Jump to content

Logging Requirements


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it?

I'd have a problem with it. I'd almost certainly think it was stupid, and would point it out to friends and make fun of it. It would be a ridiculous cache.

 

And then I'd put it on my ignore list and it wouldn't bother me any further.

 

Remember, this is to log it as a find, not for you to find it which you've already done.
Why would you do the cache if the ALR wasn't something you wanted to do (like send $50)?

 

What about post the solution to a nearby puzzle cache? What about lying about how wonderful all of the owner's cache are? 500 words with perfect grammer? ...in Mandrid?
Great examples of over the top ALRs that would go right to my ignore list. Other caches, such as those that require you to write a haiku log seem fun, so I'd do those with the understanding of what it took to log it.

 

See, there's no open end to ALRs as some would define it.
Correct. Variety rocks! The ridiculous caches wouldn't bother me, but they may spark an idea for someone else for a cache that I'd love. I'm VERY thankful that the person in charge doesn't have the narrow minded view you do and banned a type of cache that so many people enjoy.

 

Also, some owners allow folks to log their find as a note if they didn't follow the ALR. The owner acknowledges the find, but refuses to allow the proper log-type without jumping through additional hoops. It becomes not about you actually finding the cache and about garnering a smilie.
It's the owners cache to treat however he wants to. If he rules with an iron fist and drives other cachers away, what's it to you? Just ignore the rest of his caches, MYOB, and enjoy the game the way you want to play it.
Link to comment

First I have to ask this question ,

 

Why would anyone want to hunt a cache that requires something special to log a find , if said person has no intention of complying with said requirement?

 

Secondly , I do not quite understand what is the problem with special requirements .

 

I believe part of the problem are the people who load up their GPSr with the coordinates of all the traditional caches in an area and go out to find them. They find a cache and sign the log. Later when they get home and log online they find out they had to take a picture of themselve at the cache standing on one leg. Perhaps they found the cache on vacation and have no way to go back to the cache and take the picture. Several solutions have been proposed

  • Use Unknown cache type for caches with special requirements
  • Have a new cache type for caches with special requirements
  • Have an attribute for caches with special logging requirments

I think once there is a way to filter caches with special logging requirments, the main objection goes away as people who don't want to to the special requirements can the ignore these caches.

 

There is nothing wrong with special requirements. These caches often result in memorable logs. They can sometime turn a mundane cache into a fun experience. Most often, the cache owner has put a special requirement just to add to fun. In this case it would seem reasonable that the requirements should be optional. However, if a cache owner wants to enforce the requirement by deleting logs it is their perogative.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt there are enough of us in the geocaching community who care one way or another about this issue, but if there are an ALR attribute would work, allowing filtering and solving the problem - If you don't like ALR caches you could filter them out.

 

But then we'd need an attribute for green caches, some foks may not be able to see them, and caches on railings, as somebody might lean too far over and fall, and I personally want a 5-minute rule attribute, so if it'll take more than 5 minutes to find I can skip it (that's a joke). I personally hate caces hidden in pine cones and hung in trees, so we need an attribute for those little suckers too.

 

Ed

Link to comment
I just can't see a clear difference between your examples and a pic requirement.

 

There isn't one. Not along the lines of an additional logging requirement, any way. Signing the logbook is enough.

 

This thread has a loud buzz that sounds much like 'If I don't like the cache, it shouldn't exist'.

 

You confuse "I don't like the cache" with "I think it's bad for the hobby." There are plenty of caches that folks don't like but aren't bad for the hobby. There are plenty of caches that are bad for the hobby that folks like. This is one example. I'd be happy to see them go the way of codeword caches--something which "a lot of folks enjoyed," as well.

 

Personally, I encourage anyone who doesn't agree with an additional logging requirement to go ahead, find the cache, and log it as you see fit. I personally freely ignore ALRs as I see fit just like I ignore trading requirements on TB hotels. Even if the owner deletes my log and I have to put on my ignore list, I still have the bonus of finding that cache. (If it was worth finding to begin with.)

 

This subject kind of reminds me of those folks with virtual caches that demanded you email them the verification and wait for them to get back to you before logging it. I never waited. It was always "email on the way."

Link to comment

If the cache is located at the posted coordinates, and it consists of a container with a log, then yes, it is a Traditional Cache -- regardless of any additional logging requirements.

 

That's your opinion. Most replies I read that are on your side of the issue acknowledge it's an addition to what traditional cache's were when they game was invented.

 

I am not going to bother responding to the entire barrage...I am simply saying it's a problem and cache owner's aren't any less responsible than the finders are. I just think there needs to be an easier way for people DLing cache information to quickly avoid these caches if they desire.

Link to comment
If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it? Remember, this is to log it as a find, not for you to find it which you've already done. What about post the solution to a nearby puzzle cache? What about lying about how wonderful all of the owner's cache are? 500 words with perfect grammer? ...in Mandrid?

This is a classic strawman argument, CR. You’ve apparently run out of logical responses to the actual topic, and are now wildly exaggerating your opponent’s position in order to have something to argue against.

 

Do these wacky caches you’re criticizing actually exist somewhere? If not, do you truly believe someone would ever create them?

