Jump to content

Logging Requirements


Recommended Posts

See the difference yet?

All I see is you back pedaling. Furiously.

 

Your words...

If you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache.
Can you avoid the evil, dreaded ALR cache by reading the owner's description? Most likely yes.
I see you're hedging your position now. Even if I scoured the page of every single cache I hunted for an ALR there's those that you don't know about until you read it in the cache. So the actual answer to your self-answered query is no, you can't avoid them all.

A very transparent strawman, CR. You quote me saying something, then immediately accuse me of saying something quite different. All in a clumsy attempt to avoid the clear and direct question I asked you.

 

The quote: "Can you avoid the evil, dreaded ALR cache by reading the owner's description? Most likely yes."

 

What does the term "most likely" mean to you, CR? OF COURSE there will be the occasional ALR cache here and there with no mention of the LRs in the description. Hence my use of the term "most likely."

 

Man you're getting desperate.

 

Yes, "even if you scoured the page of every single cache you hunted for an ALR there's those that you don't know about until you read it in the cache." I'm completely confident that you're correct in that statement, but that's not only true of ALRs -- the same can be said for a myriad other potentially negative or undesirable cache-related elements. If that's a big problem for you, then maybe you should just give up Geocaching altogether in favor of something where there’s never any mystery involved.

 

I assume you'll get around to answering my question eventually.

 

 

So, now, you want to tell us how you would handle this situation where someone has actually found the cache but doesn't want to jump through a hoop to simply claim his find?

I probably wouldn't bother logging it at all. At the most I'd send him a friendly email suggesting that he modify his cache page to clearly explain his ALRs right up front. If he doesn't, that's his prerogative -- and I'll warn my friends who dislike ALRs (including CoyoteRed) about his cache.

 

Based on your previous bragging I assume you'd prefer to rudely log the find anyway and then dare him to delete it.

 

Either way he'd get the message, but I would bet many $$$ he'd more likely be persuaded by my response than yours.

 

 

Kind of blows your "if you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache" theory right out of the water.

Not relevant. My "if you don't like the cache, don't hunt the cache" suggestion obviously (or so I thought) refers to the ones where the ALRs are explained in the description. Yes there will occasionally be those that surprise you with ALRs -- just like there are thousands of other caches where nasty undocumented surprises await the cache hunter who carefully reads the description beforehand. The only way to eliminate all undocumented unpleasant cache-site-surprises is to eliminate ALL geocaches.

 

Kinda blows your "let's eliminate ALL ALR caches because a few of them might be unpleasant" theory right out of the water.

Link to comment
Here's my solution:

 

Log a cache as found if I find it.

Skip hoops that seem onerous.

If the owner deletes my log, log a find on one of my caches (so the Groundspeak find count reflects the number of caches found.)

And since GSAK retains my (deleted) find log, my offline database correctly reflects the caches I've found.

That's an EXCELLENT idea!! I wish I'd thought of it.

 

Oh wait a minute, I did.

 

 

 

(BTW, that's a post from a previous thread on the subject. I submitted it in response to this post by CoyoteRed, who allegedly had me on his forum Ignore List at the time.)

 

(Can you blame me? <_< )

Link to comment
When you purchased a car or joined the military service did you sit down and read each and every word on the front and the back of the contracts before signing? When you log onto new web sites and agree to their terms of usage, do you ALWAYS read those terms? If you do, I think you're doing a great thing but it's something many don't do.

Are you serious?

 

 

Yes. I have signed many contracts without reading every word in all the fine print on every page. I assume some trust and assume that the contracts are standard. I have yet to be burned. And like I said, if you do read all of the print of your contracts then you're doing great! My thumbs up to you.

 

For me it is not practical to read every cache page BEFORE going for the hunt. I don't know why you want to keep swinging this over to it's some sort of RISK not to read the cache pages. I have no problems with risk. I was hanging over a cliff with my fingertips last weekend in an attempt to nab a cache.

 

And I haven't had a problem with ALR's. I do as they ask WHEN POSSIBLE but always log a find even when it's not possible to complete the ALR (ie I'm already back home from the hunt). The owners have never complained. If they ever should, I would personally think that owner was not acting in the true SPIRIT of cache hunts and finds. So far I've had nothing but great experiences with the cache owners where I've found their hides.

Link to comment

For me it is not practical to read every cache page BEFORE going for the hunt. I don't know why you want to keep swinging this over to it's some sort of RISK not to read the cache pages. I have no problems with risk.

 

And I haven't had a problem with ALR's. I do as they ask WHEN POSSIBLE but always log a find even when it's not possible to complete the ALR (ie I'm already back home from the hunt). The owners have never complained.

 

How can there be anymore to it than this? What more needs to be said?

 

Some of us like ALR's, some of us hate them, most of us are likely indifferent. What possible risk is there in getting up off the couch and going for a walk in the woods? The cache will be there or it won't and on rare occasions we will find an ALR when we get there or later when we get home and start logging. Is the walk in the woods or a drive downtown bad for us?

 

On several occasions I too just load up the PDA and head out for a day or two of cachemania. Dnf rate is seldom over 10% on these occasions but the rate of surprise ALR’s has got to be less than ½ of 1%, if any at all.

 

OP asks what we think about ALR’s. I don’t care for them but I usually handle them exactly like TD says above. No big deal and certainly nothing that comes closely to what could be considered any sort of RISK.

Link to comment
coords from a database
That is exactly what the PQ tools and the Route tools do, they spit out coords from a database, you have stated it quite succinctly. Am I correctly grasping your further suggestion that this is bad ? I thought coords from the database were good ?

 

Actually, PQs spit out coords AND descriptions AND last 5 logs AND a few other useful items. What I was suggesting, quite sarcastically I might add, is that if you don't need to read descriptions, then why have the extra information at all. Why do we have GPX files? Why not just LOC?

 

I'll tell you why. Because in many cases the extra information is useful. The description gives the owner an opportunity to tell you things about the cache that may be helpful to you.

 

Not all owners use this opportunity to convey useful information to cachers. But for those that do, if you choose not to read it, you have only yourself to blame.

 

Again, I feel ALRs should be OPTIONAL. But I also feel that if a cache owner chooses to make them MANDATORY, it is their RIGHT.

 

And if I can remember far enough back, I think the OP asked :

 

would the owners be in the "right" to delete my log and declare that I did not find the cache if I did not follow the logging requirement?

