Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

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? :D:D

 

What Vinny said!

 

Ed

Link to comment

Wow - a lot of sarcasm in this here thread....

 

And this surprises you why?

 

I object to the word 'Bogus' in the title of this thread. Why is this cache's requirement any worse than a cache that requires a boat? I've got five of those nearby, and there's no way I can do them. That's elitism! I don't do cemetery caches. They offend my senses. Lots of people like them. They can do them, I shan't. There are caches requiring backpacking, technical climbing, and/or physical dexterity. Not to mention ones that require not having a fear of heights, or claustrophobia. Do any of these get maligned as 'Bogus'? Not sure that I understand the difference.

Link to comment
"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.

 

Thank you Riffster. I've never understood the "email me the codeword" thing. I thought that's what the logbook was for? I've got a hider south of me that has that on every cache. I've just quit doing them.

 

In general, I think additional logging requirements are silly, but the cache owner can have 'em if she wants 'em. And I can ignore those caches if I want to, and in fact, I do.

Link to comment

 

I object to the word 'Bogus' in the title of this thread. Why is this cache's requirement any worse than a cache that requires a boat? I've got five of those nearby, and there's no way I can do them. That's elitism! I don't do cemetery caches. They offend my senses. Lots of people like them. They can do them, I shan't. There are caches requiring backpacking, technical climbing, and/or physical dexterity. Not to mention ones that require not having a fear of heights, or claustrophobia. Do any of these get maligned as 'Bogus'? Not sure that I understand the difference.

 

I'm sorry if you object. The difference to me is that if I don't own a boat, or am not physically able, thats one thing. If I pay my dues to Groundspeak, can get the coords, sign the log., why delete me? Thats a bit different than not being able or not wanting to.

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 really,really liked option 6 :D so thats what I did

 

"Found this cache afterwork today. Teambarstool only has 40 finds so I'm honoring the cache owners wishes and logging as a DNF.

L TeamBarstool shotglass

T Green Jeep TB

I'll log as found when I to 100

The hunt is more fun than the smilie[:D]

TFTH"

 

thank everyone for your opinions pro & con

happy caching

 

Jeff Barstool

Link to comment

I object to the word 'Bogus' in the title of this thread. Why is this cache's requirement any worse than a cache that requires a boat? I've got five of those nearby, and there's no way I can do them. That's elitism! I don't do cemetery caches. They offend my senses. Lots of people like them. They can do them, I shan't. There are caches requiring backpacking, technical climbing, and/or physical dexterity. Not to mention ones that require not having a fear of heights, or claustrophobia. Do any of these get maligned as 'Bogus'? Not sure that I understand the difference.

 

I see a clear difference. None of those examples you listed are arbitrary. They all serve a clear purpose, and are not bogus.

 

The cache you said requires a boat, would they delete the log if you swam to it? no. would they delete the log if you waited till winter and walked across the ice? nope. The limitation is real, and the cacher can overcome it in any manner they come up with.

 

I'm afraid of heights, and I've gone to several caches that scared me to no end because they are literally inches from certain death. I still enjoy them because it's a rush being afraid.

 

bogus, arbitrary, elitist requirements would be "I don't care if you find this cache, if you aren't caucasian, I will delete your log. you must provide a picture of yourself clearly showing your skin color to claim a find."

 

if someone can't find the cache because of it's location, that is a completely different story than arbitrarily deleting a find because of a completely unrelated bias on the part of the owner... there's not reallly a comparison between the two. :shrug:

Link to comment

Here's the deal find out how many finds the hider in question has, what neighborhood he lives in then place 10 caches near his house that all say if you have MORE than X number of caches your log will be deleted.

Make X about 10 less caches than the caher in question has.

 

This should get your point across. Of course, when the cacher in question eliminates his requirement, you can remove yours too.

Link to comment

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

 

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. :bad:

 

Some people get mad about that.

