category definitions, or even doing something as non-disruptive as making a new cache attribute available. I just wish they would either tell us that something is in the works, or let us in on their reasons for not wanting to change anything.

KBI, thanks for your note. When I suggested the ?/Unknown category for such caches, I was particuarly thinking of caches (such as some tall tale caches and some task-required caches) where some of the requirements may not be known until you find one of the cache stages. And, even for those caches where the additional requirements are stated on the cache listing page, well, as an interim measure, until (and if) the admins here decide to implement a new category, at least the use of Unknown category clearly gives prospective cache hunters a heads-up that the cache is not an ordinary Traditional cache (this would fully address the complaints previously cited by Leprechauns, for example), and it also gives cache hunters who normally fail to read the cache listing page a heads-up that it might be wise, in this case, to read the cache listing page to learn a bit more.

 

Personally, I, like you, feel that it would be nice if the admins here would someday add a new category to cover such cache types. However, in the meantime, the lack of such a category is not a problem for me!

Link to comment

However, I personally feel that it probably most advisable that caches in this genre should NOT be listed as TRADITIONAL caches, ......Alternatively, the folks at geocaching.com may see fit to add a new cache type category, perhaps entitled "Extra requirements" or something like that, just for caches with such requirements! :(

 

I agree.

 

Puzze/mystery/unknown wouldn't fit, but if there was a name for something that required a little something extra, that would probably satisfy everyone.

Link to comment

Personally, I, like you, feel that it would be nice if the admins here would someday add a new category to cover such cache types. However, in the meantime, the lack of such a category is not a problem for me!

As the type of cache under discussion can be found and logged just by using the coordinates, it should be a Traditional.

 

HH

Link to comment
As the type of cache under discussion can be found and logged just by using the coordinates, it should be a Traditional.
I'm inclined to agree with you for poetry caches and others with additional logging requirements that can be met by writing/editing your log appropriately. If you find the cache with just the coordinates, then you can still log it online once you read the cache description. But an attribute might help those who want to avoid any additional logging requirements whatsoever.

 

However, some caches have additional logging requirements that go beyond that. Local examples include a coin exchange cache (take the coin in the cache and leave a coin with a date that is one year higher or lower) and a series of caches that require you to collect (and photograph) various combinations of the owner's sig tokens. I don't think caches like these are in the spirit of traditional caches, even if there is a container with a log book at the posted coordinates.

Link to comment
My point is that you can still log it online anyway - whatever the description says won't stop you. So it's no different from any traditional cache.
Yes, you can ignore any additional logging requirements and log a find online without meeting the requirements. But for those of us who respect additional logging requirements specified by the cache owner, there's a difference between caches with requirements that can be met by writing/editing your log appropriately, and those that require something more substantial.
Link to comment

I may have a solution. It would be an addition similar to the way benchmarks are an addition--these aren't caches. They are challenges. I was thinking about the DeLorme Challenges and similar. These challenges are actually shoehorned into a geocache because there is no other mechanism for them to fit. It would fit better as a different line item on personal stat pages. "Challenges Met" [...]

Thoughts?

I personally like this idea - there are some things which really have nothing to do with finding a physical cache but are fun to complete anyway.

 

I'm not going to express my other opinions on the other fine points mentioned in this thread because I don't particularly like personal attacks by capital letters.

 

 

Does anyone want to create a list of caches with additional logging requirements? It would be great for those of use who would like to just Ignore them now.

Link to comment

Yes, you can ignore any additional logging requirements and log a find online without meeting the requirements. But for those of us who respect additional logging requirements specified by the cache owner, there's a difference between caches with requirements that can be met by writing/editing your log appropriately, and those that require something more substantial.

Understood, in that you may have to prepare in some way if you're intending to comply with the "requirements" in the latter type. But this is an extra game, and for those who don't comply (for any reason) there is still the geocache to find and log. As it's a cache and log book physically at the specified coordinates, it's a traditional cache in both fact and spirit.

 

I have found a coin exchange cache and, as it happened, I could comply with the request (you had to drop a foreign coin in the cache in exchange for another: by pure fluke I had a Canadian dollar with me). This was an unplanned extra cache at the end of a day out so I hadn't prepared for it.

If I hadn't been able to comply, I would have TNLN and missed out on playing the extra game. Of course, I would still have logged the cache - with apologies for not joining in - as it was a legitimate find (it happened to be the only feasible cache within ten miles so I wasn't going to ignore it).