 

And it is my opinion that yes, whether or not it is ethical, the owner would be in the right to delete a log that does not meet his/her ALRs. Of course s/he can claim all they want to that you didn't find it. That doesn't change the fact that you did find it. All s/he can do is deny your smilie.

Link to comment
Actually, PQs spit out coords AND descriptions AND last 5 logs AND a few other useful items.

 

When I load the PQ results into my GPS I get coords, I don't use a PDA.

When I was on vacation I filtered through the PQ so that all the icons represented Traditional Caches, Found in the Last 7 Days. This was handy when travelling and I can assure you no one could possibly read all the cache pages that were spit out by the PQ's for the routes I used. I would like to be able to filter out caches that have some other task in additon to the signing of the log, the easiest way would be an attribute that the owner could assign to a cache. Such an attribute would help people travelling who can be expected to arrive in many cases with just coordinates and it would help cache owners who could avoid having to deal with found logs made that did not meet a specified requirement.

 

yes, whether or not it is ethical, the owner would be in the right to delete a log

Ethical and right usually go hand in hand, ethical and repugnant are strange bedfellows.

 

I find having to delete logs very repugnant, I wish I never had to delete a log, even the egregious spoilers.

I look at it from a different perspective. The OP has a clear question and the clear answer for me is that the problem should have never have occurred. To ensure this in my own case I chose to abolish all additional logging requirements on all my caches. I did this because I felt that they detracted from the fun of hunting and finding caches.

 

If a tool was available that let me identify those caches, I would use it.

Link to comment
I find having to delete logs very repugnant, I wish I never had to delete a log, even the egregious spoilers.

 

I've mentioned before about the desire to have a step between log deletion and the too-weak-for-words "permanent encryption" method of obscuring logs--hide the log text. This would not deny the finder his log, only hide the offending text. It wouldn't be hard to implement, just another field in the data table and a little logic on the page (or two) and the PQ generator.

 

I'm sure Raine could have that whipped out in a week. <_<

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Also I think that if you want me to write poetry in my log then you better bring me to a spot that would inspire it. If its a "lame micro" what's there to inspire me?

Try it in Haiku:

thirty five M M

Unispired micro spew

Log is wet and full

Works for me! <_<

 

Not only does your log comply with the amateur poetry requirement (six syllables is close enough to seven for me!), but it has the added bonus of giving everyone a bit of insight into your kind and gracious personality -- and isn't that half the fun? ;)

 

(BTW, I know you were being hypothetical, but technically speaking I might actually end up having to delete that particular log for non-ALR reasons since lines one and three clearly indicate you found the wrong cache. It's also not under a lamppost skirt. In case you were wondering.)

Link to comment
When you purchased a car or joined the military service did you sit down and read each and every word on the front and the back of the contracts before signing? When you log onto new web sites and agree to their terms of usage, do you ALWAYS read those terms? If you do, I think you're doing a great thing but it's something many don't do.

Are you serious?

 

Yes. I have signed many contracts without reading every word in all the fine print on every page. I assume some trust and assume that the contracts are standard. I have yet to be burned. And like I said, if you do read all of the print of your contracts then you're doing great!

Generally I don't. I generally proceed pretty much the same as you describe, and have also yet to be burned. If, on the other hand, I ever AM burned for failing to read a contract I signed I would be too embarrassed to even consider using the defense you suggest.

 

The apparent difference between you and me is that you seem happily willing to blow off whatever the cache owner might have had to say in his posted description that you were too busy to read. Many previous posts in this thread have detailed many other, non-ALR type things that are frequently included in the text -- information that could save you, the owner, future finders, neighbors, and maybe even the police a whole lot of grief.

 

To repeat a story: I found an ALR cache once. Didn't bother to read my printout of the description until I was standing there at the cache. Didn't know until it was too late that I needed a camera to comply with the logging requirement. What did I do? Did I arrogantly ignore the owner's clearly stated rule and log it anyway? Did I blame/flame the owner for being to "controlling?" Did I post in the forums to demand that photo-required caches be eliminated from the website?

 

None of those things ever even occurred to me. I simply slapped my forehead and reminded myself to read up on caches before I hunt them.

 

You don't HAVE to agree with my 'personal responsibility' policy, of course. It's just a suggestion.

 

 

My thumbs up to you.

A THUMB! Thanks. That's much nicer than the other digit I've been seeing around here recently. :laughing:

 

 

For me it is not practical to read every cache page BEFORE going for the hunt. I don't know why you want to keep swinging this over to it's some sort of RISK not to read the cache pages.

Then all I can say is: good luck.

 

 

And I haven't had a problem with ALR's. I do as they ask WHEN POSSIBLE but always log a find even when it's not possible to complete the ALR (ie I'm already back home from the hunt). The owners have never complained. If they ever should, I would personally think that owner was not acting in the true SPIRIT of cache hunts and finds. So far I've had nothing but great experiences with the cache owners where I've found their hides.

And the reverse seems to hold true as well: In three years my ALR poetry cache has been logged over 100 times, folks have had tons of obvious fun with it, and nobody's ever complained. If they ever should, I also would personally think that cacher was not acting in the true SPIRIT of cache hunts and finds. My assumption is that each of them either read from the cache page about the ALR in advance, or saw it after the find but before their online log -- and then did what I'd have done in that situation: threw together a poem.

Link to comment
Also I think that if you want me to write poetry in my log then you better bring me to a spot that would inspire it. If its a "lame micro" what's there to inspire me, the guardrail, how I almost got nailed by the car speeding past me, or the rotting deer carcass 10 feet from the cache..

If there's ever something about a particular cache hide that you think should have been done differently, you know you're always welcome to set the example by hiding one of your own. You can thereby demonstrate perfectly how it should have been done.

Link to comment

For me it is not practical to read every cache page BEFORE going for the hunt. I don't know why you want to keep swinging this over to it's some sort of RISK not to read the cache pages. I have no problems with risk.

 

And I haven't had a problem with ALR's. I do as they ask WHEN POSSIBLE but always log a find even when it's not possible to complete the ALR (ie I'm already back home from the hunt). The owners have never complained.

 

How can there be anymore to it than this? What more needs to be said?

MUCH more, apparently:

 

... Some of us like ALR's, some of us hate them, most of us are likely indifferent. What possible risk is there in getting up off the couch and going for a walk in the woods? The cache will be there or it won't and on rare occasions we will find an ALR when we get there or later when we get home and start logging. Is the walk in the woods or a drive downtown bad for us?