 

IMPORTANT---YOU GOTTA LOG ONLINE---IMPORTANT

 

Sheesh, what fun is it to take a walk in the woods, see neat stuff, search for a well-hidden cache, perhaps meet some interesting people, and then NOT LOG ONLINE? :bad:

 

I reckon if you really disagree with the logging requirement you don't have to sign the paper either. If you enjoyed the hunt, the smiley on your face is worth more than the icon anyways.

Link to comment

I see a clear difference. None of those examples you listed are arbitrary. They all serve a clear purpose, and are not bogus.

 

The cache you said requires a boat, would they delete the log if you swam to it? no. would they delete the log if you waited till winter and walked across the ice? nope. The limitation is real, and the cacher can overcome it in any manner they come up with.

 

I'm afraid of heights, and I've gone to several caches that scared me to no end because they are literally inches from certain death. I still enjoy them because it's a rush being afraid.

 

bogus, arbitrary, elitist requirements would be "I don't care if you find this cache, if you aren't caucasian, I will delete your log. you must provide a picture of yourself clearly showing your skin color to claim a find."

 

if someone can't find the cache because of it's location, that is a completely different story than arbitrarily deleting a find because of a completely unrelated bias on the part of the owner... there's not reallly a comparison between the two. :shrug:

 

Ah. We have a difference of opinion, don't we? Which is the point of this discussion. Okay. So, here's a cache that requires a boat. Spooky Island Cache. I doubt that anyone could swim to it. There's a reason it's called Hell's Gate. The East River does not freeze over. You find it by boat, or you do not find it. That's arbitrary. It has arbitrary requirements. A boat is required. Technically, I do not see any difference between requiring a boat, and requiring 99 finds. Both are arbitrary. Neither is 'bogus' (which means 'spurious' or 'sham'.) The requirements are real, though arbitrary.

Perhaps, I am arguing the use of the word 'bogus', which is being used in a bogus manner.

One requires the use of a boat. One requires having 99 finds. Both arbitrary. Neither 'bogus'.

If you wish to swim to South Brother Island, or wait until Hell's Gate freezes over (pun intended), we would be more than happy to document your demise.

If we want to discuss 'arbitrary' requirments, that is a different story.

Link to comment

Ah. We have a difference of opinion, don't we? Which is the point of this discussion. Okay. So, here's a cache that requires a boat. Spooky Island Cache. I doubt that anyone could swim to it. There's a reason it's called Hell's Gate. The East River does not freeze over. You find it by boat, or you do not find it. That's arbitrary. It has arbitrary requirements. A boat is required. Technically, I do not see any difference between requiring a boat, and requiring 99 finds. Both are arbitrary. Neither is 'bogus' (which means 'spurious' or 'sham'.) The requirements are real, though arbitrary.

Perhaps, I am arguing the use of the word 'bogus', which is being used in a bogus manner.

One requires the use of a boat. One requires having 99 finds. Both arbitrary. Neither 'bogus'.

If you wish to swim to South Brother Island, or wait until Hell's Gate freezes over (pun intended), we would be more than happy to document your demise.

If we want to discuss 'arbitrary' requirments, that is a different story.

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree :bad:

Link to comment

bogus, arbitrary, elitist requirements would be "I don't care if you find this cache, if you aren't caucasian, I will delete your log. you must provide a picture of yourself clearly showing your skin color to claim a find."

 

Ah. We have a difference of opinion, don't we? Which is the point of this discussion. Okay. So, here's a cache that requires a boat. Spooky Island Cache. I doubt that anyone could swim to it. There's a reason it's called Hell's Gate. The East River does not freeze over. You find it by boat, or you do not find it. That's arbitrary. It has arbitrary requirements. A boat is required. Technically, I do not see any difference between requiring a boat, and requiring 99 finds. Both are arbitrary. Neither is 'bogus' (which means 'spurious' or 'sham'.) The requirements are real, though arbitrary.

Perhaps, I am arguing the use of the word 'bogus', which is being used in a bogus manner.

One requires the use of a boat. One requires having 99 finds. Both arbitrary. Neither 'bogus'.