 

Cache categories are all about what you have to do to physically find the cache. Even with virtual caches, the post-find action is merely to offer proof of the find. Otherwise, by the nature of geocaching, once you have the cache box open and log book signed, you've found it. So it's just a matter of the cache submitter judging what type of process will be necessary to get to this situation, and choosing one of the (existing) categories.

 

I can see a case for a "special request" attribute, however, to highlight that an extra game is linked to the cache.

 

HH

Link to comment

If you find the cache with just the coordinates, then you can still log it online once you read the cache description.

My point is that you can still log it online anyway - whatever the description says won't stop you. So it's no different from any traditional cache.

 

HH

 

But some cache owners will delete your find if you don't fulfill the additional requrement. You find, you log, they delete, you no longer have online log.

 

People are asking for a way to filter out these types of caches for those of you that are taking a stand against this blastphemy of the Pure Game, and leave it up to the rest of us to find these evil caches.

Link to comment
Remember when this thread was young and interesting? Now it is barely a shadow of itself. I read the last couple of pages of it and could barely figure out what it is about, beyond the arguing about arguing.
Well, it basically boils down to:
  • Some think additional logging requirements should be banned (although optional requests are okay)
  • Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but want to avoid such caches and have no automated way to do so
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but don't want such caches showing up on lists of "traditional" caches

Did I miss anyone?

Link to comment

Thanks. I think I prefer the second option.

 

A while back, I found a cache with a requirement to do jumping jacks at the site. I did them and logged my find. This was before my accident. For the last two years, I haven't been able to do such a requirement. I don't really think a cache like that is so special that someone should be restricted from logging it because they couldn't do the 'requirement'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Remember when this thread was young and interesting? Now it is barely a shadow of itself. I read the last couple of pages of it and could barely figure out what it is about, beyond the arguing about arguing.

So instead of offering any comments in your post that are relevant to the issue at hand ... you'd rather complain about the arguing? :rolleyes:

 

Were there any specific posts you thought were unnecessary? If so, I'm curious -- could you please quote or link them and explain why? If not, then what's your point?

 

I'm not trying to be combative. I just think it's funny when someone not only gets offended by the mere fact that an argument is taking place, but also responds with what amounts to nothing more than additional noise.

Link to comment
Well, it basically boils down to:
  • Some think additional logging requirements should be banned (although optional requests are okay)
  • Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but want to avoid such caches and have no automated way to do so
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but don't want such caches showing up on lists of "traditional" caches

Did I miss anyone?

Yes.

 

You forgot:

  • Some respect the desire for a more convenient filter, but think the status quo would work just fine if people would either (1) read the cache descriptions, or (2) be willing to accept the consequences of choosing not to read the cache descriptions.

Link to comment
A while back, I found a cache with a requirement to do jumping jacks at the site. I did them and logged my find. This was before my accident. For the last two years, I haven't been able to do such a requirement. I don't really think a cache like that is so special that someone should be restricted from logging it because they couldn't do the 'requirement'.

I agree. I would probably choose not to hunt such a cache.

 

Either that, or if you just HAD to do the cache anyway, you could always exercise this option.

Link to comment
  • Some think additional logging requirements should be banned (although optional requests are okay)
  • Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but want to avoid such caches and have no automated way to do so
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but don't want such caches showing up on lists of "traditional" caches

Did I miss anyone?

This amounts to a list of alternative suggested changes, except that he second one doesn't fit with this category, as it describes how the system works at the moment.

 

 

You forgot:

  • Some respect the desire for a more convenient filter, but think the status quo would work just fine if people would either (1) read the cache descriptions, or (2) be willing to accept the consequences of choosing not to read the cache descriptions.

 

I would say that the consequences are that you might be unable to locate the cache: perhaps the area is closed at certain times, or perhaps it's hidden in such a way that you really need the hint.

 

But if I accept the concept that you find the cache, but need to continue with further actions before you can claim a find: the cache is surely a hybrid multicache/locationless(!). The box shouldn't really contain a logbook as it's only an intermediate stage: you can only log the cache when you complete the next stage (i.e. write the poetry, take the photo or whatever).

 

So I'm agreeing that this type of cache, when set up like this, needs a separate category: no chance of getting one on geocaching.com though - try Waymarking?