 

On several occasions I too just load up the PDA and head out for a day or two of cachemania. Dnf rate is seldom over 10% on these occasions but the rate of surprise ALR’s has got to be less than ½ of 1%, if any at all.

 

OP asks what we think about ALR’s. I don’t care for them but I usually handle them exactly like TD says above. No big deal and certainly nothing that comes closely to what could be considered any sort of RISK.

You're exactly right of course. You should skip all that reading. Too much hassle. There is no conceivable risk involved with a simple walk through unfamiliar woods. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Why should anyone ever bother with any of the drivel one typically finds in a cache owner's description?

 

Drivel like this, for example, from the description of a cache near my house:

Caution:

If you search for this cache near dawn or dusk during hunting season without wearing a blaze orange vest I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award. Mid-day, even during hunting season, you should see the equestrian set, not the deer hunting set, but play it safe!
WEAR AN ORANGE VEST!!!

I support you, Sagefox! Next time you're in this part of Georgia during November you should go out there some crisp, clear morning and prove that guy wrong!!!

 

(According to the description there are also some potentially dangerous radioactive remains of an old military reactor close by, but of course you wouldn't be interested in any of that kind of fluff.)

Link to comment
Actually, PQs spit out coords AND descriptions AND last 5 logs AND a few other useful items.

 

When I load the PQ results into my GPS I get coords, I don't use a PDA.

 

The fact that you choose not to use the information does not negate its usefulness and does not absolve you of responsibility when you fail to meet ALRs.

 

Drivel like this, for example, from the description of a cache near my house:

 

Caution:

If you search for this cache near dawn or dusk during hunting season without wearing a blaze orange vest I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award. Mid-day, even during hunting season, you should see the equestrian set, not the deer hunting set, but play it safe! WEAR AN ORANGE VEST!!!

 

I support you, Sagefox! Next time you're in this part of Georgia during November you should go out there some crisp, clear morning and prove that guy wrong!!!

 

KBI, give it up. There's no reason to read the description. Cachers should always know to wear orange vests. Cachers should always be aware of posted park times, no matter how they may approach the cache. Apparently there would be no reason for an owner to put any useful tips or warnings in their listing. There couldn't possibly be any reason for a cacher to read a listing. It's just a usefulless hold over from the old days. The PTB will soon be doing away with the listings and turning PQs into LOC files.

 

I really find it funny that people ask for additional tools when they won't even use the tools currently available.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

Why should anyone ever bother with any of the drivel one typically finds in a cache owner's description?

 

If you search for this cache near dawn or dusk during hunting season without wearing a blaze orange vest I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award.

 

(According to the description there are also some potentially dangerous radioactive remains of an old military reactor close by, but of course you wouldn't be interested in any of that kind of fluff.)

 

I didn't say that I don't read the cache page and I definitely did not say cache pages are "drivel". You must have confused me for someone else.

 

I constantly strive to keep my posts short (often difficult for me) but it probably would have helped to say the I read the cache page after I park the car near the cache site. I usually enjoy reading cache pages, especially when they feature local history or points of interest. But if conditions are not suitable to me or I am not suitable to them I simply restart the car and move on to the next one. Obvioulsy, if the cache is remote and there are no others nearby I will pull over and read the page before committing to the extra distance.

 

I have, on occasion, hunted caches with only a gps waypoint. Intuition and caution typically covers safety issues. Give it a try sometime if you haven't already, it can be quite fun.

Link to comment

KBI, give it up. There's no reason to read the description. There couldn't possibly be any reason for a cacher to read a listing. It's just a usefulless hold over from the old days.

 

Your post is another example of altering the meaning of someone's post to make the point you want. It didn't work this time though because I agree with you, almost entirely.

 

The part I don't agree with is that there is any substance to this long diversion from OP's question. Not reading cache pages before hunting does not create problems in any significant numbers. There are some notable examples but they are very few in number when compared to the total cache find attempts.

 

With over 100 hides over almost 5 years I cannot recall more than a few posts on any one cache page where the cacher had not read the page before their attempt. I recall no problems that arose from them not reading the page other than dnf's. Dnf's are not problems.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment
choose not to use

 

I am not sure you are comprehending things correctly.

What part do you not understand?

 

The part about not having a PDA or the part about getting back 500 results for one route segment ?

 

It isn't that I "choose not to use" an available tool. The tool is not there, I cannot filter out Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) caches. I had such caches myself not too long ago. :laughing: I reached my decision to remove ALR's based on my own experience, a signed logbook or a visit to the location is all that is required to "find" any of my caches.

 

Anyone who has actually driven a route and used the route tool will be happy to confirm that they did not read all the cache pages, feel free to ask, you pass a lot of caches in few days of driving. Denver itself has thousands of cache pages, I will freely admit I didn't read all of them nor did I try. Both you and KBI just keep stepping right past this very obvious point.

 

A simple solution would be to allow cachers to filter out ALR caches and avoid the "fun" that some cache owners want them to have. Your suggestions that every cache page must be read or that people have no common sense and have to rely on a cache owner to obtain some are spurious.

Most geocachers do not wander around in camo during hunting season, even ones who are travelling. If there are approaches to a cache that a geocacher might reasonably use that are not posted then the geocacher is probably not going to get in any trouble, climbing fences and hiking through people's yards excepted.

 

When I am travelling I filter out multis and mysteries to reduce complexity, I do look at the big picture and read some of the Virtual cache pages near my destination or along the way, I try to do that beforehand. Filtering out ALR's may not reduce the cache count much but it would reduce complexity, it would remove a possible source of friction for both the cache owner and the cache seeker, it would work without a PDA and it is my opinion that it would be a good attribute and might even encourage the ALR aspect of caching for those who enjoy it.

 

The icon coud be a little hoop with a geocacher jumping through it. :)

Link to comment
With over 100 hides over almost 5 years I cannot recall more than a few posts on any one cache page

 

I first took a photo of the wrong junction but feel that I got the right one later!

 

Wasn't sure what I was lookng for but I believe that I took the right picture.

 

sure hope this is the right post. We took pictures of every post we passed

 

Unfortunately, I can not upload the pictures that I took until I return home to Manitoba.

 

Our experiences differ. This Earthcache is a year and half old, it has had nine finds and there are four quotes taken from four different finders logs indicating some additional friction caused by my ALR. Almost half the finders had some sort of reservation about having it right or about not complying, I think it wasn't adding to the fun so much as making people worry that they had the right picture.