 

I could use the same strawman argument to demand the elimination of puzzle caches! How is charging $50 to log a smiley any less ridiculous than charging $50 to get the coordinates for the location of a cache? DOWN WITH PUZZLE CACHES!!!

 

I haven’t seen puzzle caches become a problem yet, have you? Please stop trying to solve a nonexistent problem with your demand for a silly new rule.

 

 

See, there's no open end to ALRs as some would define it.

I was going to respond to that, but Mushtang already said it better than I could:

 

"Variety rocks! It's the owner’s cache to treat however he wants to. If he rules with an iron fist and drives other cachers away, what's it to you? Just ignore the rest of his caches, MYOB, and enjoy the game the way you want to play it."

Link to comment

I also noticed that you conveniently forgot to answer my question. Again:

 

Then please humor me a bit further, because I'm really curious now: If your position has NOT changed, does than mean you're still demanding that caches with additional logging requirements be eliminated -- banned -- from the website?
Link to comment

This thread has a loud buzz that sounds much like 'If I don't like the cache, it shouldn't exist'.

 

This thread has a loud buzz of "it's my cache, and I can do as I please"...

 

Really...is it asking too much for those who don't like these types of caches to be able to quickly identify them so they can avoid them?

 

I am all in agreement that the cache owner has a right to delete the log. I am all in agreement that they have the right to set requirements. I am simply trying to reach a solution that meets both needs...right now those that go DL cache data don't have a quick way to identify these types of cache's that may end up causing them grief because some cache owner has taken the game to a level of being a control freak rather than allowing someone to log a cache find and respect their type of enjoyment of the game.

Link to comment

First I have to ask this question ,

 

Why would anyone want to hunt a cache that requires something special to log a find , if said person has no intention of complying with said requirement?

 

For me personally? Well its still a cache right? Finding it can still be fun, even without the smiley right?

 

If its only the ALRs that I object to, and my ability to get a smiley out of the deal, then why wouldn't I hunt it?

 

Oh and most of the ALR caches around here are published as Unknown/Other caches. (I think they fit in to the other category better than they fit with the traditional caches...)

Link to comment
You confuse "I don't like the cache" with "I think it's bad for the hobby." There are plenty of caches that folks don't like but aren't bad for the hobby. There are plenty of caches that are bad for the hobby that folks like. This is one example. I'd be happy to see them go the way of codeword caches--something which "a lot of folks enjoyed," as well.

Your logic isn't just faulty this time -- it's missing completely. Please expand on this. How can something possibly be "bad for the hobby" if it's something that "plenty of folks like?" You've said this before, but never offered any supporting reasoning. I could just as easily say that lock-n-lock containers are bad for the hobby by making a similar statement.

 

I'm serious. If you can offer up some good, sound reasoning on this point you just might have a convert here. Wanna give it a try?

 

 

Personally, I encourage anyone who doesn't agree with an additional logging requirement to go ahead, find the cache, and log it as you see fit. I personally freely ignore ALRs as I see fit just like I ignore trading requirements on TB hotels. Even if the owner deletes my log and I have to put on my ignore list, I still have the bonus of finding that cache. (If it was worth finding to begin with.)

 

This subject kind of reminds me of those folks with virtual caches that demanded you email them the verification and wait for them to get back to you before logging it. I never waited. It was always "email on the way."

Wow.

 

Is this how you seek to set an example for others to follow your Geocacher's Creed, item #6, "Be Considerate of Others?"

Link to comment
Do these wacky caches you’re criticizing actually exist somewhere? If not, do you truly believe someone would ever create them?

 

ROFL! You really want to go there? I never would have thought anyone would have threatened to delete a legitimate log if it didn't please the cache owner.

 

Remember, I used to facetiously use the example of folks bringing caches to an event to be logged to illustrate how ridiculous I thought it was to bring books of geocoins to an event in order to be logged. Opps!

 

I'm sure folks wouldn't have thought a rotting bird carcass was a viable cache, or a tennis shoe, but they were submitted. No telling what reviewers could throw out there as examples you or I would have never thought someone would try to create.

 

So, no, I don't think dismissing my examples as "strawman" is appropriate or even viable.

 

But, then again, your "apples versus orange" argument trumps my whatever strawman argument I could have made. A cacher can stop a hunt at any time for any reason, but once the logbook is signed, the requirements have been fulfilled in order to verify a find.

 

BTW, you need to come up with a better example. Your example of charging 50 bucks for the coordinates wouldn't get approved. There are guidelines which prohibit such things.

Link to comment
If the cache is located at the posted coordinates, and it consists of a container with a log, then yes, it is a Traditional Cache -- regardless of any additional logging requirements.

That's your opinion. Most replies I read that are on your side of the issue acknowledge it's an addition to what traditional cache's were when they game was invented.

So? The game was invented with one, single, straightforward Traditional Cache. Since then all kinds of creative twists and modifications have been invented. The fact that an ALR cache is different from other caches is not, in and of itself, a reason for changing anything.

 

Based on current definitions an ALR cache is still a Traditional Cache. I see no need for the definitions to be changed to accommodate every minor creative twist that comes along.

Link to comment

Really...is it asking too much for those who don't like these types of caches to be able to quickly identify them so they can avoid them?