 

HH

Link to comment

But if I accept the concept that you find the cache, but need to continue with further actions before you can claim a find: the cache is surely a hybrid multicache/locationless(!).

I don't follow. If these caches only have one location then they're not multicache at all. There's only one stage. And they're not a locationless cache since they have specific coordinates. They sound like neither of those to me, not a hybrid of the two.

 

The box shouldn't really contain a logbook as it's only an intermediate stage: you can only log the cache when you complete the next stage (i.e. write the poetry, take the photo or whatever).

I see your point, but it's a logging requirement, not a finding requirement. If you had to do something to be able to find it then it would be as you describe. However, for these caches, once you find them you have to take another step to log them on gc.com

 

So I'm agreeing that this type of cache, when set up like this, needs a separate category: no chance of getting one on geocaching.com though - try Waymarking?

I think the owners of these types of caches agree that a new category would be acceptable, or even a way to filter out these types in a search. But they're definitely caches and Waymarking is set up for something else.

Link to comment
  • Some think additional logging requirements should be banned (although optional requests are okay)
  • Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but want to avoid such caches and have no automated way to do so
  • Some respect additional logging requirements, but don't want such caches showing up on lists of "traditional" caches

This amounts to a list of alternative suggested changes, except that he second one doesn't fit with this category, as it describes how the system works at the moment.

That's not true at all. That's NOT "how the system works at the moment."

 

Anyone who thinks the additional logging requirement for my poetry cache is optional and posts a 'Found It' log without even a half-fast attempt at a poem will most likely see their log deleted.

Link to comment

That's not true at all. That's NOT "how the system works at the moment."

Anyone who thinks the additional logging requirement for my poetry cache is optional and posts a 'Found It' log without even a half-fast attempt at a poem will most likely see their log deleted.

 

NiraD said "Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online".

 

Can you explain how this isn't possible at the moment? Are you saying that I either couldn't sign the log or couldn't post a "Found it"?

 

If the cache owner, a few days (or weeks) later, decides to tidy away a few logs that he/she doesn't like (for whatever reason <_< ) then that's another matter.

 

As for the reference to Waymarking: the physical log is almost irrelevant for this type of cache. Signing it, unlike a traditional, is not to prove that you've found the cache but merely the first of two tasks. The final stage is to perform the second task (which may be writing a poem, or taking a photo or something). What you're really saying in an "additional logging requirements" cache is;

 

1. Go to the location I've waymarked for you. Here there is a task to perform: in this case you'll find a log book to sign. This stage must be completed, although signing the log book does not constitute finding the cache.

2. Now proceed to the web site, where you're now qualified to "find the cache". Once you've completed the task described, post a log entry to notify me. For convenience, post your log as a "Found it".

3. If I judge that you're unsuccessful with either task: this entry becomes invalid, you are adjudged to have not found the cache and your log will be deleted. Note that this second stage is actually the "cache find": completing the first part is not sufficient.

 

So the cache itself is "locationless", and the finding process is in two stages: the first stage may as well be a Virtual cache. I'm not sure what to call this, but it doesn't fit too well within the geocaching concept!

 

HH

Link to comment
So instead of offering any comments in your post that are relevant to the issue at hand ... you'd rather complain about the arguing? <_<

Actually, I was just noting that the thread wasn't really on-topic anymore and inquiring as to where it was. I got my answer in the very next post.

Were there any specific posts you thought were unnecessary? If so, I'm curious -- could you please quote or link them and explain why? If not, then what's your point?
Here's one. It's totally off-topic and merely exists to argue. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

As for the reference to Waymarking: the physical log is almost irrelevant for this type of cache. Signing it, unlike a traditional, is not to prove that you've found the cache but merely the first of two tasks. The final stage is to perform the second task (which may be writing a poem, or taking a photo or something). What you're really saying in an "additional logging requirements" cache is;

I still think you're confusing a logging requirement with a finding requirement.

 

1. Go to the location I've waymarked for you. Here there is a task to perform: in this case you'll find a log book to sign. This stage must be completed, although signing the log book does not constitute finding the cache.

And now I think you're mixing up "finding" with "logging". Signing the log book is not enough to be allowed by the owner to log it online, although there's no doubt that you've found the cache.

 

2. Now proceed to the web site, where you're now qualified to "find the cache". Once you've completed the task described, post a log entry to notify me. For convenience, post your log as a "Found it".

