Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to list the cache here since I have not heard back from the cache owner yet.

But this requirement really seems to me not to be in the spirit of the game

 

"If you don't have at least 99 caches, then your find will be deleted on this site." :antenna:

 

The owner has made it a members only cache. Thats just cool with me. I pay my dues.

 

If I can look at the page,find the cache,sign the log,and maybe even do something crazy like trade up, Why should my find be deleted? :antenna:

 

All I saw in the guidelines was the following:

 

"Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

So I guess this meets the guidelines , But is it right?

Link to comment

If I was able to find the cache listed somewhere (I am not a premium member) and I went to the work of finding the cache and logging my find, I would be VERY offended to have the log deleted because I only have 6 finds. Seems kind of snobby to me. If it is a members only cache, that should be listed in the cache description.

Members Only caches have a special icon,and non-logged-in users and non-premium members cannot see the coordinates, and perhaps not teh page itself.

 

And I think extra logging requirements as a whole are stupid.

Link to comment

If I was able to find the cache listed somewhere (I am not a premium member) and I went to the work of finding the cache and logging my find, I would be VERY offended to have the log deleted because I only have 6 finds. Seems kind of snobby to me. If it is a members only cache, that should be listed in the cache description.

Well, lets be real: Why would you have bothered searching for such a cache if you only have a few finds and if the cache listng page clearly stated that to be eligible to claim a find you must have at least 99 finds? That kinda sounds like trying to tempt the Fates to me, i.e., kinda like looking for trouble. I personally feel that the requirement is rather arbitrary and a bit silly, but after all, a cache is only a plastic box in the woods -- why not just ignore it if you do not meet the prerequisite requirements? :antenna::antenna:

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

Some cache owners add silly logging requirements to their caches. There is no rule preventing it, no matter how idiotic.

 

If I saw one it would just go on my ignore list. I'm not jumping through hoops just so I can log a find. If finding the cache and signing the log book isn't enough for the owner, there are plenty other caches for me to find.

Link to comment

I have a stupid rule cache that requires the use of a code-word in order to log your find...found logs not meeting this requirement will be deleted...because I can...if you don't want to deal with the stupid rule, find another cache...I have hidden about 60 others without such requirements...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

Well, lets be real: Why would you have bothered searching for such a cache if you only have a few finds and if the cache listng page clearly stated that to be eligible to claim a find you must have at least 99 finds? That kinda sounds like trying to tempt the Fates to me, i.e., kinda like looking for trouble. I personally feel that the requirement is rather arbitrary and a bit silly, but after all, a cache is only a plastic box in the woods -- why not just ignore it if you do not meet the prerequisite requirements? :antenna::antenna:

 

LMAO... I'm not one to tempt fates... or climb pylons :antenna:

 

But its pretty much in my backyard!! If I go on my porch I can see the hill its on :antenna:

Link to comment

personal opinion below --------

 

based on the fp, it just sounds to me like the placer of that cache is a first class loser. :shrug:

 

there is a wide variety of people, (including socially deprived types) in geocaching, it's kind of like a modern-day ham radio or dungeons and dragons in many ways. (I'm a geek, and I'm addicted to it) If the cache owner is a type who has 5000 finds, and considers that to be their life's greatest accomplishment, they want to feel superior to the others who aren't like them.

 

Kind of like people who were on the internet years ago would make fun of AOL users because of some imaginary internet nerd class system.

 

Just a guess. Seems like a pathetic thing for someone to do in any case (unless there actually is a valid reason that fp was not aware of) but unless there is a rule against it, it's their cache so they can do what they like.

 

the end ------------

Link to comment

Some cache owners add silly logging requirements to their caches. There is no rule preventing it, no matter how idiotic.

 

If I saw one it would just go on my ignore list. I'm not jumping through hoops just so I can log a find. If finding the cache and signing the log book isn't enough for the owner, there are plenty other caches for me to find.

 

He wasn't asking about a rule against it, just opinions ( I think.). Also like you these types would go on my ignore list regardless if I was "qualified" to hunt it or not. To me it's just in poor taste.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

But its pretty much in my backyard!! If I go on my porch I can see the hill its on :mad:

 

Why not just go find it for the fun of it, and not log it? To me it's just as much fun to find the cache without logging it on the internet... +1 really isn't good for anything anyway.