 

I removed all logging requirements after reading the discussions on these forums and applying the arguments to my own experience. I could see the way out for myself, I won't consider ALR's, I will treat them as additives, they are neither positive or negative but they are indeed additives, I removed the additives on my caches.

 

Organic geocaches. :laughing:

Link to comment
choose not to use

I am not sure you are comprehending things correctly.

What part do you not understand?

 

The part about not having a PDA or the part about getting back 500 results for one route segment ?

What I understand is the part where you use the sheer volume of electronically downloaded caches as an excuse for not reading the descriptions. If I were you, and I had loaded the same list of 500 coords into my GPS I probably wouldn't read all 500 pages of text either -- but I sure as [heck] wouldn't use that as an excuse to ignore logging requirements, or otherwise blame someone else for any other problems caused by not having available information that I knowingly ignored.

 

 

It isn't that I "choose not to use" an available tool. The tool is not there ...

The tool is there. If your computer has a working monitor attached, it's right in front of you.

 

PDAs are 'available' too. Whether or not you make use of one is your choice.

 

 

... I cannot filter out Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) caches.

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of an ALR attribute. I'd be happy to flag my own cache with it, but I don't see it going all that far toward solve your problem. How do you ensure that all ALR cache hiders will use it when they submit a new cache? How can you be sure to get all the existing ALR caches marked? Seriously, if people still can't figure out how to log a freaking Travel Bug, how well can we expect a new and relatively obscure attribute to be understood, much less used?

 

 

Anyone who has actually driven a route and used the route tool will be happy to confirm that they did not read all the cache pages, feel free to ask, you pass a lot of caches in few days of driving. Denver itself has thousands of cache pages, I will freely admit I didn't read all of them nor did I try. Both you and KBI just keep stepping right past this very obvious point.

What's obvious to me is that you're describing a practical 'reason' -- NOT a legitimate excuse. Take responsibility for your own decisions! You say "I will freely admit I didn't read all of them nor did I try." Then freely admit that any info you missed is due to your own choice! You made a compromise for the sake of convenience -- there's nothing wrong with that at all ... as long as you understand and are willing to accept the consequences of your choice.

 

 

The icon coud be a little hoop with a geocacher jumping through it. :laughing:

Submit it to Jeremy. If he approves it and makes it available, I'll use it. :)

Link to comment
Not reading cache pages before hunting does not create problems in any significant numbers. There are some notable examples but they are very few in number when compared to the total cache find attempts.

Then why do so many paperless cachers immediately start complaining that it IS a problem every time the issue of Additional Logging Requirements comes up?

 

 

The part I don't agree with is that there is any substance to this long diversion from the OP's question.

I have to disagree with your characterization that this issue is a long diversion from OP's question. It's very relevant; the two are closely linked. Every time the issue of Additional Logging Requirements comes up it's the very first line of defense from those who don't like them.

 

Them: I don't agree with your ALR. Don't like it, it sucks, it's wrong, you shouldn't do that to people.

 

Me: All caches are voluntary. Others enjoy it, but if you don't like ALRs, don't hunt my ALR.

 

Them: So how the heck am I supposed to know about your Additional Logging Requirement?

 

Me: Read my cache page. It's plainly described there.

 

Them: But I cache paperless!! You don't actually expect me to READ all those descriptions, do you?

 

Me: <sigh>

Link to comment
I didn't say that I don't read the cache page and I definitely did not say cache pages are "drivel". You must have confused me for someone else.

No, it wasn't someone else. It was definitely Team Sagefox.

 

No, you didn't specifically say "cache pages are drivel." Those are my words, and I was being sarcastic. What you DID say is:

... What possible risk is there in getting up off the couch and going for a walk in the woods? ... Is the walk in the woods or a drive downtown bad for us?

 

... I don’t care for [ALRs] but I usually handle them exactly like TD says above. No big deal and certainly nothing that comes closely to what could be considered any sort of RISK.

You made it clear that you see no risk whatsoever in choosing not to read cache descriptions. That's what I was responding to, because I strongly disagree.

Link to comment

First, my appologies to Team Sagefox, my comments were not directed at you. They were meant to connect to a similar hypothetical I had mentioned earlier.

 

Second, to waveform, maybe I am just assuming too much. I assumed that when you said you were pulling PQs for caches along a route each day that you had a laptop with you. $20 bucks for GSAK and you can do amazing things with those PQs, if you have a laptop with you. There are other pieces of software available for free that will let you work with the information you get from a PQ. You can also get a through away PDA off eBay for less than $20. Paperless caching is awesome.

 

Third, I don't know why we keep butting heads on this anyway. You and I already agree that ALRs should be optional. You even removed the requirements from your caches because of your conviction on the matter.

 

With that, I am going to leave this topic to the other guys who are bent on beating each other over the heads. :laughing:

Link to comment

You made it clear that you see no risk whatsoever in choosing not to read cache descriptions. That's what I was responding to, because I strongly disagree.

 

I think you missed this part of my quote, it makes a substantial difference:

 

...I read the cache page after I park the car near the cache site. I usually enjoy reading cache pages, especially when they feature local history or points of interest. But if conditions are not suitable to me or I am not suitable to them I simply restart the car and move on to the next one.

 

There is NO risk, even if we don't read the page, because if we end up with a dnf or a deleted find we still got out of the house and maybe took a walk in the woods. A dnf or deleted find does not qualify as a risk to me. I also said that intuition and caution commonly cover any other risk associatied with not reading the cache page.

 

- - -

 

I think I see what your problem is though. You have an ALR cache and apparently people are not meeting your expectations of what they should do. But your ALR cache and all other ALR caches combined are only a small percentage of the total caches placed. That means it can be a big problem for you and other ALR owners but it is only a little problem for me and most others because we don't run across ALR's very frequently.

 

ALR owners will likely always have problems with people not meeting all the requirements.

Link to comment
I think you missed this part of my quote, it makes a substantial difference:

 

...I read the cache page after I park the car near the cache site. I usually enjoy reading cache pages, especially when they feature local history or points of interest. But if conditions are not suitable to me or I am not suitable to them I simply restart the car and move on to the next one.