Again, once you proceed to the web site, you can now log it, not "find" it. The task described is mearly an additional requirement, in addition to finding the cache and signing the log book, to be allowed to log it online.

 

3. If I judge that you're unsuccessful with either task: this entry becomes invalid, you are adjudged to have not found the cache and your log will be deleted. Note that this second stage is actually the "cache find": completing the first part is not sufficient.

Very close, except for the note that says that the second stage is the "cache find". It's the "cache log".

 

So the cache itself is "locationless", and the finding process is in two stages: the first stage may as well be a Virtual cache. I'm not sure what to call this, but it doesn't fit too well within the geocaching concept!

I still don't follow. Even ignoring all the stuff above, how can you call the cache "locationless"? It HAS a location. In the case of the poetry cache you're not allowed to find some other poetry cache, and log your find with it's coordinates and a poem. You have to go to the single location and sign the log book for that specific cache.

 

And saying that the first stage may as well be a virtual cache is equally as confusing. There is a physical container there, with a log book and trade items. These things don't exist in virtual caches.

 

Clearly this kind of cache does fit within the existing guidelines for a traditional cache, and clearly does not fit within any other cache category.

 

Does that help?

Link to comment

Does that help?

Not really! :laughing:

We disagree on a fundamental point: it's not confusion.

 

I think that the final part of this "cache" is the "find", but you think it's the intermediate stage (as I see it).

 

But the cache seeker doesn't get rewarded with a "found it" until he/she submits the poem or photo. Therefore, this part has to be the "cache". Otherwise, why are you told that you've "found it" (the cache) only when you've completed this stage and not before? It's not just about logging: that's just a record of what you've done.

 

HH

Link to comment
I think that the final part of this "cache" is the "find", but you think it's the intermediate stage (as I see it).

 

But the cache seeker doesn't get rewarded with a "found it" until he/she submits the poem or photo. Therefore, this part has to be the "cache". Otherwise, why are you told that you've "found it" (the cache) only when you've completed this stage and not before? It's not just about logging: that's just a record of what you've done.

Finding the cache and signing the physical log is one part, and fulfilling the additional logging requirement is another part. The additional logging requirement is often fulfilled after the physical log is signed (especially for requirements that can be met by writing/editing your online log appropriately), but that isn't always the case. Some requirements must be met at the time you find the container (e.g., take the coin in the container and leave a coin with a date that is one year earlier or later). Some requirements can be met before you find the container (e.g., post a photo showing a particular combination of the owner's sig tokens).
Link to comment
Finding the cache and signing the physical log is one part, and fulfilling the additional logging requirement is another part.

 

Wrong. The only thing that needs doing to be counted as a find is having your signature in the logbook. Logging online is only feedback. Doing so does help you keep track of which caches you've found and not found, but regardless of what you log online or even if you've logged online or not, you still have the find. Little power trips have nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Finding the cache and signing the physical log is one part, and fulfilling the additional logging requirement is another part.

 

Wrong. The only thing that needs doing to be counted as a find is having your signature in the logbook. Logging online is only feedback. Doing so does help you keep track of which caches you've found and not found, but regardless of what you log online or even if you've logged online or not, you still have the find. Little power trips have nothing to do with it.

I actually agree with CR here, but it's interesting to see what you end up with if you go along with those that see it differently. I was trying to explore the concept of a cache trail that isn't complete when you find the physical cache. I think that they are regarding the "logging requirement" as the "find", in that you are not supposed to claim a find until you've performed the extra task.

 

HH

Link to comment

Wrong. The only thing that needs doing to be counted as a find is having your signature in the logbook. Logging online is only feedback.

On your caches, or with the way YOU play perhaps. It's not manditory on this site. Your power trip has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment

Hi, just finished reading this thread, and would like to congratulate most of the posters on their coherent ability to construct valid arguments and counter arguments, I would just like to jump in and put forward an idea that popped into my head as I was reading the thread.

 

If the solution was to create a new category for the additional Logging requirement (ALR) caches, then a function could possibly put in place to enable the cacher to log their visit, but not get the hallowed smiley until they have met the ALR.

 

That way each cacher can still use the features of GC to keep track of their progress, and cache owners can still police their caches.

 

See what we think of that?

 

I think it is also a good idea to keep in mind that this is still a very new hobby/sport and it is still evolving and will continue to do so as people come up with even more ingenious ways of hiding and creating caches. Hopefully the forum users can help guide this evolution in the right direction and maintain the spirit of geocaching.