Edited by Bad_CRC
Link to comment

You can still hunt it and find it and sign the logbook and have fun climbing that hill and enjoy the view. Wait till you have 99 finds grab the smilie. Or never log it online.

 

I would just have fun on the hunt. Too bad these types of caches don't get a special icon or type so they can be filtered in or out with ease.

Link to comment

But its pretty much in my backyard!! If I go on my porch I can see the hill its on :D

 

Why not just go find it for the fun of it, and not log it? To me it's just as much fun to find the cache without logging it on the internet... +1 really isn't good for anything anyway.

 

This is what I'll probably do. I guess I can sign the log, with an opinion,nicely. :mad:

Link to comment

I take life one cache at a time. Thanx to Cachemate, I read every cache page prior to the hunt, and if I see some "special" requirements that I don't feel like doing, I'll skip that cache. There are some 316,234 other caches I can find, so adding one to my ignore list doesn't bother me overly much. That being said, if the "special" requirements sounded like something fun, I'd probably do it. The only "special" requirement that automatically makes it to my ignore list are the "E-mail me the Secret Squirrel code word from inside the cache to claim a find" type. These always strike me as belonging to a hider who is

A.) untrusting of the geocommunity to the point of paranoia

and

B.) too lazy to check his/her logbook to see if I really did find the cache.

Since I don't like to associate with lazy, paranoid people, I pass on their caches. :D

 

Incidentally, three of my hides could be considered as having "special" requirements. :mad:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

A local cache has some small requirements to log a find:

 

To log a find for this cache and earn your smiley you must complete 3 challenges. First you must find the cache and sign your name on the log. Second you must have 4000 or more finds logged on geocaching.com. Third you must take a picture of yourself at GZ wearing 13981Y GEO and holding 835501 GEO.

 

The first person that could satisfy the requirements DNFd it. I think I'll pass.

Link to comment

It's the owners option. T hey said you need 99 finds. You need 99 finds. If you want to argue, then it's you who has chosen to make an issue. Not the cache owner.

 

If you feel the need to find the cache, then pick 1.

 

1) Log as a note.

2) Log and expect your find to be deleted.

3) Log the physcial book and ignore the online part.

4) Ignore it.

5) Rant, Rave, and whine about it and then do one of the above anyway but shorten your life a bit for being a type A personality.

 

You can't control the cache owner, only your own fun.

Link to comment

I have a few more than 99 finds, am I equally ineligible to log it?

You have three choices:

1. Ignore it. Life goes on.

2. Wait until you have the requisite 99 (or more?) finds, and log it. Life goes on.

3. Make friends with the owner and get them to drop the requirement for you, since you are now their buddy. Life goes on.

 

Yes, I think the requirement SUCKS THE BIG ONE, and smacks of elitism. Could I host an event where attendees must have at least 99 finds? NO!

Link to comment

...Yes, I think the requirement SUCKS THE BIG ONE, and smacks of elitism. Could I host an event where attendees must have at least 99 finds? NO!

 

Actually, why couldn't you? With the increasing numbers of cachers who can ovewhealm a persons ability to host an event and drain them financially and with the sheer work (we lost an annual event because of that). Why not use some arbitary means of weeding people out? It's not personal. You could go pick up 99 Micro Spew caches and make the cut in a busy weekend before the event.

Link to comment

received a reply from the cache owner:

 

"xxxxxxx xxxxxx cache is simply for those who have a few (99 or more) caches under their belts. Almost like being in an elite group. I'm thinking of putting one out for those with 499 or more. I can't sign in the cache myself, but then you're not suppose to sign your own caches anyway.

This is not a new concept. I have seen it before and the advisor gave me some tips as how others do it.

Hope you are able to get to this cache."

 

I didn't mean to rant ,rave or whine. I'm not calling for rules.I even agree it's within the guidelines.I just don't think the added requirements are in the spirit of the game.

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Maybe I just like simple , and it's not in my nature to be impressed with elites :mad:

 

anywho.. I didn't want to stir the pot. I was just wondering what others thought. :D

Link to comment

It's the owners option. T hey said you need 99 finds. You need 99 finds. If you want to argue, then it's you who has chosen to make an issue. Not the cache owner.

 

If you feel the need to find the cache, then pick 1.

 

1) Log as a note.

2) Log and expect your find to be deleted.

3) Log the physcial book and ignore the online part.