If you wish to swim to South Brother Island, or wait until Hell's Gate freezes over (pun intended), we would be more than happy to document your demise.

If we want to discuss 'arbitrary' requirments, that is a different story.

 

ya, not really terribly interested in semantics about which word was used.

 

Bogus: adj. 1. Non-functional. 2. Useless.

 

We are talking about finding or reaching a cache, so a requirement of a boat would certainly be functional and useful for reaching the cache. A requirement to wear a clown wig would be bogus, and would have no function or use in reaching or finding the cache.

Link to comment

I know cachers sometimes put requirements into their cache hides that can add to the challenge, fun of the cache experience, or to make sure finds are legit. But i'm wondering, what in the world does this "more than 99 requirement" accomplish? In my opinion, it serves no purpose and adds absolutely nothing to this cache and allthough i do meet the requirement, i would skip this one because it's rediculous!

Link to comment

My advice: put out a cache that is loggable by anyone who does not own any caches that have stupid logging requirements. If the owner of such a cache tries to log yours, delete the log.

 

The best way to deal with jerks like this is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

And yes, I meant to use the word "jerk."

Link to comment

I agree with the majority - that these extra requirements are bogus.

 

I've seen owners that deleted logs because their series of caches weren't logged in the order they wanted them to be logged (e.g. You logged #4 in the series before you logged #3).

 

There is a cacher in Maryland that states on their cache page that any log saying anything negative about their cache will be deleted. ugh. I say the approvers should not approve such silliness.

Link to comment

My advice: put out a cache that is loggable by anyone who does not own any caches that have stupid logging requirements. If the owner of such a cache tries to log yours, delete the log.

 

The best way to deal with jerks like this is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

And yes, I meant to use the word "jerk."

Yeah, and those jerks that put out puzzle caches should be taught a lesson too! Put a puzzle cache near them and see how they like it! And those jerks that put out multi caches (multi-jerks) should really have to do a few multi caches themselves - that'll teach em.

 

Down with the non-vanilla, creative, fun, jerk placed caches that try to spice up the game. They suck!!

Link to comment
We've placed a cache that requires you to do a bit more than just find the cache: I DARE YA! This cache asks you to do something silly, embarrassing or just plain goofy. Ah what fun:

 

I see this as being different from the OP's complaint. This is a requirement that makes the cache out of the ordinary and fun to do. These types of requirements are different and can be alot of fun for everyone involved.

 

Heck, i don't like those "email to prove you found the cache" requirements at all and i generally skip those caches, but at least i can see a point as to why some owners have them. I just can't see why anyone would put out a cache that restricts cachers who have less than 99 cache finds under their belt from finding their cache... :D

Link to comment
Heck, i don't like those "email to prove you found the cache" requirements at all and i generally skip those caches, but at least i can see a point as to why some owners have them.

Hi Mud! Could you share your thoughts on this with some one who has absolutely no clue? If I were ever to slip so far into paranoia that I suspected a bogus "find", and the thought of that find wouldn't let me sleep at night, I'd go check the logbook. If my cache was that hard to check, imagine how hard it would be to do maintenance.

Link to comment
Heck, i don't like those "email to prove you found the cache" requirements at all and i generally skip those caches, but at least i can see a point as to why some owners have them.

Hi Mud! Could you share your thoughts on this with some one who has absolutely no clue? If I were ever to slip so far into paranoia that I suspected a bogus "find", and the thought of that find wouldn't let me sleep at night, I'd go check the logbook. If my cache was that hard to check, imagine how hard it would be to do maintenance.

 

Well, i hope you aren't taking what i said the wrong way. I agree with you 100% in that i can't figure out why someone would be so worried or paranoid that another person would try to cheat on this. It's something i would never lose sleep over but evidently there are others out there that do! I don't agree with and i don't care for these types of caches at all. What i was getting at above is that i can see a reason why a paranoid person might want this, as it does serve a purpose for him or her. What i don't understand is why someone would have a 99 cache minimum requirement on their cache. What's the point?