No I didn't miss it, I just didn't respond. I tend not to respond to those forum points with which I agree, mostly because it seems annoyingly redundant to fill a thread with a lot of unnecessary "I agree" stuff. Maybe I should do it more often. Maybe I should have said "me too" in this case, because when I'm caching I do the same as you describe.

 

 

There is NO risk, even if we don't read the page, because if we end up with a dnf or a deleted find we still got out of the house and maybe took a walk in the woods. A dnf or deleted find does not qualify as a risk to me. I also said that intuition and caution commonly cover any other risk associated with not reading the cache page.

In that regard I once again agree with you. I like your outlook -- it's a happy way to play.

 

 

I think I see what your problem is though. You have an ALR cache and apparently people are not meeting your expectations of what they should do.

My expectations as to the deeds of those who find my cache aren't the issue. Those who have found and logged my poetry cache have consistently demonstrated their obvious enjoyment while meeting the (very easy) creativity challenge, and my wife and I always get a good smile or laugh out of each new "[LOG] Owner" email generated. Owning the cache has been a lot more fun that I ever imagined it would be.

 

No, my main beef is with the two or three people here in the forums who have repeatedly made it clear they'll be happy with nothing less than to see my ALR cache, and all others like it, completely banned from the game. To date no one has adequately convinced me why the option to simply avoid an undesired cache isn't good enough for these folks; The mere existence of my ALR cache causes them a strange heartburn that I just don't understand.

 

It's like a person who doesn't like anchovies on their pizza who isn't satisfied with saying "no anchovies please," and gets upset at the very fact that the word 'anchovies' is printed on the menu.

 

"I don't like them, therefore NOBODY should eat them!!! Anchovies should be BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

 

But your ALR cache and all other ALR caches combined are only a small percentage of the total caches placed. That means it can be a big problem for you and other ALR owners but it is only a little problem for me and most others because we don't run across ALR's very frequently.

 

ALR owners will likely always have problems with people not meeting all the requirements.

Until the 'ALR Exterminators' came along I never really had any trouble at all.

Link to comment
six syllables is close enough to seven for me!

KBI, ain't you from Georgia? Don't y'all up yonder know that "uninspired" has 4 sylables south of the Mason Dixon line?

Un-in-spy-yeard

At least it did when I lived in Georgia. :rolleyes:

 

Back on topic:

I'd like to see an additional icon added to the available selection. Not one specific to ALR's, but one more generallized that would include ALR's. They could call it, "Additional data needed", and have a picture of an open book as the icon. Maybe your hide is in a park which closes at night, with the park hours not posted? (I own one like that) Maybe your hide is close to private property but the boundaries are not very clear? (I own one like that) Maybe your hide requires special equipment to recover, and said equipment doesn't have an icon? (I own one like that) Maybe your hide is close to a dangerous parking spot? (I own one like that) Those folks, (like myself), who hide caches with information necessary to succesfully complete the hunt could use this icon. Those who like to simply punch in coords and find suff could filter out those types of caches.

 

Just $0.02 from an ol' fat guy

(and former Ga resident)

Link to comment

 

The apparent difference between you and me is that you seem happily willing to blow off whatever the cache owner might have had to say in his posted description that you were too busy to read. Many previous posts in this thread have detailed many other, non-ALR type things that are frequently included in the text -- information that could save you, the owner, future finders, neighbors, and maybe even the police a whole lot of grief.

 

To repeat a story: I found an ALR cache once. Didn't bother to read my printout of the description until I was standing there at the cache. Didn't know until it was too late that I needed a camera to comply with the logging requirement. What did I do? Did I arrogantly ignore the owner's clearly stated rule and log it anyway? Did I blame/flame the owner for being to "controlling?" Did I post in the forums to demand that photo-required caches be eliminated from the website?

 

None of those things ever even occurred to me. I simply slapped my forehead and reminded myself to read up on caches before I hunt them.

 

You don't HAVE to agree with my 'personal responsibility' policy, of course. It's just a suggestion.

 

 

No, I'm not "willing to blow off" descriptions. When I log my finds, I do read the descriptions and comply the best that I can. I'm not aware of ever having causing any "grief" to myself or others for hunting caches without the descriptions. But I do come away with more frequent DNF's. I'm responsible for those DNF's - nobody but myself to blame. Also, "too busy to read" 700 descriptions before a trip and it's not practical to read 700 descriptions are two different problems IMOHO.

 

I've returned to caches which were near my home to complete some sort of requirement. But don't expect me to drive 2200 miles to Arkansas for a photo to complete a ALR. As I've already stated, posting a find for those few caches and explaining to the owner what I had done has never resulted in a deleted log.

Link to comment

No, my main beef is with the two or three people here in the forums who have repeatedly made it clear they'll be happy with nothing less than to see my ALR cache, and all others like it, completely banned from the game.

 

I can agree with your beef there. ALR's add a little spice to the game. I'm with the others who suggest that ALR's should be easy to identify so that those whom wish could avoid them. As it stands, there is no way to filter them out for those traveling or for those whom just plain hate them.

Link to comment
six syllables is close enough to seven for me!

KBI, ain't you from Georgia? Don't y'all up yonder know that "uninspired" has 4 sylables south of the Mason Dixon line?

Un-in-spy-yeard

At least it did when I lived in Georgia. :rolleyes:

:anibad::(;)

 

Oh, I see! You meant four Southern* syllables.

 

Then whatnthworld er ya doin usin' big ol' college words like 'Uninspired?

 

Instead of:

thirty five M M

Unispired micro spew

Log is wet and full

Ya shoulda said:

Film box doo-hicky

Good fer nuthin'
teeny thang

Log is tore slap up

 

*(Southern = PC for "Redneck")

 

 

Back on topic:

I'd like to see an additional icon added to the available selection. Not one specific to ALR's, but one more generallized that would include ALR's. They could call it, "Additional data needed", and have a picture of an open book as the icon ... Those who like to simply punch in coords and find stuff could filter out those types of caches.

I like that idea a lot.

 

An attribute that means something along the lines of "ignoring the textual description of this cache is not recommended," "not paperless friendly" or "specific critical information is included."

 

It still has practical application problems similar to the ALR icon, but it has a much more general meaning, which would probably make it more likely to be used as intended.

Link to comment
I've returned to caches which were near my home to complete some sort of requirement. But don't expect me to drive 2200 miles to Arkansas for a photo to complete a ALR. As I've already stated, posting a find for those few caches and explaining to the owner what I had done has never resulted in a deleted log.

That sounds pretty reasonable.

