Jump to content

New attribute request: ALR


sbell111
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

Can we have a pool an attribute, Dad?

Can we have a pool an attribute, Dad?

Can we have a pool an attribute, Dad?

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements?

 

Do you really think anyone cares about this topic? It seems impossible that anybody would feel strongly one way or another about it...

 

Jamie

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements?

 

Do you really think anyone cares about this topic? It seems impossible that anybody would feel strongly one way or another about it...

 

Jamie

I would use it as a PQ filter.

I believe he was being facetious judging from posts in the thread about ALRs in the main forum.

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

I suspect it's not going to happen. An attribute would give tacit approval to ALRs and considering we've not heard one peep from TPTB either way even with multiple spirited debates...

Link to comment
Does having a new attribute, assume people will look at attributes? Like how they apperently don't aways look at the descrption.

Sure, but it would give me one more way to tell CR somebody that if he didn't like the cache it was his own fault.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Given that TPTB have stated that they are workin' on having the aforementioned exclusionary functionality in place, this would be a start. Either way, you could easily skip those caches on-the-fly if they were identified.

 

So there you go.

 

Yup, yet another cool techy way to help those not reading the cache page itself.

Link to comment
Given that TPTB have stated that they are workin' on having the aforementioned exclusionary functionality in place, this would be a start. Either way, you could easily skip those caches on-the-fly if they were identified.

 

So there you go.

Yup, yet another cool techy way to help those not reading the cache page itself.
I agree with you. We don't really need any attributes at all as everything being 'attributed' could simply be noted on the cache page, right? :laughing:
Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

Thanks for your post and clarifying your position.

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

 

Shouldn't reviewers deny ALR caches then?

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

Shouldn't reviewers deny ALR caches then?

 

Not sanctioned is a lot different then not allowed. While ALR's are somewhat silly, they can be used in a humorous way. On one of my puzzle caches I request they yell "Bingo" and I am sure some do, however it is not expected.

 

On the ones where they are more serious about the requirement, I admit to being one of the ones that find it, log it and move on. I have yet had one denied however have once or twice got a nasty note for not following the "stated process".

 

Generally the only directions other than those common to GC I follow on the cache pages are 1. Hide it as you found it. 2. Try to use stealth. 3. Use X route or you will be trespassing. 4. If it is listed as a night cache I try to do it at night and 5. If it is listed I have to trade a TB for a TB, I take 2 tb to move along and leave nothing.

Link to comment
No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.
Well, how about a minor edit to the guidelines, to clarify that ALR caches can be listed as puzzle/mystery/unknown caches? After all, this is supposed to be the "catch all" type, right? As the guidelines are currently written, they must be listed as traditional if the container is at the posted coordinates.

 

That would keep people from finding ALR caches based on PQ data and then discovering that they aren't quite so "traditional".

Link to comment
minor edit to the guidelines, to clarify that ALR caches can be listed as puzzle/mystery/unknown caches? After all, this is supposed to be the "catch all" type, right? As the guidelines are currently written, they must be listed as traditional if the container is at the posted coordinates.

 

I kinda like this idea. Again, there would likely be an issue of cacher compliance, and confusion too. But this does make some sense to me.

Link to comment

The best solution offered so far is what Jeremy said earlier and that is a new log type.

 

Folks who don't want to be forced to do something in addition to signing the log can still log their find and move on. Additional challenges can still be proffered for those who want to participate.

Link to comment
minor edit to the guidelines, to clarify that ALR caches can be listed as puzzle/mystery/unknown caches? After all, this is supposed to be the "catch all" type, right? As the guidelines are currently written, they must be listed as traditional if the container is at the posted coordinates.

 

I kinda like this idea. Again, there would likely be an issue of cacher compliance, and confusion too. But this does make some sense to me.

I liked this idea on February 15, 2006. Though not necessarily here. :o

Link to comment

How about a nice, new attribute to identify those caches with Additional Logging Requirements? A suggestion was for it to be a frog jumping through a hoop.