Link to comment

seems to me if someone actually finds the cache and signs the logbook, deleting their entry is against the rules/spirit of the game, and causes harm to the geocaching experienc as a whole.

 

if you want a cache only the most experienced cachers can sign the log for, just make it really tough to find. Once someone finds it and signs the log, you can't pretend they didn't.

Link to comment

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.

...

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

 

First, my advice, log it anyway. If you've signed the logbook on a physical cache then you've fulfilled the requirements to claim a cache. The rest is to log the cache.

 

Considering you're a PM, immediately download a copy of that cache's GPX file as it will have your log in it. Save it to where ever you keep any archival GPX files. It is easier to import a find in programs like GSAK if you have the actual Found It log. If you use GSAK to keep a record of your finds, it now doesn't matter what the owner does.

 

I do know a lot of folks do like to keep their online record accurate, but I've come to the conclusion that the present system is broken and the only way I can keep an accurate record is to keep one myself. This way I can aggregate the cache finds from other sites, as well.

 

As for meeting the guidelines, well, taking a $20 trade item and leaving a pine cone found next to the cache meets the guidelines, but that doesn't mean it's right. Plenty of people in this very thread certainly get the two confused.

Link to comment
We've placed a cache that requires you to do a bit more than just find the cache: I DARE YA! This cache asks you to do something silly, embarrassing or just plain goofy. Ah what fun:

 

I see this as being different from the OP's complaint. This is a requirement that makes the cache out of the ordinary and fun to do.

I've got to say that all caches with requirements are made in order to be out of the ordinary and to try to add fun to the game.

 

These types of requirements are different and can be alot of fun for everyone involved.
I wouldn't say everyone. Some people don't want to have fun doing anything different. Some people would rather chop off their left arm than admit that a mandatory additional logging requirement can still be fun. There are plenty of people in this thread that don't want to be told what to do, but just LOVE to tell others what they should do.

 

Heck, i don't like those "email to prove you found the cache" requirements at all and i generally skip those caches, but at least i can see a point as to why some owners have them. I just can't see why anyone would put out a cache that restricts cachers who have less than 99 cache finds under their belt from finding their cache... :D
Um.. to be different and add fun to the game? In this case it's obvious to me that the cache owner wanted to give other cachers something to look forward to. He wanted a cache that would stand out as being special, and hoped a lot would want to find it for their century find.

 

It's a shame that instead of cachers being happy with a cache that attempts to be special, they're angry that someone dares to be different. There's always the ignore list if you're too upset with it.

Link to comment
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. :lol:
Some people get mad about that.

 

IMPORTANT---YOU GOTTA LOG ONLINE---IMPORTANT

 

Sheesh, what fun is it to take a walk in the woods, see neat stuff, search for a well-hidden cache, perhaps meet some interesting people, and then NOT LOG ONLINE? :D

 

I reckon if you really disagree with the logging requirement you don't have to sign the paper either. If you enjoyed the hunt, the smiley on your face is worth more than the icon anyways.

I guess you're right. However, that's not what most of us are really here for.

 

If we watned to take a nice walk, we could do that without using the services of GC.com. Instead, we all wish to go geocaching. Geocaching has three major parts, in my opinion:

1) Find the cache.

2) Sign the logbook.

3) Log your find online.

 

If you take away any of the three, you are no longer geocaching.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
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. :lol:
Some people get mad about that.

 

IMPORTANT---YOU GOTTA LOG ONLINE---IMPORTANT

 

Sheesh, what fun is it to take a walk in the woods, see neat stuff, search for a well-hidden cache, perhaps meet some interesting people, and then NOT LOG ONLINE? :D

 

I reckon if you really disagree with the logging requirement you don't have to sign the paper either. If you enjoyed the hunt, the smiley on your face is worth more than the icon anyways.

I guess you're right. However, that's not what most of us are really here for.