 

When simply reading the cache description solves the "problem", I dont see it as "asking too much" for you to read the cache description. Problem solved.

 

. . . I am simply trying to reach a solution that meets both needs...right now those that go DL cache data don't have a quick way to identify these types of cache's that may end up causing them grief

 

The problem isnt the cache, or the cache owner - its the seeker who chooses Not to read the cache description- then blames thier lack of preperation on someone else, and demands a change. Any greif caused to a cacher who chooses to blindly download data and go caching is caused as a result of poor planning. The quickest way to identify a cache is to Read The Cache page. Dont want to bother? Then accept your "greif" as self made.

 

. . . because some cache owner has taken the game to a level of being a control freak rather than allowing someone to log a cache find and respect their type of enjoyment of the game.

 

NM

Link to comment
... BTW, you need to come up with a better example. Your example of charging 50 bucks for the coordinates wouldn't get approved. There are guidelines which prohibit such things.

:o

 

Ummmm, that was your example:

... If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it? ...
Link to comment
This thread has a loud buzz that sounds much like 'If I don't like the cache, it shouldn't exist'.

This thread has a loud buzz of "it's my cache, and I can do as I please"...

Exactly. And that bothers you ... why?

 

 

I am all in agreement that the cache owner has a right to delete the log. I am all in agreement that they have the right to set requirements. I am simply trying to reach a solution that meets both needs...right now those that go DL cache data don't have a quick way to identify these types of cache's that may end up causing them grief because some cache owner has taken the game to a level of being a control freak rather than allowing someone to log a cache find and respect their type of enjoyment of the game.

If you don't think a cache owner should be allowed to manage his own cache as he pleases, then who's being the 'control freak' here?

Link to comment

Is this how you seek to set an example for others to follow your Geocacher's Creed, item #6, "Be Considerate of Others?"

 

Hello, Pot. I'm Kettle.

 

Here's another one for you to contemplate. I won't leave a log on caches I don't think deserve one.

 

How does this relate? How about the fact you would deny a legitimate find on a whim. How is that considerate?

Link to comment
If you don't think a cache owner should be allowed to manage his own cache as he pleases, then who's being the 'control freak' here?

 

So, the folks at Groundpeak are control freaks? You don't get to manage your own cache as you please. You have to manage it within the guidelines set down by Groundspeak.

Link to comment
I am simply saying it's a problem and cache owner's aren't any less responsible than the finders are. I just think there needs to be an easier way for people DLing cache information to quickly avoid these caches if they desire.
Really...is it asking too much for those who don't like these types of caches to be able to quickly identify them so they can avoid them?

The electronic attribute solution was proposed in a previous thread on Additional Logging Requirements, and was accepted/supported by a majority of the folks who posted there, including me. The website owners chose not to even acknowledge the problem and therefore to remain with the status quo. Sort of like when a judge thows out a case due to lack of merit. I can only speculate that their reasoning for doing so went something like this:

 

But then we'd need an attribute for green caches, some foks may not be able to see them, and caches on railings, as somebody might lean too far over and fall, and I personally want a 5-minute rule attribute, so if it'll take more than 5 minutes to find I can skip it (that's a joke). I personally hate caches hidden in pine cones and hung in trees, so we need an attribute for those little suckers too.
Link to comment
... BTW, you need to come up with a better example. Your example of charging 50 bucks for the coordinates wouldn't get approved. There are guidelines which prohibit such things.

:o

 

Ummmm, that was your example:

... If ALRs are acceptable, then would you have a problem with one that demanded you send the owner 50 bucks in order to log it? ...

 

Yeah, I saw your post after I had already sent mine, but I was thinking not along the lines of a commercial cache, but the guideline that caches must be found with information on the cache page. You can't even have a cache where you must email the cache owner for coordinates regardless of any other requirement, much less any monies changing hands.

 

Sending money to get the coordinates would violate that clause while sending money in order to log it wouldn't, though it certainly would violate the commercial cache clause. (...or caches that solicit, whatever.) Good catch.

Link to comment
Do these wacky caches you’re criticizing actually exist somewhere? If not, do you truly believe someone would ever create them?

 

ROFL! You really want to go there? I never would have thought anyone would have threatened to delete a legitimate log if it didn't please the cache owner.

 

Remember, I used to facetiously use the example of folks bringing caches to an event to be logged to illustrate how ridiculous I thought it was to bring books of geocoins to an event in order to be logged. Opps!

 

I'm sure folks wouldn't have thought a rotting bird carcass was a viable cache, or a tennis shoe, but they were submitted. No telling what reviewers could throw out there as examples you or I would have never thought someone would try to create.

Tell you what: When such a problem arises with ALR caches, let's try to solve it then. In the meantime, stop trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by demanding that certain caches be banned -- even though people are enjoying them -- just because you have some irrational dislike of them.

 

 

But, then again, your "apples versus orange" argument trumps my whatever strawman argument I could have made. A cacher can stop a hunt at any time for any reason, but once the logbook is signed, the requirements have been fulfilled in order to verify a find.

... unles the owner posted additional logging requirements.

 

Please stop trying to tell others how they should play the game.

 

 

BTW, you need to come up with a better example. Your example of charging 50 bucks for the coordinates wouldn't get approved. There are guidelines which prohibit such things.