 

No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense.

This is the solution I was thinking of in the other thread - a different kind of smiley (like this one I made in (moderate) jest: icon_smile.jpg).

 

Having a second 'super log' find type would allow those of us just trying to keep track of where we've been by having a plain old smiley.

 

I would like to give my "vote", such as it is, to implementing this idea.

 

Thanks for all the work and putting-up-with, PTB. :o

Link to comment

I also would like to see a new super-smilie. Adding an attribute does not fix the problem of an accidental find. If I find a cache and sign the logbook, I would like to be able to record it on the site. It is how I keep track of the caches I visit.

 

As an aside: part of the problem, for me at least, is being required (not asked) to perform an ALR. If the cache placer requests the log be in iambic pentameter, I will do my best to comply. I may even get a chuckle out of the attempt. But being told I have to do this puts it in a whole different catagory. Most of the grown-ups I know, and even most of the kids, do not like having how they are going to have fun dictated to them.

 

Sissy

Link to comment
I also would like to see a new super-smilie. Adding an attribute does not fix the problem of an accidental find. If I find a cache and sign the logbook, I would like to be able to record it on the site. It is how I keep track of the caches I visit.

What would be the point of this 'super-smilie'? Would a cache owner be able to delete it? What if your name wasn't in the log book? Can it be deleted? If not, it has no value. I could log a 'super-smilie' on all of your caches and never even go to your state.

As an aside: part of the problem, for me at least, is being required (not asked) to perform an ALR. If the cache placer requests the log be in iambic pentameter, I will do my best to comply. I may even get a chuckle out of the attempt. But being told I have to do this puts it in a whole different catagory. Most of the grown-ups I know, and even most of the kids, do not like having how they are going to have fun dictated to them.
By playing this game, we already are having our fun dictated to us. We can't claim a find unless we sign the log. We can't find the puzzle cache unless we solve the puzzle. We can't go to the event uless we clear our schedule.

 

As 'grown-ups', we live our lives making decisions. If the reward is worth the effort, we take the challenge. This is no different.

Link to comment
As an aside: part of the problem, for me at least, is being required (not asked) to perform an ALR. If the cache placer requests the log be in iambic pentameter, I will do my best to comply. I may even get a chuckle out of the attempt. But being told I have to do this puts it in a whole different catagory. Most of the grown-ups I know, and even most of the kids, do not like having how they are going to have fun dictated to them.
By playing this game, we already are having our fun dictated to us. We can't claim a find unless we sign the log. We can't find the puzzle cache unless we solve the puzzle. We can't go to the event uless we clear our schedule.

 

As 'grown-ups', we live our lives making decisions. If the reward is worth the effort, we take the challenge. This is no different.

 

WOW! Talking about completely missing the point!

Link to comment
As an aside: part of the problem, for me at least, is being required (not asked) to perform an ALR. If the cache placer requests the log be in iambic pentameter, I will do my best to comply. I may even get a chuckle out of the attempt. But being told I have to do this puts it in a whole different catagory. Most of the grown-ups I know, and even most of the kids, do not like having how they are going to have fun dictated to them.
By playing this game, we already are having our fun dictated to us. We can't claim a find unless we sign the log. We can't find the puzzle cache unless we solve the puzzle. We can't go to the event uless we clear our schedule.

 

As 'grown-ups', we live our lives making decisions. If the reward is worth the effort, we take the challenge. This is no different.

 

WOW! Talking about completely missing the point!

Perhaps Sissy could explain how I missed her point. I think I nailed it.

Link to comment

Sounds to me like he nailed it too. Choices are everywhere, and as adults we're expected to make them for ourselves. In fact, as an adult, I get upset when someone tries to make a decision for me and takes away that choice.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

I certainly do.

 

You don't like choices taken away from you, yet you support that very thing by supporting ALRs. You support taking away the choice of logging a cache without the risk of someone deleting your log for some arbitrary reason.

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