 

If you've had good success talking photo-required-cache owners into accepting your photo-less smileys, that's cool. If I owned such a cache I suppose I might also be convinced to accept such logs in special circumstances. That's just good Frisbee Rule 1.02. But don't be surprised if someday one of those owners insists on holding you to the requirement -- especially if it was clearly spelled out in his descriprtion. That's all I'm saying about being responsible for reading up on that stuff beforehand.

 

In the specific case of my poetry cache, on the other hand: anybody can come up with something that passes as a poetry attempt, and, as I make clear in my description, that's all I'm asking for. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

No, my main beef is with the two or three people here in the forums who have repeatedly made it clear they'll be happy with nothing less than to see my ALR cache, and all others like it, completely banned from the game.

 

O.K., I got it this time. Thanks. It's all very clear now.

 

Condition: Participates in forums and thinks there is a problem.

 

(I could stop right there and my point will have been made.)

 

Real World: No substantial problem observed and people are complying quite nicely with the ALR. (I scanned the poem cache and I agree that it would be a fun one and it certainly does not pose difficult conditions.) Other personal experiences in these posts note that ALR cache owners have not been deleting finds that are not in full compliance.

 

Observation: Maybe some of the problems stated in the forums are a bit exaggerated.

 

Solution: When a condition is brought up in the forums we should attempt to assess whether it is a real problem or an uncommon or rare condition being dressed up to look like a major issue.

 

- - -

 

OP asks if it is generally accepted that owners of ALR caches delete finds that don’t comply with the ALR requirements. Most people support a cache owner’s right to delete finds that don’t comply with ALR’s. Many others (myself included) believe that if you find a cache, open the container (if possible) and sign the log (if possible) then you should be able to log it as Found. After all, that is the Prime Directive of geocaching. That is why virtual, locationless and earth caches had to find a new home. They didn’t comply with the Prime Directive.

 

The easiest way to handle this situation is for finders to make a good attempt to comply with the ALR’s… and for ALR cache owners not to delete finds where the logbook is signed but the ALR’s are not met.

 

One problem with ARL’s is that, unlike puzzle caches, they are holding the carrot-on-the-stick behind the horse rather than in front of it. That doesn’t always convince the horse to do what you want it to.

Link to comment
It's like a person who doesn't like anchovies on their pizza who isn't satisfied with saying "no anchovies please," and gets upset at the very fact that the word 'anchovies' is printed on the menu.

 

"I don't like them, therefore NOBODY should eat them!!! Anchovies should be BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

No, it's not.

 

A better analogy would be somebody who likes to drive 20 miles per hour under the speed limit just to annoy other drivers. After being pulled over by the police and given a ticket for obstructing traffic, he exclaims:

 

"I have been banned from driving on the freeways!"

 

It's just as hysterical and just as nonsensical.

 

I am hoping that once you get into high school you'll get a logic class or something that will teach a few critical thinking skills.

Link to comment
The easiest way to handle this situation is for finders to make a good attempt to comply with the ALR’s… and for ALR cache owners not to delete finds where the logbook is signed but the ALR’s are not met.

Seems pretty common sense, doesn't it? Yet this is exactly the suggestion that KBI has repeatedly characterized as COMPLETELY BANNING his caches.

 

You don't see how your suggestion is a BAN on caches with additional requirements? Neither do I. Neither does anybody else, as far as I can tell, except for KBI, who is being PERSECUTED by those who advocate BANNING his caches COMPLETELY.

Link to comment
A better analogy would be somebody who likes to drive 20 miles per hour under the speed limit just to annoy other drivers. After being pulled over by the police and given a ticket for obstructing traffic, he exclaims:

 

"I have been banned from driving on the freeways!"

Poor analogy.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I get your point. According to your 'better analogy,' you think my ALR cache was placed just for the purpose of annoying you. You think my cache should be de-listed in order to prevent it from obstructing others' enjoyment of the game.

 

Let's break it down:

 

You think my ALR cache was placed just for the purpose of annoying you.

Even if this were true ... why in the heck would you LET it annoy you? Why does the mere existence of a cache you can easily avoid bother you so much? You're not really that thin-skinned, are you Fizzy?

 

You think my cache should be de-listed in order to prevent it from obstructing others' enjoyment of the game.

As of this moment there are 305211 active caches in 222 countries. In the last 7 days, there have been 217338 new logs written by 34828 account holders. People seem to be out there enjoying caching at an ever-increasing record pace. My cache has been around for more than three years; I don't hear anyone behind me 'honking' the analogous 'horn.' Do you still intent to stand by your assertion-by-analogy that the existence of my ALR cache is blocking anyone from enjoying geocaching?

 

 

I am hoping that once you get into high school you'll get a logic class or something that will teach a few critical thinking skills.

Now I'm a 14-year-old? Wow. And you're implying that my logic is inferior?

 

Sorry Fizzy, but reverting to schoolyard name-calling does not impress me, and it's not likely to convince me to convert to your side of this debate.

Link to comment
You think my cache should be de-listed in order to prevent it from obstructing others' enjoyment of the game.

 

For the LAST TIME:

 

I don't want your cache de-listed. Nobody wants your cache de-listed. Nobody has proposed de-listing your precious little cache.

 

Learn to read English.

Link to comment
The easiest way to handle this situation is for finders to make a good attempt to comply with the ALR’s… and for ALR cache owners not to delete finds where the logbook is signed but the ALR’s are not met.

Seems pretty common sense, doesn't it? Yet this is exactly the suggestion that KBI has repeatedly characterized as COMPLETELY BANNING his caches.

 

You don't see how your suggestion is a BAN on caches with additional requirements? Neither do I. Neither does anybody else, as far as I can tell, except for KBI, who is being PERSECUTED by those who advocate BANNING his caches COMPLETELY.

You talk about the problem like I'm imagining it.

 

Was I imagining this?

Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.
I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question.

That's because the question is irrelevant. It's not about avoiding caches that is bad for the hobby. It's about eliminating caches that is bad for the hobby.

That was from the last thread on the subject.

 

This time around he was a bit vague, so I asked:

So you’re no longer demanding the elimination of such caches, then? I'm happy to see you've changed your position on the subject, CR. :rolleyes:

His response:

... my position has not changed on the subject. I've only tempered my approach.

There have been other folks pressing for the same "solution." CR's just been the most vocal about it.

 

Was any of that unclear? Did I misquote anybody?