You're right. It wouldn't. I was making fun of your example.

 

Thanks, CR. You just shot down your own argument. :o

Link to comment
This thread has a loud buzz that sounds much like 'If I don't like the cache, it shouldn't exist'.

This thread has a loud buzz of "it's my cache, and I can do as I please"...

Exactly. And that bothers you ... why?

 

 

I am all in agreement that the cache owner has a right to delete the log. I am all in agreement that they have the right to set requirements. I am simply trying to reach a solution that meets both needs...right now those that go DL cache data don't have a quick way to identify these types of cache's that may end up causing them grief because some cache owner has taken the game to a level of being a control freak rather than allowing someone to log a cache find and respect their type of enjoyment of the game.

If you don't think a cache owner should be allowed to manage his own cache as he pleases, then who's being the 'control freak' here?

 

I didn't say it bothers me...I am simply stating fact. I would think that being a cache owner one would have the interest of being repsectful to finders being in that position themselves when the go out.

 

Is there a problem with be respectful to how others enjoy the game?

 

Obviously, regarding on the second quote you read right over the answer to the question you posed. The cache owner is being the control freak.

 

As far as your latter comment about the web functionality...I have no knowledge of that. I am simply proposing what is best for both parties versus an arrogant response like:

 

"I am the owner, it's my 'right' to delete them"

 

"I don't want to waste time as a cacher to be hung up by ridiculous requirements"

 

My solution should relatively appease both parties.

Edited by egami
Link to comment
Is this how you seek to set an example for others to follow your Geocacher's Creed, item #6, "Be Considerate of Others?"

Hello, Pot. I'm Kettle.

 

Here's another one for you to contemplate. I won't leave a log on caches I don't think deserve one.

I was reacting to your explaining -- make that bragging -- about how you openly and contemptuously ignore the instructions and requests of others. How is saying "Screw you and your requests" an example of "Being Considerate of Others?"

 

It's not much of a creed if you only follow it when it's convenient for you.

 

 

How does this relate? How about the fact you would deny a legitimate find on a whim. How is that considerate?

I would not deny a legitimate find log on a whim. I have never denied a legitimate find log on a whim. Another strawman. Please show me where I have denied a legitimate find log on a whim, or even threatened to do so.

Link to comment
If you don't think a cache owner should be allowed to manage his own cache as he pleases, then who's being the 'control freak' here?

So, the folks at Groundpeak are control freaks? You don't get to manage your own cache as you please. You have to manage it within the guidelines set down by Groundspeak.

It's their website. They can control it any way they like.

 

It's my cache. As long as I manage it within Groundspeak's guidelines I can list it on the site. Otherwise I can control it any way I like.

 

I repeat: It's those who want a wholesale elimination of the kinds of caches they don't happen to like who are the true 'control freaks.'

 

If you ever get your way and Groundspeak decides to ban ALR caches, I will archive my cache -- it's a hide that will otherwise become nothing more than a plain, uninteresting, lame micro. It's been happily logged by over 100 cachers so far. Presumably there will be many more happy finders in the future. Care to explain to my previous finders how their fun is "bad for the hobby?" Care to explain to my future finders, the ones who won't have the cache to find if you get your demand, how eliminating their fun is "good for the hobby?"

Link to comment
Your cache, your rules!

 

I really don't think I expressed myself clearly if you managed to extract that as my posture. :o

I changed my cache logging requirements because I want people to have "fun hunting my caches", not because I wanted people to have "fun" or "because it is "my cache, my rules".

When you say "as it should be" I am free to interpret that as complete agreement with what I did or I can interpret it as acknowledgment of the fact that I can do it, I will let you choose what you are trying to say.

 

Our experiences differ and this means we will approach the game differently. Your idea of fun and my idea of fun may be at complete odds, my approach is to try and make sure that people have "fun hunting my caches". Geocachers go out looking for geocaches, my efforts were directed to making that activity more fun (in my opinion), I am not trying to add peanuts to cotton candy if you get my drift.

 

Adding the photo requirement to my Earthcache seemed like a good idea when I did it, then after reading the discussions on this subject I thought about the whole purpose of my Earthcache and the reason I initially placed it. The people who trek into the location experience the terrain and the features of the spot by making the trek, my "requirement" was simply restricting the "Found" log to those who had cameras. I wasn't adding to the "fun of hunting" my cache, rather I was placing restrictive covenants on the find.

 

After that epiphany I realized that those who had looked for and signed the logbook on my all my caches had effectively "made the trek" and any additional requirements were simply "restrictive covenants" on the found logs.

 

I like to think that people who go out geocaching are having fun "hunting and finding caches". That may be incorrect and they may want to dress like women or enter photos contests or write poetry, I won't make them do that because I want them to have fun doing what they set out to do which is "hunting and finding caches".

 

I understand why people place logging requirements on caches, as I said I followed these discussions closely and I understand that people think they are doing something to add to the fun. I made my decision to add to the "fun of hunting and finding" my geocaches.

Link to comment
...about how you openly and contemptuously ignore the instructions and requests of others. How is saying "Screw you and your requests" an example of "Being Considerate of Others?"