4) Ignore it.

5) Rant, Rave, and whine about it and then do one of the above anyway but shorten your life a bit for being a type A personality.

 

You can't control the cache owner, only your own fun.

I think that if it were me, I'd pick option 6:

 

6) Find the cache but log it as a DNF: "icon_sad.gif I searched for the cache and signed the logbook, but since I am not allowed it call it a "Find", the only other logical choice is a "Did Not Find"."

Link to comment

received a reply from the cache owner:

 

"xxxxxxx xxxxxx cache is simply for those who have a few (99 or more) caches under their belts. Almost like being in an elite group. I'm thinking of putting one out for those with 499 or more.

Oh boy, I'm feeling so elite right now :D

 

Truthfully, I hate that type of mentality. As one who meets the lame requirements, I'd probably write a note for the cache saying that I found it and signed the log but, having found so many caches, the hide technique didn't meet my "elite" standards so I opted out of the smiley :mad:

Link to comment

I am new enough to geocaching that I would not even know where to look for an "exclusion" like this.

 

Personally, I hate elitism in all forms and will probably filter out ALL caches with these types of exclusions, once I figure out how.

 

Have your fun and games in your small little group -- I'd prefer to geocache with anyone who honestly enjoys geocaching, whether they are "vastly experienced" or not -- as long as I am not dragging a couch potato who knows nothing about the outdoors on a 7-day hunt for a challenging cache deep in the mountain wilderness. Safety DOES come first.

Link to comment

It's the owners option. T hey said you need 99 finds. You need 99 finds. If you want to argue, then it's you who has chosen to make an issue. Not the cache owner.

 

If you feel the need to find the cache, then pick 1.

 

1) Log as a note.

2) Log and expect your find to be deleted.

3) Log the physcial book and ignore the online part.

4) Ignore it.

5) Rant, Rave, and whine about it and then do one of the above anyway but shorten your life a bit for being a type A personality.

 

You can't control the cache owner, only your own fun.

I think that if it were me, I'd pick option 6:

 

6) Find the cache but log it as a DNF: "icon_sad.gif I searched for the cache and signed the logbook, but since I am not allowed it call it a "Find", the only other logical choice is a "Did Not Find"."

 

I like your way of thinking. :mad:

Link to comment

One local cache was designed as a playing card trade thing. Basically there were 2 decks of cards in the cache, you had to trade your own card for one of the ones in there in order to log it as found. I am not a fan of extra requirements, but I do like finding caches. So I found the cache, signed the log, and wrote a note on the page that I found it but wasn't going to ruin a deck of cards for it. At some point I found a couple cards on the street on my way to work, so I picked them up and used one of them to log the cache next time I was in the neighborhood, more than a year later. If there are requirements on a cache page (no matter how stupid or moronic they may seem to be) the cache owner has the right to put them there. There have been times when I didn't know about extra requirements until after I scored the find, so I logged as found anyway. If the logs get deleted, oh well, my meaningless number changes again. No worries.

Edited by DocDiTTo
Link to comment

I am new enough to geocaching that I would not even know where to look for an "exclusion" like this.

 

Personally, I hate elitism in all forms and will probably filter out ALL caches with these types of exclusions, once I figure out how.

 

Have your fun and games in your small little group -- I'd prefer to geocache with anyone who honestly enjoys geocaching, whether they are "vastly experienced" or not -- as long as I am not dragging a couch potato who knows nothing about the outdoors on a 7-day hunt for a challenging cache deep in the mountain wilderness. Safety DOES come first.

 

Some people like NASCAR, personally I could care less. However I didn't think it was elitism when a NASCAR themed cache came along that required a NASCAR themed trade. As part of the cache experience I went and found a NASCAR hotwheel that met the theme and went and found the cache. No Elitism involved. A 99 Find cache can be found by anyone willing to invest the time and meet the challenge, just like the NASCAR theme was open to anyone willing to invest the time and meet the challenge.

 

Cache owners want their caches to be found. They generally aren't trying to make anyone miserable, just to set their cache apart from the sea of caches that are out there by having a theme, or a story, or a cool hide, or something else. Logging requirments are PITA but the cache owner who creates them isn't normally guilty of trying to be PITA (some are though...) they are just inexperienced enough to think a logging requirment is a cool fresh idea from where they stand. It takes time to learn that a logging requirment is as much work to enforce as it is for finders to invest the time to meet the requirment.