Link to comment
Was any of that unclear? Did I misquote anybody?

It was perfectly clear. Nobody has proposed de-listing your precious little cache or others like it.

 

The fact that you are unable to correctly parse perfectly well-formed English remains something of an enduring mystery, but not one I'm gonna waste any more time on.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
You think my cache should be de-listed in order to prevent it from obstructing others' enjoyment of the game.

For the LAST TIME:

 

I don't want your cache de-listed. Nobody wants your cache de-listed. Nobody has proposed de-listing your precious little cache.

 

Learn to read English.

I read your analogy. In your analogy my cache played the part of a driver who was pulled over by the police.

 

"Driver removed from traffic by authority figure enforcing the rules = ALR cache removed from the game by an authority figure enforcing the rules."

 

Isn't that exactly what you meant? If not, then what the heck were you trying to say?

 

Go ahead, try again. I'm a patient guy.

 

(If that isn't what you meant, then can I assume that you're fine with the existence of my ALR poetry cache? If so, then why all the whining about it? :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
If that isn't what you meant, then can I assume that you're fine with the existence of my ALR poetry cache? If so, then why all the whining about it?

Sigh.

 

It's like watching a traffic accident.

 

Yes, I am fine with your little poetry cache. I have never whined about it, as you would know if you had bothered to read the contents of this (or the previous) thread.

 

My point has always been, and still remains, this:

 

Anyone who would delete an otherwise legitimate "found it" log for failure to jump through additional hoops is a control-obsessed jerk.

 

That's it. Nothing about banning anything. No proposed new rules. No whining. Nothing but my personal opinion of the behavior. Which, I will freely admit, you have reinforced considerably.

 

Now:

 

I. Am. Finished. With. This. Stupid. Topic.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
Was any of that unclear? Did I misquote anybody?

It was perfectly clear. Nobody has proposed eliminating your precious little cache or others like it. The fact that you are unable to correctly parse perfectly well-formed English is something of an enduring mystery ...

Then why don't you explain it to me. I'm an open-minded guy who finds it easily believeable that I'm just being dense, missing the whole point, and need to have a picture drawn for me.

 

The published (and quoted, just for you) truth is that CoyoteRed wants all ALR caches removed from the game. If I didn't know better I'd think it was YOU who is stumbling with the English, Fizzy.

 

... but not one I'm gonna waste any more time on.

Sounds familiar ... Fizzy telling me I'm wrong without being willing (or able) to explain where I'm wrong.

 

Kinda like once upon a time when you tried the same type of empty accusation in this post.

 

I followed up by asking you to explain what you meant. You ignored the question. You continued to ignore it when I continued to ask -- I begged -- for you to tell me where I was wrong as I posted this post, this post, and this post.

 

Where was my answer?

 

And do we really have to go through all that again?

 

[EDIT: Grammar]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
If that isn't what you meant, then can I assume that you're fine with the existence of my ALR poetry cache? If so, then why all the whining about it?
I have never whined about it ...

 

My point has always been, and still remains, this:

 

Anyone who would delete an otherwise legitimate "found it" log for failure to jump through additional hoops is a control-obsessed jerk.

Sorry, but you're still contradicting yourself: That suuuure sounds like whining to me. Whining in bold letters.

 

It's a cache you can easily avoid and ignore, yet here you are screaming at me and calling me names in the forums because of it. If that's not whining, then what do they call it where you live?

 

That's it. Nothing about banning anything. No proposed new rules.

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess that's one less 'ALR Exterminator' for me to worrry about. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
The published (and quoted, just for you) truth is that CoyoteRed wants all ALR caches removed from the game.

 

Only in your mind as you continue to completely misrepresent my position.

 

You taking your cache out of the game if policy was that you can't delete a log simply because someone didn't jump through some arbitrary hoop is your decision. No one is proposing that you can't request some additional activity. The only problem is the deletion of legitimate logs. You can still ask for logs in poems, just not force it. The fun would still be there for those who want to do it. You archiving your cache would remove the possibility of those who want to log with a poem from doing so making it you who would be removing their fun.

 

The fact of the matter is some folks have already mentioned they have removed the requirements from their caches. Are the caches gone? Nope, they're still there for folks to enjoy.

 

So, if is was made unacceptable to delete legitimate logs would those caches go away? Nope. The caches would still be there and listed. Doesn't mean the finders can't do whatever activity the, now, requests were asking for. The "fun" of optionally doing the additional activity would still be there. They simply wouldn't be ALR caches anymore. You know, kind of like how some code-word caches became non-codeword caches when a logbook was put in them. Also, like moving caches that don't move anymore.

 

You talk about the problem like I'm imagining it.

You are.

Link to comment
The published (and quoted, just for you) truth is that CoyoteRed wants all ALR caches removed from the game.

Only in your mind as you continue to completely misrepresent my position.

I quoted you directly. Your language seems pretty clear to me.

 

If you've changed your mind again that'll make at least three flip-flops that I can count.

 

Do me a favor, CR. I think it would help us both out tremendously if you could post something clear, concise, and unmistakable explaining your position. An ultimate, final, comprehensive "this is what I want" statement. Are you like some folks here who don't care for ALRs but are willing to tolerate their existence? Or are you still, as you have stated before, demanding an actual change in the rules from Groundspeak? Or is it neither of those?

 

And then, once you post your statement, please stop ignoring questions which ask for clarification. This is really beginning to drag.

 

 

You taking your cache out of the game if policy was that you can't delete a log simply because someone didn't jump through some arbitrary hoop is your decision. No one is proposing that you can't request some additional activity. The only problem is the deletion of legitimate logs. You can still ask for logs in poems, just not force it. The fun would still be there for those who want to do it. You archiving your cache would remove the possibility of those who want to log with a poem from doing so making it you who would be removing their fun.

Youre telling me I have to lose the carefully designed and planned ALR challenge but I can keep the 1/1 cache? :P Gee, thanks a lot. :)

 

That sure sounds to ME like "CoyoteRed wants all ALR caches removed from the game." Tell me again how I misrepresented your position?

 

You own some puzzle caches, CR. Does that mean you'd be just as happy owning those puzzle caches if Groundspeak changed their policy to prohibit the hiding of cache coords behind puzzles? In other words, you would have to change the posted coords to reflect the actual location, and -- the puzzles would have to be optional. You could still ask for the puzzle solution, just not force it. No one is proposing that you can't request finders to jump through that additional hoop.