 

Thanks for reading!

Link to comment
So instead of offering any comments in your post that are relevant to the issue at hand ... you'd rather complain about the arguing? :lol:

Actually, I was just noting that the thread wasn't really on-topic anymore and inquiring as to where it was. I got my answer in the very next post.

Were there any specific posts you thought were unnecessary? If so, I'm curious -- could you please quote or link them and explain why? If not, then what's your point?
Here's one. It's totally off-topic and merely exists to argue.

That's very clever. Unfortunately the post you linked came after your complaint post, and is therefore irrelevant to my question.

 

And let me see if I understand you correctly: It's okay for you to go off topic and be pointlessly argumentative, but not for anybody else? :) Just curious.

 

You claim that you were merely "noting that the thread wasn't really on-topic anymore," but you've now been unable (after two attempts) to show us specifically what you're talking about. Seriously, I see this as a valuable and useful discussion, and it seems to me that, other than a few noisy tangents here and there, the thread has tracked consistently and precisely on-topic. Please, either back up your objection with something specific ... or stop unnecessarily adding to the aforementioned noise.

Link to comment
That's not true at all. That's NOT "how the system works at the moment."

Anyone who thinks the additional logging requirement for my poetry cache is optional and posts a 'Found It' log without even a half-fast attempt at a poem will most likely see their log deleted.

NiraD said "Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online".

 

Can you explain how this isn't possible at the moment?

The point is that some caches contain additional challenges, such as those with "logging" requirements. The specified requirements must be met in order for you to complete the caching challenge as designed by the owner -- just like any other geocache.

 

NiraD's bullet point item (among his summation of the other suggested changes) stated "Some think additional logging requirements are optional, and if they can sign the physical log, then they post a Found It online" You responded by claiming that his item "describes how the system works at the moment." I responded by showing why that isn't true: the additional logging requirements are not always "optional."

 

 

Are you saying that I either couldn't sign the log or couldn't post a "Found it"?

No, I'm not. Neither of those interpretations accurately states my position. Of course you can sign the log -- IF you find the cache; and of course you can post a "Found it" -- IF you comply with the owner's additional logging requirements.

 

 

As for the reference to Waymarking ... [edited for brevity] ... 3. If I judge that you're unsuccessful with either task: this entry becomes invalid, you are adjudged to have not found the cache and your log will be deleted. Note that this second stage is actually the "cache find": completing the first part is not sufficient.

You're correct. Completing the first part is NOT sufficient. Especially if said requirement is clearly stated.

 

Consider the case of a multicache: completing the first STAGE is not sufficient.

 

Consider the case of a puzzle cache: searching at the (bogus) POSTED COORDINATES is not sufficient.

 

Consider the case of a 'mystery' cache: in all likelihood, expecting to find a straightforward container, at the posted coordinates, with no further requirements, is not sufficient.

 

Are you therefore also suggesting that multicaches, puzzle caches and mystery caches should be shifted over to Waymarking.com instead of leaving them as they are -- where folks are free to simply avoid them if they choose?

 

 

So the cache itself is "locationless", and the finding process is in two stages: the first stage may as well be a Virtual cache.

In the case of my poetry cache: No, it’s definitely not a Virtual. There IS a container. And no, it’s definitely not a "locationless." Not only is the container located exactly at the posted coordinates – it is also not located at any other set of coordinates.

 

 

I'm not sure what to call this, but it doesn't fit too well within the geocaching concept!

Whose geocaching concept?

Link to comment
But the cache seeker doesn't get rewarded with a "found it" until he/she submits the poem or photo. Therefore, this part has to be the "cache". Otherwise, why are you told that you've "found it" (the cache) only when you've completed this stage and not before? It's not just about logging: that's just a record of what you've done.

I must admit ... I really can't disagree with any of that. Other than the mildly negative slant, that pretty much perfectly describes what I had in mind when I first submitted my poetry cache. In the spirit of such hurdles as puzzles, surprises, multiple stages, and frustratingly effective camouflage, I wanted to place a cache with an additional and entertaining challenge. I naturally assumed that those who wouldn't find such a challenge entertaining would choose not to go after my cache.

 

So, tell me again why the simple ability to ignore and bypass such a cache (as is currently well within your rights) isn't enough to make you happy?