 

If we watned to take a nice walk, we could do that without using the services of GC.com. Instead, we all wish to go geocaching. Geocaching has three major parts, in my opinion:

1) Find the cache.

2) Sign the logbook.

3) Log your find online.

 

If you take away any of the three, you are no longer geocaching.

 

In my opinion you are geocaching if you:

1) Go looking for a cache (perferably using GPS to navigate to the coordinates where it is hidden - otherwise you might be letterboxing :P )

 

finding the cache - optional (although it may be your goal)

signing the logbook - optional (but it serves as a good way to confirm you really did find the cache)

logging online - optional

Link to comment
Um.. to be different and add fun to the game? In this case it's obvious to me that the cache owner wanted to give other cachers something to look forward to. He wanted a cache that would stand out as being special, and hoped a lot would want to find it for their century find.

 

It's a shame that instead of cachers being happy with a cache that attempts to be special, they're angry that someone dares to be different. There's always the ignore list if you're too upset with it.

 

Yes, i have thought about that cache being put out for cachers to claim their 100th milestone on. I can see why this might be fun for those very few but i figure it leaves a bad taste in a new or non qualifying cachers' mouth and it's just another ordinary cache for those who have already exceeded the requirement.

 

Actually, i like the idea of a milestone cache, maybe with "100th find certificates" inside for those who found it at that point in their caching career, but it still should be available for all to log as a find!

 

To me you have to weigh it: it can be made fun for the VERY few cachers that just happen to be at their 100 mark along with being irritating for those that don't qualify, or it can be made fun for the majority of cachers out there. :D

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

My advice: put out a cache that is loggable by anyone who does not own any caches that have stupid logging requirements. If the owner of such a cache tries to log yours, delete the log.

 

The best way to deal with jerks like this is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

And yes, I meant to use the word "jerk."

 

Wouldn't the "correct" cache to place be one that requires that you have fewer than 100 finds in order to log it? Make sure to place it about 528 feet away.

Link to comment

Yes, i have thought about that cache being put out for cachers to claim their 100th milestone on. I can see why this might be fun for those very few but i figure it leaves a bad taste in a new or non qualifying cachers' mouth and it's just another ordinary cache for those who have already exceeded the requirement.

 

Actually, i like the idea of a milestone cache, maybe with "100th find certificates" inside for those who found it at that point in their caching career, but it still should be available for all to log as a find!

 

To me you have to weigh it: it can be made fun for the VERY few cachers that just happen to be at their 100 mark along with being irritating for those that don't qualify, or it can be made fun for the majority of cachers out there. :P

 

Been done: Milestone Cache . The owner is very liberal in accepting logs. In ffact, he's never deleted any. Oh, well.

Link to comment

I rarely read cache pages anymore unless it is a puzzle/mystery cache. I don't typically do multi-caches either. I get a PQ and load caches into my GPSr. When I log, I log my find and go onto the next cache. I would never see the requirement and would certainly be quite upset to have my log deleted. Face it, logging finds means a tick in the found column. A significant number of cachers are watching the numbers. It is an evolution of GeoCaching from just finding a 5 gallon bucket with a can of beans in it to a game that includes some numbers competition.

 

Personally, I do not think the "guidelines" are keeping up with how the game is used and played. Because of the numbers aspect of the game, deleting a find should not be an arbitrary decision that can be done with malice. I am free to delete all the logs on all my caches and archive my caches. That's not fair to how the game is played today.

 

We recently had a discussion about someone deleting logs if you post andy spoilers or too much info on finding the cache. I did not agree with that requirement either.

Link to comment

what about those of us who blind cache? most times i don't read the cache page until it is time to log my find or dnf. why should i suffer a deleted log b/c some ______( insert your choice word) feels like i don't meet the requirements. BALOGNA!! i think if my log were deleted i would ignore all caches hidden by that ______.

 

i know, i know, you could always wait until you have 99 finds then log it. not me buddy. i'm logging it now. if i don't, i'll forget and never log it.