 

Stay on topic. We're taking about threats of log deletion, not "requests." How is "jump through whatever hoop I choose or no smilie for you" an example of "Being Considerate of Others?"

 

I have absolutely no problem with affording someone the same consideration as they do to you.

 

How does this relate? How about the fact you would deny a legitimate find on a whim. How is that considerate?

I would not deny a legitimate find log on a whim.

 

Then I suppose it was not your decision to place your Roses are Red cache and it was not your decision to require the logs to be in verse or "..or be warned, I will strike it!"

 

But, then again, I suppose we're going to argue what "whim" means next or focus on that I said "whim" and not that you made the conscience decision to deny legitimate finds.

Link to comment
If you don't think a cache owner should be allowed to manage his own cache as he pleases, then who's being the 'control freak' here?

I didn't say it bothers me...I am simply stating fact. I would think that being a cache owner one would have the interest of being repsectful to finders being in that position themselves when the go out.

 

Is there a problem with be respectful to how others enjoy the game?

I can't speak for other owners of ALR caches, but -- have you even read my cache page? Here's a link.

 

My description is very clear. The logging requirement in particular is unmistakeable. Please tell me how posting it thusly is disrespectful of finders. If a finder forgets to log with a poem I send him/her a friendly, rhyming email as a reminder. Please tell me how any of that is disrespectful "to how others enjoy the game."

 

 

Obviously, regarding on the second quote you read right over the answer to the question you posed. The cache owner is being the control freak.

And you read right over mine. Anyone who wants to make all such caches go away simply because they don't happen to like them is the one with control issues.

 

If you, egami, don't fall into that category, then great!

 

 

... I am simply proposing what is best for both parties versus an arrogant response like:

 

"I am the owner, it's my 'right' to delete them"

I agree. Once the owner makes his/her logging requirements clear, then that is their right. How is that "arrogant?"

 

"I don't want to waste time as a cacher to be hung up by ridiculous requirements"

You can avoid wasting your time by reading the cache description before you go out caching.

 

... My solution should relatively appease both parties.

But has apparently been rejected by Groundspeak. :o

Link to comment
If you ever get your way and Groundspeak decides to ban ALR caches, I will archive my cache -- it's a hide that will otherwise become nothing more than a plain, uninteresting, lame micro.

 

You know, I sit here and I'm trying to think of a response, but quite frankly, I can't top what you just said about your own cache.

Link to comment

The owner has the right to delete pretty much any log s/he doesn't like. Is it ethical is a whole other ball game.

 

1) Read the cache description before you hunt it so you know what you are getting into

2) Ignore any caches that have ALR that you aren't comfortable doing

3) Always sign the physical log

4) Follow any additional logging requirements

5) If you skip #3 or #4, be prepared to have your find deleted

 

While travelling, I generally skip caches that require that I jump through hoops to log a find. For caches closer to home I would bump those down to the bottom of my list. You know, that area where you keep all the caches that you must find once you clear out the rest of your hunting grounds. :o

Link to comment
While travelling

 

The importance of these two words to geocaching and geocachers in general cannot be underestimated. When you frame the future of geocaching it adds up to "while travelling" for all of us. After you find all the geocaches near home and within reasonable distance of home you will be travelling, it is your future. :o

Link to comment
...about how you openly and contemptuously ignore the instructions and requests of others. How is saying "Screw you and your requests" an example of "Being Considerate of Others?"

 

Stay on topic.

You're the one who brought it up, CR. Were you off topic? :o

 

 

How does this relate? How about the fact you would deny a legitimate find on a whim. How is that considerate?

I would not deny a legitimate find log on a whim.

 

Then I suppose it was not your decision to place your Roses are Red cache and it was not your decision to require the logs to be in verse or "..or be warned, I will strike it!"

 

But, then again, I suppose we're going to argue what "whim" means next or focus on that I said "whim" and not that you made the conscience decision to deny legitimate finds.

By stating that I would "deny a legitimate find on a whim," you were exaggerating my position for your own purposes. Your exaggerated version of my position is comically inaccurate.

 

Readers of this thread can choose whether to read only the line you took out of context, or they can read the entire description here.

 

Did I violate Creed Item #6? I challenge you to find any loggers of my Roses Are Red cache who will tell you I treated them inconsiderately.

 

My only reason for the poetry logging requirement is to entertain. The entire description is written in verse. The requirement is plainly spelled out so that everyone who hunts the cache knows exactly what they're getting into. Those who wish to avoid the cache are free to do so. Those who, for whatever reason, log without even a lame attempt at a poem receive a friendly, rhyming email from me reminding them of the requirement.

 

Out of over 100 visits to the cache to date, I have deleted a grand total of ... one smilie.

 

The only reason I placed the cache in the first place was to have a poetry theme. Otherwise there would have been no cache there at all.

 

Please tell me what part of that is "denying a legitimate find on a whim."

 

Please tell me what part of that is "inconsiderate."

 

And while you're at it, please answer my original question, and explain how your proudly self-described boorish caching behavior squares with your Creed.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
While travelling
The importance of these two words to geocaching and geocachers in general cannot be underestimated. When you frame the future of geocaching it adds up to "while travelling" for all of us. After you find all the geocaches near home and within reasonable distance of home you will be travelling, it is your future. :o

I'm not trying to be rude, but I missed your point.

