Punishing "Power" cachers

[+paulandstacey]

Here's a note that was pointed out to me recently.

 

"Note to Power cachers: I reserve the right to delete all finds to any cacher who exceeds 50 finds on the day when this was found "

 

Any thoughts?

[+Kealia]

More info - was this on a cache page posted by the cache owner?

 

In any case, I've seen people complain about the way others cache, but never something like this.

 

I'm not a power cacher by definition, but that's one I might skip just on principle.

[+StarBrand]

Wow - learn new terms in here all the time. 50 plus in a day makes you a Power cacher - hmmmmmm.

 

True - I personally have never gone over 20 in a day but I know many that go 50 or more.

 

I would label that cache as an ALR. Odd.

[+paulandstacey]

Yep. Cache owner has posted it on the cache page. It's also on a rural route with over 100 caches on it - designed for power caching, essentially.

[+tozainamboku]

Here's a note that was pointed out to me recently.

 

"Note to Power cachers: I reserve the right to delete all finds to any cacher who exceeds 50 finds on the day when this was found "

 

Any thoughts?

Sounds like an ALR cache. Is is listed as Mystery/Unknown?

[+paulandstacey]

What is ALR?

 

Also, the cache pointed out to me is a Mystery (although still at posted co-ords), but it's on other caches in the area as well. Someone said another one says "more than 150 caches, etc". Does it make a difference if the person sets their "tolerance level" higher? (Legitimately asking here...)

[+StarBrand]

What is ALR?

 

Also, the cache pointed out to me is a Mystery (although still at posted co-ords), but it's on other caches in the area as well. Someone said another one says "more than 150 caches, etc". Does it make a difference if the person sets their "tolerance level" higher? (Legitimately asking here...)

ALR = Alternate Logging Requirement - these should be listed as mystery/puzzle caches.

 

I think it is a silly thing no matter what tolerance level is set - but to each his own. As long as the cache was found - logbook signed - cache replaced - then it should count as a find no matter what else I did that day.

[+Kealia]

I'm guessing that the reasoning behind this has to do with the majority of logs on "power caching" trips being nothing more than "this was X of X finds today, thanks".

 

Perhaps the owner put some time and effort into this hide and is hoping for better logs - but it seems silly to me.

 

Again, I prefer to get nice logs talking about the caching experience, but there's no way to guarantee that.

 

How is the cache being received?

[+horsegeeks]

That's probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard in these forums but it's up to the owner of the cache I guess.

[+Snake & Rooster]

What is ALR?

 

Also, the cache pointed out to me is a Mystery (although still at posted co-ords), but it's on other caches in the area as well. Someone said another one says "more than 150 caches, etc". Does it make a difference if the person sets their "tolerance level" higher? (Legitimately asking here...)

 

 

I'd be inclined to log that cache on the day following the other 149 on the route.

[+Rockin Roddy]

What is ALR?

 

Also, the cache pointed out to me is a Mystery (although still at posted co-ords), but it's on other caches in the area as well. Someone said another one says "more than 150 caches, etc". Does it make a difference if the person sets their "tolerance level" higher? (Legitimately asking here...)

 

 

I'd be inclined to log that cache on the day following the other 149 on the route.

 

I've seen a few strange ALRs, but this one takes the cake!

[+trainlove]

I would go find it on a day when doing 50+ and online log it the following day. If the cache owner ever asks why my log book entry is dated differently from my online log I'd say that being a power cacher I can't always keep my dates straight.

[Mushtang]

There are lots of caches that can't be logged by people with less than 1,000 finds ever, some restrict you from logging if you have more than 100 finds ever. This is just a similar kind of ALR that only looks at finds in a day.

 

I agree with Trainlove on this, if I found it and had more than 50, I'd put in a different date and keep on going.

[knowschad]

Here's a note that was pointed out to me recently.

 

"Note to Power cachers: I reserve the right to delete all finds to any cacher who exceeds 50 finds on the day when this was found "

 

Any thoughts?

 

Have you emailed the cache owner and asked their thoughts on that requirement? We can only guess... the cache owner knows.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I don't often get cache machines and number hounds visiting my caches, because they are not easy. If you don't want these people wasting your paper, don't implement ridiculous logging requirements, just put some effort into hiding it well and off the beaten path.

[+paulandstacey]

There are lots of caches that can't be logged by people with less than 1,000 finds ever, some restrict you from logging if you have more than 100 finds ever. This is just a similar kind of ALR that only looks at finds in a day.

 

I haven't come across anything like that, thankfully. Our caches are, you find 'em, you log 'em. I've had people sign on-line and not sign the book, others the book and not on-line, etc., etc. I don't have the time or energy to create (or more importantly, enforce) such restrictions.

[+sbell111]

As an owner, it would irritate me if I implemented a rule that would require me to carefully check each finder's stats to make sure that they didn't find more than 50 caches on the day they found mine. After the first few finders, I'm sure that I would give up the stupid rule.

[+Thrak]

As an owner, it would irritate me if I implemented a rule that would require me to carefully check each finder's stats to make sure that they didn't find more than 50 caches on the day they found mine. After the first few finders, I'm sure that I would give up the stupid rule.