Link to comment
But the cache seeker doesn't get rewarded with a "found it" until he/she submits the poem or photo. Therefore, this part has to be the "cache". Otherwise, why are you told that you've "found it" (the cache) only when you've completed this stage and not before? It's not just about logging: that's just a record of what you've done.

I must admit ... I really can't disagree with any of that. Other than the mildly negative slant, that pretty much perfectly describes what I had in mind when I first submitted my poetry cache. In the spirit of such hurdles as puzzles, surprises, multiple stages, and frustratingly effective camouflage, I wanted to place a cache with an additional and entertaining challenge. I naturally assumed that those who wouldn't find such a challenge entertaining would choose not to go after my cache.

 

So, tell me again why the simple ability to ignore and bypass such a cache (as is currently well within your rights) isn't enough to make you happy?

As you've accepted that the "cache" is the final part (i.e. the extra task after finding the container = the cache), I can't see why you claim that such a cache isn't a "virtual" (or locationless). The fact that the first part has a box and location is irrelevant: I wouldn't claim that a multicache is virtual if the first stage has no container.

 

Consider the case of a multicache: completing the first STAGE is not sufficient.

Obviously it's not sufficient, as you haven't found the log book. Very different from one where you HAVE found it but are not allowed to record the fact (according to rules made up by the cache owner). Your "hurdles" simile is useful; in the multicache you're in a race to the finish line and have to jump over hurdles to get there, whereas in the "ALR" cache you sprint round the track, cross the finish line, stop and note your time: but then have to jump another hurdle afterwards or else it's not an "official" run.

 

Yes, I could just ignore this type of cache (as long as I notice that it's one of these), but I reserve the right to be annoyed by the haughty attitude I'm subjected to ("it's my cache, I'll delete your find if I don't like your log"). :lol:

 

HH

Link to comment
Yes, I could just ignore this type of cache (as long as I notice that it's one of these), but I reserve the right to be annoyed by the haughty attitude I'm subjected to ("it's my cache, I'll delete your find if I don't like your log").
Which brings us back on topic: What is the best way to register this type of cache so those who dislike them can avoid them? And so those who enjoy them can seek them? And so those who sometimes enjoy them can seek them when they're in the mood, but not when they're in the mood for a more straight-forward traditional cache?
Link to comment
As you've accepted that the "cache" is the final part (i.e. the extra task after finding the container = the cache), ...

Careful there. I never said "the 'cache' is the final part." In the case of a puzzle cache you wouldn't argue that "the task of solving the puzzle = the cache," would you? That doesn't make any sense. The cache is the container.

 

Read it again: What I said is that I wanted to place a cache with an additional and entertaining challenge. Where that challenge falls in the sequence of the required elements shouldn't matter.

 

... I can't see why you claim that such a cache isn't a "virtual" (or locationless). The fact that the first part has a box and location is irrelevant: I wouldn't claim that a multicache is virtual if the first stage has no container.

 

Consider the case of a multicache: completing the first STAGE is not sufficient.

Obviously it's not sufficient, as you haven't found the log book. Very different from one where you HAVE found it but are not allowed to record the fact (according to rules made up by the cache owner).

Another strawman/exaggeration. I've NEVER told any finder of my ALR cache that they were "not allowed to record the fact." The rule doesn't slam the door on logging a 'Found It' -- it merely requires that some sort of poem be included.

 

Your "hurdles" simile is useful; in the multicache you're in a race to the finish line and have to jump over hurdles to get there, whereas in the "ALR" cache you sprint round the track, cross the finish line, stop and note your time: but then have to jump another hurdle afterwards or else it's not an "official" run.

So apparently the only thing that bugs you about ALR caches, if I understand you correctly, is the fact that the challenge presented in an ALR cache comes after the find as opposed to before. I still see no reason why the sequence should matter. Puzzles (those which net you the cache coordinates) and camouflage tricks (those which hide the container) are both popular challenges; yet each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process -- one before you ever turn on your GPS, the other at the physical cache location. So far I haven't heard anyone protest either of those challenges at all, much less any complaints based purely on the sequence of the owner-designed caching elements.

 

So, tell me again why the simple ability to ignore and bypass such a cache (as is currently well within your rights) isn't enough to make you happy?

Yes, I could just ignore this type of cache ...