Link to comment
If you ever get your way and Groundspeak decides to ban ALR caches, I will archive my cache -- it's a hide that will otherwise become nothing more than a plain, uninteresting, lame micro.

You know, I sit here and I'm trying to think of a response, but quite frankly, I can't top what you just said about your own cache.

It's true! Did you miss the point?

 

If not, then tell me ... why would you have Groundspeak force my otherwise fun and entertaining cache to revert to such a lame status?

 

Why must you insist on trying to force others to play the game your way?

Link to comment

I'm trying to wrap my head around what exactly the sticking point is between the two of you.

 

Question: CR do you consider logging requirements like "Must log find as a poem" to be bad for the game?

Question: KBI - Are there *any* logging requirements that you feel might be a bit overboard (that the hider shouldn't ask for, or might be 'bad for the game')

 

I for one don't object to a logging requirement like "Must log as a poem" kind of thing (although I don't think it saves a lame micro from being a lame cache, even if it does make the log page more interesting). The only logging requirements I object to are ones where the logging requirement IMNSHO has a negative impact on the game in the area. (i.e. a cache that says 'you must hide a lame micro to log this cache') That isn't good for the game, and I will encourage others to similarly ignore those logging requirements. How is this being considerate of others? Its being considerate of the people playing the game as a whole, even though it spoils the cache owner's fun. (the greater good wins out). If it turns out that I'm on my own on a particular issue, and its only me that doesn't like the idea, then thats just the way it goes, but I do think its important that cache owners get told when they have stupid ideas (or at least when I think they have stupid ideas). If they don't get told, then how can they ever know what people think?

Link to comment

Here's another one for you to contemplate. I won't leave a log on caches I don't think deserve one.

 

Did you sign the physical log? If you didn't sign the physical log you didn't find the cache. Similarly, if you signed the physical log and the cache owner doesn't think you deserve an online log because you didn't meet his ALR, you still found the cache. Once again you confuse an online log with finding a cache. Since you indicate that the smiley count isn't important to you, I fail to see why you would care one iota about an additional logging requirement. If you don't want to comply, log a note or don't log online.

Link to comment

In our area we have some caches that ask you to log your finds in a specific manner. One asks that you log in Haiku form and another asking you to tell a tall tale. The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found 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?

I had one called Tall Tales as well. I didn't delete any logs for finders who didn't put up a tall tale.

Link to comment
Your cache, your rules!

I really don't think I expressed myself clearly if you managed to extract that as my posture. ;)

I changed my cache logging requirements because I want people to have "fun hunting my caches", not because I wanted people to have "fun" ...

There's a difference? :o

 

 

When you say "as it should be" I am free to interpret that as complete agreement with what I did or I can interpret it as acknowledgment of the fact that I can do it, I will let you choose what you are trying to say.

I meant exactly what I said. You hide the cache, you own the cache, and you make the rules. Whether people decide to actually hunt for your cache depends, of course, on exactly where they believe it sits along the entertaining-annoying scale. In the case of your Earthcache I applaud your decision to remove your requirement. Makes sense.

 

 

Our experiences differ and this means we will approach the game differently. Your idea of fun and my idea of fun may be at complete odds, my approach is to try and make sure that people have "fun hunting my caches". Geocachers go out looking for geocaches, my efforts were directed to making that activity more fun (in my opinion), I am not trying to add peanuts to cotton candy if you get my drift.

I think I get it. My response, then, is to say that people who don't like peanuts in their cotton candy probably shouldn't buy cotton candy labeled "contains peanuts." Similarly, people who dislike logging requirements, poetry, or both probably shouldn't hunt caches that require poetry to log them as found.

 

 

Adding the photo requirement to my Earthcache seemed like a good idea when I did it, then after reading the discussions on this subject I thought about the whole purpose of my Earthcache and the reason I initially placed it. The people who trek into the location experience the terrain and the features of the spot by making the trek, my "requirement" was simply restricting the "Found" log to those who had cameras. I wasn't adding to the "fun of hunting" my cache, rather I was placing restrictive covenants on the find.

 

After that epiphany I realized that those who had looked for and signed the logbook on my all my caches had effectively "made the trek" and any additional requirements were simply "restrictive covenants" on the found logs.

Our specific caches, the ones in question here, are very different. Yours still has very good reason to exist without the logging requirement -- mine would not. As I've explained, the poetry theme was the whole reason for the cache. With out a cache page full of goofy, silly, and entertainingly amateur poetry the hide is nothing more than a lame micro. If ALR's weren't allowed, my cache would have never existed.

 

What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!

 

 

I like to think that people who go out geocaching are having fun "hunting and finding caches". That may be incorrect and they may want to dress like women or enter photos contests or write poetry, I won't make them do that because I want them to have fun doing what they set out to do which is "hunting and finding caches".

I'm not making anybody do anything. Each cacher is free to hunt or ignore my cache as he sees fit.

 

Judging by the popularity of my poetry cache, however, it would seem that it has found a niche!

 

 

I understand why people place logging requirements on caches, as I said I followed these discussions closely and I understand that people think they are doing something to add to the fun. I made my decision to add to the "fun of hunting and finding" my geocaches.