Link to comment
These types of requirements are different and can be alot of fun for everyone involved.

Oh yeah, somehow I forgot all about the thrill of sending an E-mail with a codeword. My heart is all atwitter just thinking about it. Right up there with skydiving, croc wrestling and whitewater kayaking. The concept excites me so much I think I'll go back through my "found" list and send additional code word E-mails to those caches that required them. Thanx for putting me back on track. :laughing::P

 

(Mud, that's what I was thinking. I just needed clarification) :D

 

Mailman, while I certainly recognize your right to play the game however you wish, I couldn't bring myself to feel any sympathy for you if your log was deleted because you knowingly chose to ignore potentially vital information. The only person you should be upset with is yourself. I've got three caches that could possibly be considered as having additional logging requirements, but my thoughts are that these should enhance the caching experience. If someone logs a find without jumping through my hoops, then obviously the requirements didn't appeal to them. I would never delete a log because someone failed to meet my "requirements", but other owners might be a bit more zealous. The information is there for you to use. Don't whine if you discover that your refusal to use the information has unpleasant consequences.

Link to comment
I rarely read cache pages anymore unless it is a puzzle/mystery cache .... I get a PQ and load caches into my GPSr. ... I would never see the requirement and would certainly be quite upset to have my log deleted.
what about those of us who blind cache? most times i don't read the cache page until it is time to log my find or dnf. why should i suffer a deleted log b/c some ______( insert your choice word) feels like i don't meet the requirements.

Hunting a cache without first reading the description is a choice. Choices come with consequences. If your decision to blow off the description results in problems, you have nobody to blame but yourself. The cache owner has very few options for putting information in front of you other than including it in the cache page description.

 

If you don’t care for the way some particular SOB runs his cache, then, by all means, boycott the cache. When you intentionally ignore an owner’s cache page description, however, you’ve got no one but yourself to blame when your find log suddenly disappears due to an intentionally ignored logging requirement.

Link to comment
My advice: put out a cache that is loggable by anyone who does not own any caches that have stupid logging requirements. If the owner of such a cache tries to log yours, delete the log.

Are you going to place such a cache? If so, I think I just might have to mark the occasion by finally using my cache ignore feature for the very first time.

 

The best way to deal with jerks like this is to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

And yes, I meant to use the word "jerk."

No, the best way to deal with cache owners like this is to simply ignore the caches you don't like.

 

My advice: Personal attacks and schoolyard name-calling are not appropriate, and do not constitute logically sound arguments against the existence of caches you don't happen to like.

Link to comment
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.

...

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

First, my advice, log it anyway. If you've signed the logbook on a physical cache then you've fulfilled the requirements to claim a cache. The rest is to log the cache.

My advice: You should ignore the advice of anyone who encourages you to do something that's going to get your log deleted. Much easier to simply ignore the caches you don't like. There are plenty of other Geocaches out there for you to find.

 

 

As for meeting the guidelines, well, taking a $20 trade item and leaving a pine cone found next to the cache meets the guidelines, but that doesn't mean it's right. Plenty of people in this very thread certainly get the two confused.

I agree. Junking up another player's cache with worthless crap is rude. So is telling them where to shove their logging requirements*.

 

Intentionally blowing off a cache owner's requirement, request, cache theme, etc for no other purpose than to push a personal crusade may technically meet the guidelines, but that doesn't mean it's right.

 

Rude* may be within the rules, but it's still rude.

 

 

 

* an actual CoyoteRed quote:

"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."

(Friendly, huh? My response)

Link to comment
These types of requirements are different and can be alot of fun for everyone involved.