 

What's that? -- That defeats the whole purpose of the hide, you say? You might archive your former puzzle-required cache? Well, maybe YOU would remain happy with a forcibly lamed-up cache hide, but you can see where other puzzle cache owners might have an issue. You taking your cache out of the game if policy was that you can't force someone to solve some arbitrary puzzle is your decision -- right? :)

 

Sorry, but I really don't see a meaningful difference between someone forcing me to set up my cache hide their way vs someone forcing me to archive my hide.

 

CR, If your proposed rule were in place when I started hiding caches, then my poetry cache would have never existed. It's been a hit for a long time now. You've yet to answer this question, one I've asked several times: After you get your way, how will you explain to the finders of my cache, whose fun you removed, that your clamping down on their fun is better for the game?

 

 

The fact of the matter is some folks have already mentioned they have removed the requirements from their caches. Are the caches gone? Nope, they're still there for folks to enjoy.

Not relevant. ALRs come and go all the time for a variety of reasons, just like anything else. We're talking about being forced to change one's hide due to some unnecessarily oppressive and asinine rule change.

 

Yes, those caches are still there. Now that those people are doing it your way, I can see why you're happy. I can see that we're well on our way to a homogeneous, non-frightening world of caching where everyone plays in the proper, CoyoteRed-Approved manner.

 

 

So, if is was made unacceptable to delete legitimate logs would those caches go away? Nope. The caches would still be there and listed. Doesn't mean the finders can't do whatever activity the, now, requests were asking for. The "fun" of optionally doing the additional activity would still be there. They simply wouldn't be ALR caches anymore. You know, kind of like how some code-word caches became non-codeword caches when a logbook was put in them. Also, like moving caches that don't move anymore.

So when does the all the banning stop, CR? What other elements of other people's fun do you feel the need to make demands for removal? What else about this game gives you nightmares? Micros, maybe? Lame swag? Puzzles? Lack of creativity? A Hello Kitty theme? Caches that have the letter 'k,' 'b' and 'i' in the name?

 

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, CR. There are no rights being violated by the existence of my cache or anybody else’s. All caching is voluntary.

 

Some of us happen to LIKE anchovies. Leave us alone.

Link to comment
When I load the PQ results into my GPS I get coords, I don't use a PDA.

When I was on vacation I filtered through the PQ so that all the icons represented Traditional Caches, Found in the Last 7 Days. This was handy when travelling and I can assure you no one could possibly read all the cache pages that were spit out by the PQ's for the routes I used. I would like to be able to filter out caches that have some other task in additon to the signing of the log, the easiest way would be an attribute that the owner could assign to a cache. Such an attribute would help people travelling who can be expected to arrive in many cases with just coordinates and it would help cache owners who could avoid having to deal with found logs made that did not meet a specified requirement.

Please don't think I'm trying to be argumentative, but you should pick up a ten dollar pda and try it out.

 

When I travel, I use much the same technique as you, except I also dump the caches into my pda. As I go from cache to cache, I document each cache hunt in Cache Log Book and read the description of the next cache. If I see something that I don't like, I skip the cache and move on to the next. This saves me a lot of time and makes the trip more enjoyable.

Link to comment
I quoted you directly. Your language seems pretty clear to me.

 

Yes, it's pretty clear. I'd say "crystal." Unfortunately for you, many folks do understand what I'm saying and you pretty much stand alone in your interpretation.

 

Sorry, Chubby Checker, no twist for you.

 

You own some puzzle caches, CR. Does that mean you'd be just as happy owning those puzzle caches if Groundspeak changed their policy to prohibit the hiding of cache coords behind puzzles? In other words, you would have to change the posted coords to reflect the actual location, and -- the puzzles would have to be optional. You could still ask for the puzzle solution, just not force it. No one is proposing that you can't request finders to jump through that additional hoop.

 

Good analogy--in a way. Unfortunately for you it doesn't further your argument. We've had folks find caches differently than we intended. Did we pout and delete logs? Heck no! More power to them! If they sign the logbook, it's a find.

 

BTW, if we converted each of our puzzles to traditionals, each and every one would be able to stand on their own. One in particular stands out as an endgame that defies folks standing within mere inches. Each are regulars. Each are in fairly interesting locations. So, no, unlike you, we wouldn't take our ball and go home.

 

But let's back up a minute. Your attempt at comparing puzzle caches with ALR is not the best analogy as a puzzle cache puts barriers in front signing the logbook. An ALR puts barriers between finding the cache and logging it online--even though the log-type is "Found It" which they've done.

 

A puzzle cache is like an old pirate treasure map. Once you find and dig up the gold, it's yours. In your world, I can't claim I found the loot unless I say it in verse, but we all know that is ridiculous as the cash is in my pocket.

Link to comment

Aren't you getting bored of this issue, yet?

 

Suffice it to say that some people like these caches and they aren't going anywhere. Perhaps TPTB will implement some way to identify them so you can sort them out. I hope they do if for no other reason than to cut out one more whiny topic.

Link to comment
Suffice it to say that some people like these caches ...

 

Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it? Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?

 

Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "I ain't doing this cache because it doesn't have an ALR?"

Link to comment
Suffice it to say that some people like these caches ...
Do they like them because of the ALR, or in spite of it?
Speaking for myself, the caches are enjoyed because of them.
Would asking for a certain form of log make it less enjoyable than demanding it?
I think so. It would dilute the enjoyment obtained from reading the logs.
Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "I ain't doing this cache because it doesn't have an ALR?"
I never hear anyone say that they're not doing a cache because it isn't a multi, doesn't have a specific trade criteria, or anything else. What's your point?
Link to comment

Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "I ain't doing this cache because it doesn't have an ALR?"

 

Yes, in fact I have done caches that I might otherwise have skipped as being a lame urban micro so that I can participate in the fun of meeting the extra logging requirement. Of course if you get no enjoyment from participating then the ALR isn't going to make the lame micro any more fun. Unless you have another reason for finding the cache you might as well skip it.

 

I have done a few ALR caches that involved a nice hike or a visit to a great spot. Assuming that I couldn't comply with the ALR on one of these, I would be ticked off if my log was deleted. I have a couple like this. I haven't deleted logs of people who don't post the fortune they took. I did threaten to delete EMC of Northridge, CA's log when she didn't leave a trade but she updated her log in order to be in compliance. (Those high numbers cachers will lie about anything to get a smiley :P )

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...