 

Geocaching.com only sets the requirements for what caches can be listed on this site. They recognize that cache owners are invested in their caches along with being responsible for them. Thus this site affordes cache owners some leeway in how they present their caches and in the logging requirments. I don't think this site is going to stand in the way of an arbitrary requirement that any cacher can meet if they were willing. I do think the reviewers would say something about a logging requirment that wasn't something the average cacher could do if they wanted or it violated another rule.

Link to comment

Some people like NASCAR, personally I could care less. However I didn't think it was elitism when a NASCAR themed cache came along that required a NASCAR themed trade. As part of the cache experience I went and found a NASCAR hotwheel that met the theme and went and found the cache. No Elitism involved. A 99 Find cache can be found by anyone willing to invest the time and meet the challenge, just like the NASCAR theme was open to anyone willing to invest the time and meet the challenge.

 

I don't disagree. However, consider this: I can go to the NASCAR themed cache and choose not to make any trades at all, if I either wasn't aware it was a NASCAR themed cache or am too lazy to go find NASCAR swag to trade. If I go to a minimum-finds cache and don't "qualify", I have no recourse. (Well, I would probably just sign the book and not log it online).

 

Unless the ALR was particularly egregious, I would probably play along, and if I couldn't meet the logs I would either wait until another time or post a note. I've become more interested in the social aspects of caching (interacting with other cache hiders and seekers either through the logs or actually meeting them) rather than a number or a smiley.

Link to comment

Hmmm...

 

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

 

Only females need apply?

 

Only Jeep drivers?

 

Only Christians?

 

Only those of Scottish lineage?

 

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

 

Charter members only?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

 

6) Find the cache but log it as a DNF: "icon_sad.gif I searched for the cache and signed the logbook, but since I am not allowed it call it a "Find", the only other logical choice is a "Did Not Find"."

 

logging a DNF isn't considered an insult is it? I log them all the time, I hope I haven't been annoying anyone.

Link to comment

Hmmm...

 

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

 

Only females need apply?

 

Only Jeep drivers?

 

Only Christians?

 

Only those of Scottish lineage?

 

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

 

Charter members only?

I don't know if you're joking or not (I missed one attempt at humor in my previous post to this thread) but an ALR cache could have any of those and someone would hate it and others wouldn't mind at all.

 

There's no question that it's possible to make an ALR cache that doesn't please everyone. It's also obvious to most of us that some ALR caches would bother nearly everyone and would get very few, if any, logs that meet the requirements.

 

If the cache owner wants to make a cache that is so silly, stupid, difficult, annoying, etc., that it keeps people away, then it's his choice. Nobody ever said that every cache has to be able to be found by everyone. There's no guideline that says a cache has to be enjoyed by every finder.

Link to comment

For what it's worth, I agree that the NASCAR theme isn't the same. I've got a Detroit Lions themed and a Detroit Tigers themed cache. Both have been found multiple times by people who've simply not traded anything. That's find with me. I'm not planning on deleting their logs just because they didn't choose to leave a Lions or Tigers trade item.

Link to comment

There's a valid reason behind my code-word-required cache...but I fully understand that some may not like the requirement...

 

I skipped a friend's requirement cache over in VT because I didn't feel like dealing with the rule/requirement, and it was surprisingly painless for all concerned...

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

Only females need apply?

Only Jeep drivers?

Only Christians?

Only those of Scottish lineage?

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

Charter members only?

 

Somewhere out there is a Scottish female Christian jeep driver ready to find that cache! :D

Link to comment

I'm not too opposed to the original poster's cache type. At least it's something that EVERYONE has the capability to EVENTUALLY log. If there's a cache that has a limitation on it such that some specific group will never be allowed to log it, THAT I would be highly against.

 

Such as if I made a log where 'your gc.com username must contain the letter "K", and be three syllables long', that would be idiotic. Same with pretty much any of the ones that sbell111 was joking about. If you permanantly exclude some geocachers, that would irritate me.

 

The paid member ones sorta work like that, but that's sorta different. You're able to get it, but just with money. Sorta like the difference between a trial version of a program and the full version. I'll be come a paid member yet, once I'm done paying off Visa :D

 

Hmm... I wonder if they accept paypal. I've gotten some donations on my website that could get me a few months.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...