Oh yeah, somehow I forgot all about the thrill of sending an E-mail with a codeword. My heart is all atwitter just thinking about it. Right up there with skydiving, croc wrestling and whitewater kayaking. The concept excites me so much I think I'll go back through my "found" list and send additional code word E-mails to those caches that required them. Thanx for putting me back on track. :blink::huh:

 

(Mud, that's what I was thinking. I just needed clarification) :D

 

Mailman, while I certainly recognize your right to play the game however you wish, I couldn't bring myself to feel any sympathy for you if your log was deleted because you knowingly chose to ignore potentially vital information. The only person you should be upset with is yourself. I've got three caches that could possibly be considered as having additional logging requirements, but my thoughts are that these should enhance the caching experience. If someone logs a find without jumping through my hoops, then obviously the requirements didn't appeal to them. I would never delete a log because someone failed to meet my "requirements", but other owners might be a bit more zealous. The information is there for you to use. Don't whine if you discover that your refusal to use the information has unpleasant consequences.

You've quoted me as saying that, but I didn't. It was in my post, but only because I was quoting someone else.

 

But since you responded, I want to add that the first time I came across a code word cache I thought it was neat. The first time I came across pretty much every new (to me) kind of cache I thought they were neat too, including the micros under lamp post skirts. Now that I've found a ton of them, the novelty is long gone, but it's still a cache so I'm still going to find and log it.

 

When people place caches they usually put out what they think is neat and fun. If you've already found a lot of code word caches, and no longer see the fun in it, then that's only because you've cached longer than those that have never seen one. There are lots of people that will still enjoy them.

 

That goes for ALR caches too.

Link to comment
So is telling them where to shove their logging requirements.

 

You are starting to sound bitter that someone can find your cache and couldn't give a rat's behind about the smilie you would grant if you deem their log good enough. Log it and if you throw a fit and delete it, eh, who cares? Just one more instance that makes the find count even more meaningless.

Link to comment

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

I think that actually was one of the logging requirements on this cache for awhile... :blink:

This looks like one fun cache!

 

I guess this is my take on the bogus requirement issue:

 

If you don't want to play the way the owner wants you to play, do your own thing (within the bounds of decency and morality- i.e. no trashing the cache or nothing like that). For instance, you might find it, experience the place the owner wanted you to experience, and move on. deleting the online log is the ONLY power the owner has. Big Whoop!

 

But if you really want to enjoy the cache as the owner intended, why not play the way the owner suggests? Maybe there is something the owner wants to GIVE you in addition to that all important set of electrical charges temporarily set in your computer ram that display on your monitor as a "smiley". Maybe the owner has something in mind that will be enabled or enhanced by doing it their way.

 

If a special rule could make the cache more interesting, why not?

 

Let's face it, there comes a point when lifting a lamppost skirt to write your handle on a piece of paper in a film can really isn't too interesting anymore. But if that film can included some special note or logging request that made it unique, it is no longer just a "micro spew" or whatever you choose to call the one's you don't like.

 

As to the cache in question, I think the owner simply wants to recognise the finders' milestone. Is that so bad?

Link to comment
So is telling them where to shove their logging requirements.

You are starting to sound bitter that someone can find your cache and couldn't give a rat's behind about the smilie you would grant if you deem their log good enough. Log it and if you throw a fit and delete it, eh, who cares? Just one more instance that makes the find count even more meaningless.

Bitter? Nope, just annoyed at those who prefer to proudly sponsor a policy of active insolence and rudeness over passive tolerance and avoidance when it comes to the occasional cache that happens to stray from their own personal model of proper caching.

 

As for my cache, since you brought it up: I don’t give a rat's behind whether anyone who signs the paper log skips the online posting or not. For all I know you may have signed it already yourself -- I haven't looked at that log in years.

 

No, if there is any bitterness here, it's the bitterness that spews constantly from certain folks who can't stand the fact that others are playing the game -- and enjoying themselves -- in ways that don't fit with certain folks' version of how the game should be played. It's not enough to simply avoid a cache that doesn’t meet with your approval, is it CR? You've got to draw attention to yourself, proudly thumbing your nose at the owner by pointedly and boorishly ignoring any requirement or request you happen to dislike ... and then encouraging others to follow your rude example ... and further demanding that those elements be eliminated, via additional rules, from the game. It's like walking into a fine dining establishment and throwing a fit when they tell you about the coat and tie requirement. If that's how you get your enjoyment from Geocaching, then you have my pity.