As it should be. Your cache, your rules! :)

Link to comment

What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!

 

I think the point is that no cache exists in isolation. If you put out a cache with really strange logging requirements, and I may choose to ignore that one, *but* that cache may spawn either directly or indirectly a number of caches that are bad for the sport. With those kinds of caches I personally feel the need to say something about them (I've heard too many stories of 'we had no micros here, until bozo the clown moved in. Now that's all anyone hides). Some caches set a bad precedent.

Link to comment
What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!
I think the point is that no cache exists in isolation. If you put out a cache with really strange logging requirements, and I may choose to ignore that one, *but* that cache may spawn either directly or indirectly a number of caches that are bad for the sport. With those kinds of caches I personally feel the need to say something about them (I've heard too many stories of 'we had no micros here, until bozo the clown moved in. Now that's all anyone hides). Some caches set a bad precedent.

It's funny. I never bought that argument, either. Those are even easier to ignore.

Link to comment

In our area we have some caches that ask you to log your finds in a specific manner. One asks that you log in Haiku form and another asking you to tell a tall tale. The owners of these caches are fun easygoing cachers, but for the sake of discussion lets say after I used my GPS, found the traditional cache, signed the log and replaced the cache EXACTLY where it was found 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?

 

Yes they would. The owner only has control of the online log. They can't take away the fact that you found the cache, used or GPS or any of that. Still, owners make the game possible. If you can't have fun following their logging rule, pass on the cache. Writing your log in a certain format certainly isn't all that hard. Trading buttons, NASCAR themes etc. can be more of a challenge but that is part of the challenge of that particular cache.

 

If 2000 other cachers decide that Haiku logs are cool, then dammit, haiku logs are in vogue and you might as well start practicing. Others have implied it's bad for geocaching, but the reality is, these caches are just part of the mosiac of all caches and if the logging rule is silly or stupid enough, nobody will bother with the cache and no finds does take the fun away from the cache owner for setting out those kinds of caches.

Link to comment
What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!
I think the point is that no cache exists in isolation. If you put out a cache with really strange logging requirements, and I may choose to ignore that one, *but* that cache may spawn either directly or indirectly a number of caches that are bad for the sport. With those kinds of caches I personally feel the need to say something about them (I've heard too many stories of 'we had no micros here, until bozo the clown moved in. Now that's all anyone hides). Some caches set a bad precedent.

It's funny. I never bought that argument, either. Those are even easier to ignore.

 

I for one don't have the time or inclination to maintain the massive ignore list that would be required to block out all the crappy caches in the world. True some of them are coveniently labeled for me to ignore (like the AMIAT - "Another micro in a tree" series), but most take a bit more effort.

 

I know you've been at this game a lot longer than I have, but when I started here, it took me months before I even knew what a micro cache was (not that all micros are bad or anything so extreme). Most of the caches I looked for were peanut butter jars or larger. Now, it seems that every other day we get a newbie cacher who makes his first attempt on a nano cache, and then is never heard from again.

 

How many good cachers have we missed out on because of this? I have no idea, but I bet its more than one. A cache which encourages 'micro spew' is IMHO bad for the game. (although I have no idea how someone could say a 'haiku cache' or 'tall tale' cache was bad for the game).

Link to comment
Question: KBI - Are there *any* logging requirements that you feel might be a bit overboard (that the hider shouldn't ask for, or might be 'bad for the game')

You asked me three questions:

  1. Overboard? Certainly! CoyoteRed listed several fictitious ones already.
  2. That the hider shouldn't ask for? I believe that's up to the reviewers. Or, if the reviewers are willing to approve any logging requirement no matter how [insert negative adjective here], then it's up to each potential cache finder to decide for themselves what's appropriate.
  3. Bad for the game? Well, let's see, if you hide a cache that tells me in order to log my find I must first do something that will seriously sully the reputation of the game (not that anyone is likely to submit such a hide, or that any reviewer is likely to approve it -- CR's conspiracy theories notwithstanding) ... and I go out and actually DO this horrible thing, then who do you blame, the dare-er or the dare-ee? (I think you can already guess my answer to that question.)

 

.

 

I for one don't object to a logging requirement like "Must log as a poem" kind of thing (although I don't think it saves a lame micro from being a lame cache, even if it does make the log page more interesting). The only logging requirements I object to are ones where the logging requirement IMNSHO has a negative impact on the game in the area. (i.e. a cache that says 'you must hide a lame micro to log this cache') That isn't good for the game, and I will encourage others to similarly ignore those logging requirements.

So would I. I would avoid such a stupid cache myself. If people are out there laming-up the playing field with intentionally boring hides, however, then what does it matter where they got the idea from? Why blame the cache owner for the deeds of his finders?

 

That's a bit like blaming street violence on television cartoons, or on guns, instead of on the actual perpetrators.

 

 

How is this being considerate of others? Its being considerate of the people playing the game as a whole, even though it spoils the cache owner's fun. (the greater good wins out).

I agree. If some cache owner puts out a cache as [insert negative adjective here] as the ones you're talking about, and it 'spoils his fun' when nobody shows up to find it, then that's his problem.