FINALLY an honest answer! :(

 

Congrats, HH! You've done what Runaround, CoyoteRed, New England n00b and others were either unable or unwilling to do: you answered the simple question that so many have found inconvenient and troubling, yet is so critical to this debate.

 

You admit that ALR caches can be ignored. Of course they can be ignored. Anyone can ignore them. It therefore follows that the mere existence of such caches is not sufficient reason to call for their ban, or any other enforced limitation.

 

... (as long as I notice that it's one of these) ...

(We've already shown that failure to read the description is no excuse, and that there is a strong consensus (including me) in support of an electronic flag -- either a new attribute or an adjustment to the categories and/or their definitions.)

 

... but I reserve the right to be annoyed by the haughty attitude I'm subjected to ("it's my cache, I'll delete your find if I don't like your log"). ;)

Sure, I can live with that! :)

 

You certainly shouldn't mind, then, if I reserve the right to be annoyed by the haughty attitude I'm subjected to ("I know I can easily avoid caches I don't like. So what if others enjoy them; I want them banned anyway because [insert fractured logic here], and besides, the owner isn't playing by my personal version of Geocaching.") :D

Link to comment
Puzzles (those which net you the cache coordinates) and camouflage tricks (those which hide the container) are both popular challenges; yet each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process -- one before you ever turn on your GPS, the other at the physical cache location.
FWIW, I've found a puzzle cache where the puzzle gives you the combination for the lock on the cache container. In theory, you could go to the posted coordinates and even find the container before bothering with solving the puzzle.
Link to comment
Puzzles (those which net you the cache coordinates) and camouflage tricks (those which hide the container) are both popular challenges; yet each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process -- one before you ever turn on your GPS, the other at the physical cache location.
FWIW, I've found a puzzle cache where the puzzle gives you the combination for the lock on the cache container. In theory, you could go to the posted coordinates and even find the container before bothering with solving the puzzle.

Hence the reason I specified "those [puzzles] which net you the cache coordinates."

Link to comment

So apparently the only thing that bugs you about ALR caches, if I understand you correctly, is the fact that the challenge presented in an ALR cache comes after the find as opposed to before. I still see no reason why the sequence should matter. Puzzles (those which net you the cache coordinates) and camouflage tricks (those which hide the container) are both popular challenges; yet each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process -- one before you ever turn on your GPS, the other at the physical cache location. So far I haven't heard anyone protest either of those challenges at all, much less any complaints based purely on the sequence of the owner-designed caching elements.

No-one complains that there is a challenge BEFORE you sign the log book, for the obvious reason (I don't think I need to spell it out).

 

AFTER you've found it is a very different matter. So the sequence is very significant. Going back to the hurdles,

each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process
- no they are both before the find, so are essentially in the same place.

 

I agree that in certain cases the sequence doesn't matter, however, but only by mistake. I have come across puzzle caches and multicaches where the puzzle or stages is optional, in that it's easy to find the cache and sign the log without completing the tasks (unlike niraD's example, where the puzzle has still to be solved before you can register a legitimate find). To me this just appears to be a weakness, and the cache would be better tightened up. You could find the cache and solve the puzzle (before or after) - but why bother? Most would just find it, log it and regard the setup as a bit lame.

 

I'm not calling for a ban on this type of cache, but I'm still not convinced that you have a sound justification for deleting non-compliant "Found it" logs. I still maintain that the cache would be better if ALR meant Additional Logging Requests :( instead of Requirements :) .

 

HH

Link to comment
You could find the cache and solve the puzzle (before or after) - but why bother? Most would just find it, log it and regard the setup as a bit lame.
FWIW, I've found the final stage of a multi once without calculating the coordinates from the information at the first stage. But before I logged it online, I did go ahead and do the calculations. Somehow, the find would have seemed incomplete otherwise.
Link to comment
No-one complains that there is a challenge BEFORE you sign the log book, for the obvious reason (I don't think I need to spell it out).

 

AFTER you've found it is a very different matter. So the sequence is very significant.

Why? I ask again -- Why should the sequence (challenge-before-find vs. find-before-challenge) make any difference to you?

 

I guess you DO need to spell it out. :drama:

 

Going back to the hurdles ...
each of those hurdles comes at a different point in the process
- no they are both before the find, so are essentially in the same place.

No, they are not. I explained that point very carefully.