 

Most cachers understand intuitively that there will always be cache hides that just aren't their cup of tea. They simply ignore them and move on. It never even occurs to them to make a scene screaming about it.

 

By now you've ignored my question a dozen times, but I'll ask it again anyway: CoyoteRed, instead of ranting and raving and demanding restrictions, why can't you just politely bypass the caches you don't like?

Link to comment
Blah, blah, blah....

 

By now you've ignored my question a dozen times, but I'll ask it again anyway: CoyoteRed, instead of ranting and raving and demanding restrictions, why can't you just politely bypass the caches you don't like?

 

It's amazing that you can find the posts about your precious ALR caches yet not read the ones I'm made where I've mentioned that I will certainly politely bypass caches I don't like. I've mentioned that I'll even make that decision well into the hunt up to the point where I've held the cache in my hands. Heck, I'll even sign the log and if I didn't like the cache I'll not log it if I feel there is no need. (Kind of hard to un-find it, huh?)

 

See, I believe in the democratic process and peer pressure. In this instance, it's the process where the community decides what is right in the absence of a higher authority. For this process to work opinions must be heard. To be heard, the opinion must first be expressed. In geocaching, one way to express an opinion is to find the cache in question and log it.

 

You, apparently, believe in the dictatorial process wherein you not only dictate how folks are to provide you feedback, but also rail against those who would advocate ignoring your artificial controls. Face it, anyone who logs your cache without your requirements is providing feedback, one bit of which is them telling you they don't like your requirement. You seem to not want to know folks don't like that.

 

As mentioned many times before, I feel ALRs are an abuse of the system. A person can find a cache, but in order to provide feedback the way the site provides they must do some other, often silly and occasionally debasing, activity in order to simply say they had found the cache with the proper log type. Many times the cache owner will even provide acknowledgment of the find if you log it improperly with a different log type. I think that is wrong. I will continue to express that opinion and I will advocate others to express their opinion about it, as well, ignoring the requirement.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Some of the above posts read like a zorro monologue..."fighting for the pipples" at great, yet stoically ignored, risk to himself... :blink:

 

It's been said by heroes on both sides of this epic crusade {{{cynically ironic smiley}}} ...if you don't like them...skip them...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

We've placed a cache that requires you to do a bit more than just find the cache: I DARE YA! This cache asks you to do something silly, embarrassing or just plain goofy. Ah what fun:

 

70407dc2-c3bc-4892-b58f-2e0bfe97ac20.jpg

 

102c11c8-e4fc-4597-90a7-373cc1ecf1f7.jpg

Do you threaten to delete the log if they don't comply? Asking is different from requiring.

 

EDIT: Missed the link. So you do threaten. Nice way to 'have fun'. :)

Edited by New England n00b
Link to comment

I'm going to give my own opinion about this.

 

When I go out geocaching, more often than not it is to go visit an area that I have not seen before, or sections of trails in parks I have not visited yet. The cache gives me extra incentive, and more importantly, KNOWLEDGE that there is something more or less cool to see at point 'X'. When I log it online, it is not to see how many numbers I can get, but rather to put a red check mark next to the cache I have visited, so I can keep track of where I have been. If someone deletes a find log because I didn't 'find' it a certain way (despite FINDING and SIGNING the logbook), they are interfering with the manner in which I choose to keep track of where I have been.

 

Could I make a spreadsheet? Yeah

Could I make a database? Yeah

Could I even keep a paper logbook? Yep

 

Why don't I? Because I like the tools gc.com has provided to do that task, and I see no reason to duplicate that. I prefer to go online and see what is what. To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic. I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you.

 

Maybe there should be another type of find smiley? Something like this:

icon_smile.jpg

 

Until them, if a cache hider is going to be petty because I don't do it a certain way, then I can see me making a new public bookmark list.

Edited by New England n00b
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...