 

But that should be up to each individual cache seeker -- NOT some rule that outlaws a wholesale group of caches just to satisfy a cranky few.

Link to comment
What I don't understand is why some folks can't take that as it is -- if they don't like the cache, treat it as if it never existed! Ignore it!

I think the point is that no cache exists in isolation. If you put out a cache with really strange logging requirements, and I may choose to ignore that one, *but* that cache may spawn either directly or indirectly a number of caches that are bad for the sport. With those kinds of caches I personally feel the need to say something about them (I've heard too many stories of 'we had no micros here, until bozo the clown moved in. Now that's all anyone hides). Some caches set a bad precedent.

Then who's the bad guy -- the one who placed an ALR cache, or the 99 who were so lacking in original ideas that they all copied him? If the new caches are really that bad then they won't get much traffic, right?

 

Besides, whatever happened to "immitation is the sincerest form of flattery." If someone copies your idea, they must have like something about it!

 

If 500 caches appear next week, all within 10 miles of my house, but the thought of finding those particular caches doesn't appeal to me, then -- I just won't hunt them. Doesn't bother me. I'm not about to start trying to dictate how others should play the game.

 

Unlike others, I'm not at all troubled by the mere existence of geocaches I don't happen to like.

Link to comment
I'm not trying to be rude, but I missed your point.

 

More than one poster on this thread has mentioned the specific situation of travelling, finding a cache and signing the log book thinking it was a Traditional and then discovering that there was some additional requirement to log the cache after returning home.

"Caches Along a Route" using Traditional caches found recently in the search parameters seems to be very popular, especially to those caching without a PDA. Another poster on this thread has posted the specific solution to this, making an ALR cache searchable. My comment was just reinforcing the fact that searching for geocaches while travelling is and has been an important direction in the game and it is closely related to this discussion.

Making ALR caches searchable is an excellent solution for everyone, yes? When you use "Caches Along a Route" and then run a PQ you should be able to filter out any ALR cache. I had one route that generated almost 500 Traditional caches found in the last 7 days, reading the pages isn't an option.

The "we are all travellers" part was directed in wimsey but it isn't false. Many geocachers have found all the geocaches in their home locations and travel to nearby places to find new ones. If you are winging it on a driving vacation you never know where you might end up. I made a lot of route files for our recent vacation and then ran the PQ's at night based on where we actually ended up going each day.

My point isn't "in the main" but is certainly pertinent to "logging requirements", it is in fact a point that should be considered in a lot of discussions, geocaching and travelling will always be related. A lot of work has gone into "Caches Along a Route" and I think the importance of travelling and the demands it places upon selecting or amending future "guidelines" and tools shouldn't be overlooked.

Link to comment

Here's another one for you to contemplate. I won't leave a log on caches I don't think deserve one.

 

Did you sign the physical log? If you didn't sign the physical log you didn't find the cache. Similarly, if you signed the physical log and the cache owner doesn't think you deserve an online log because you didn't meet his ALR, you still found the cache. Once again you confuse an online log with finding a cache. Since you indicate that the smiley count isn't important to you, I fail to see why you would care one iota about an additional logging requirement. If you don't want to comply, log a note or don't log online.

 

Some caches I've signed the log, some I didn't. Some caches I've held in my hand and simply put it back because it wasn't worth proceeding.

 

The mantra that keeps coming up is "if you don't like the cache, don't do it." Well, sometimes you don't know if you're going to like the cache until you do it. Some caches I've deemed so bad that I stop the process in mid-stream. Sometimes that before I sign the log and sometimes it's after. It's a lot easier to click the ignore button than to log the cache.

 

For myself, if I don't want to comply with an ALR I won't. I'll log it and let it get deleted or I'll simply refrain from logging it. If the owner doesn't want my feedback, it's no skin off my nose.

 

The reason I'm vocal against ALRs are because of the opened-ness of it. I think it an abuse of the system which I believe is more of a reporting device and records keeping system than part of "the game." Part of the major problem I see is perfectly illustrated in KBI's cache. By his own admission, his cache is lame and the only "fun" is the "fun" having to jump through hoops to log a lame cache.

Link to comment
I for one don't have the time or inclination to maintain the massive ignore list that would be required to block out all the crappy caches in the world.

Then don't.

 

What's that got to do with the topic?

 

Well its come up several times that one can just 'ignore' the caches one doesn't like (most specifically in this thread we're talking about ALR caches). Ignoring caches takes effort, and I'm lazy (not that I'm blaming the hider for my lazyness, just stating a fact. The hider has every right to delete my find if I don't comply with their logging requirements, *but* I did still find the cache, and *will* log a find log on it)

 

So do I think ALRs should be banned? Naw we've got too many rules already, and some of these are lots of fun.

Do I think that some ALR caches are a bad idea? Yep, you betcha.

 

(up to this point I think KBI and I are on the same page)

 

What am I going to do about an ALR cache that I don't like the ALRs? If I'm there, I'll look for it (hopefully find it), then ignore the logging requirements and log it anyways. I'm of the school of thought that a rule that doesn't make sense has no binding force, and can and should be ignored (to draw attention to the stupidity of the rule). If everyone just obeys the rule, even though its stupid it is going to take a lot longer for it to change.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...