 

Look at it another way: An earlier objector in this thread wanted to know why an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache owner should be allowed to "hold his smiley hostage" until he satisfied the post-logging requirement. Using that logic, he might as well have also asked why a puzzle-cache owner should be allowed to "hold the coordinates hostage" until he solved the puzzle. Where's the difference? There is none. The cache owner in each case is merely trying to spice up the caching experience by tossing in an additional -- and required -- challenge beyond the act of simply locating the container.

 

 

I have come across puzzle caches and multicaches where the puzzle or stages is optional, in that it's easy to find the cache and sign the log without completing the tasks (unlike niraD's example, where the puzzle has still to be solved before you can register a legitimate find). To me this just appears to be a weakness, and the cache would be better tightened up. You could find the cache and solve the puzzle (before or after) - but why bother? Most would just find it, log it and regard the setup as a bit lame.

Thank you. You've just perfectly described my reasoning for making the poem-log for my Roses Are Red cache mandatory instead of optional.

 

 

I'm not calling for a ban on this type of cache, but I'm still not convinced that you have a sound justification for deleting non-compliant "Found it" logs. I still maintain that the cache would be better if ALR meant Additional Logging Requests :ninja: instead of Requirements :ninja: .

It's my cache -- that's all the justification I need.

 

(Are you a smoker? If not: Do you request that people not smoke in your house ... or do you require them to refrain? It's your house. Same same.)

 

If you think such a cache challenge should be optional, then by all means submit an optional-poetry cache. Do it however you like -- it's your cache! :)

 

My intent is not to annoy. My intent is to provide fun -- and more specifically, to provide a fun challenge without copying someone else's idea. (At the time I originally placed the poetry cache there were no others in existence that I could find.)

 

I don't demand that everyone like it. I never expected that everyone would like it. After three years, however, the numbers have proven it to be plenty popular!

 

 

BTW, I did get another non-compliant log about a week ago. I sent the standard goofy rhyming email reminding him/her of the requirement.

 

Dear Smiling in A: RE your log of June Five;

On my "Roses Are Red" poem challenge cache: I've

Noticed that you may not have picked up on the jive

The description spells out - a POEM you must contrive!

Note it needn't be 'great.' Just as long as you strive

To help keep the now three-year tradition alive!

 

My cache page explains: For the log to be right,

You must come up with something that log-readers might

Construe as a poem. Your log doesn't quite

Comply with that rule (as I read it tonight).

Could you edit your log? Do you think that you might?

I look forward to reading the poem that you write!

We'll see what happens ...

 

[EDIT: Looks like it's already been changed!]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
It's my cache -- that's all the justification I need.

<snip>

My intent is not to annoy.

Boy, you sure missed the target on that one!

 

Hint: Obsessive controlling behavior tends to be annoying.

 

Additional observation: all the unintended irony makes this thread particularly amusing.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
Hint: Obsessive controlling behavior tends to be annoying.

Please explain to me how I'm "controlling" anyone when the choice to go after my cache is optional in the first place ... ?

 

The caches you don't like can only annoy you if you choose not to avoid them, Fizzy.

 

 

Do you consider it "controlling" when cachers try to tell other cachers how to play the game by attempting to impose their own arbitrary game-wide rules?

In actual fact, I believe you have it completely backwards: A smiley comes from a "Found It!" log, so that a smiley only means that you found the cache. Nothing more.

Tell you what: You play the game your way, I'll play the game my way. You design your caches your way without telling me how to run mine, I'll design my caches my way without telling you how to run yours. Fair enough?

 

Oh, and BTW, are you going to completely avoid this post ... or are you still working on a response? :drama:

Link to comment
Do you consider it "controlling" when cachers try to tell other cachers how to play the game by attempting to impose their own arbitrary game-wide rules?

I would if anyone was doing that, but I haven't seen that in any threads recently. And my pointing out that people are lying when they claim to have found a cache but have not is hardly attempting to force them to play my way.

 

But let's use your own logic: nobody is forcing you to list your cache on geocaching.com. Listing them here is voluntary. Make your own site, say, CacheMyWayOrElse.com, and list your caches there. I'm sure it will be a runaway success. But the whole "everyone is trying to make me do it their way! Waah!" whine is getting kind of old.

 

Oh, and BTW, are you going to completely avoid this post ... or are you still working on a response? :drama:

I was making fun of you for contradicting yourself within one sentence. That you can't even see it is even funnier. Why should I ruin the fun by explaining it to you?

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