 

I had the same thought. Unless someone logged online as "1 of the 57 caches I did today" how in heck would the owner know? They'd have to check the profile for each person who logged it and then check the list of all caches found by that user and count to see how many were found that day. What a pain in the neck that would be!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

There are lots of caches that can't be logged by people with less than 1,000 finds ever, some restrict you from logging if you have more than 100 finds ever. This is just a similar kind of ALR that only looks at finds in a day.

 

I agree with Trainlove on this, if I found it and had more than 50, I'd put in a different date and keep on going.

 

Those requirements (and the requirements of the topic of the OP) just seem silly. They are caches and meant to be found. They have the right to do it that way but it doesnt make any sense to me.

[+Mule Ears]

I don't often get cache machines and number hounds visiting my caches, because they are not easy. If you don't want these people wasting your paper, don't implement ridiculous logging requirements, just put some effort into hiding it well and off the beaten path.

 

I had the same thought--if these sorts of visitors and their copy-n-paste logs irritate you, just place you cache off the beaten path (or some distance from the nearest road). Silly to have to put yourself in the position of auditing logs and deleting otherwise legit finds.

[+Zop]

While I totally agree with rules like 'No Cut & Paste" or requiring more than a simple TNLNSL, to mandate that you can't find more than a given on one day is ludicrous!

 

What should it matter if someone is passing thru town and stops to make one grab or 75? Unless that owner has so many caches on that route, and gets hammered by emails every weekend, his rule or request is inane and in a circumstance like that maybe he/she should reconsider their placements a little more.

[+Prime Suspect]

What is ALR?

 

Also, the cache pointed out to me is a Mystery (although still at posted co-ords), but it's on other caches in the area as well. Someone said another one says "more than 150 caches, etc". Does it make a difference if the person sets their "tolerance level" higher? (Legitimately asking here...)

ALR = Alternate Logging Requirement - these should be listed as mystery/puzzle caches.

 

I think it is a silly thing no matter what tolerance level is set - but to each his own. As long as the cache was found - logbook signed - cache replaced - then it should count as a find no matter what else I did that day.

Additional Logging Requirement

[+Team Cotati]

Don't suppose that you'd mind publishing the GC# on this bad boy?

[+CYBret]

Google is still your friend.

 

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.

 

Where's the "bogus-ness" of that particular cache? It's a 2/1.5 hidden in an area where there are 50 caches within 8 miles.

 

Sour grapes.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey,

 

No comment here...just thought I would help out...

 

GC10BH5: Exit 33 SE

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+sdkonkle]

The cache owner has over 100 caches hidden out there, I think this makes him/her a power hider (how does someone maintain this many caches?). maybe someone should delete some of his/her caches.

Edited October 23, 2007 by sdkonkle

[Teioneon]

What a .

 

I would seriously consider avoiding this guys caches from now on. Sounds like he has control issues.

[+paulandstacey]

All right folks, I was looknig for general consensus and I got it, I think. Thanks for all the input. I'd like a mod to close this thread now as it's served it's purpose, thanks!

[+Cache Heads]

IBTL!

 

Seriously, if you've nabbed over 50 caches that day just wait 'til after midnight to log the one with the "Powercacher clause".

 

Then write this in the log:

 

"1 of 1 found today. TFTC."

[CoyoteRed]

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this. There may have been a time when I might have, but any more my response may be "pfft" and move on.

[+Snoogans]

That's probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard in these forums but it's up to the owner of the cache I guess.

 

Naaaa, seen plenty of stupider things here.

 

I'm with CR on his one. Pfft.

 

Lameness personified, but not worth any angst. It's actually quite laughable and that's probably worse to someone who takes themselves so seriously.

[+The Leprechauns]

This hider has bubbled up into the spotlight of the worldwide forums previously. I'm not terribly surprised to see this ALR.

 

Could someone local who is familiar with the cache's history please answer a question? The cache was published February 2nd, just weeks before the listing guidelines were changed to require that ALR caches must use the "Mystery/Unknown" cache type to flag the fact that you can't just sign the log to claim a find. If the ALR was present at the time of publication then this is grandfathered as a traditional cache. If the cache page was modified after the guideline change, then the current text violates the listing guidelines for traditional caches. So when did the 50 finds per day cap first appear on the cache page?

 

If it was a mystery/unknown cache then I would exclude it from my list of caches to hunt. Filters are your friend.

[+WalruZ]

If this is a true puzzle cache, it makes sense to me. Many "found 100 today" cachers shamelessly share puzzle solutions and this guy is probably sick of that.

[+briansnat]

Here's a note that was pointed out to me recently.

 

"Note to Power cachers: I reserve the right to delete all finds to any cacher who exceeds 50 finds on the day when this was found "

 

Any thoughts?

 

Might be the one of the top 5 dumbest geocaching related things I've ever heard.

[+Snoogans]

I don't often get cache machines and number hounds visiting my caches, because they are not easy. If you don't want these people wasting your paper, don't implement ridiculous logging requirements, just put some effort into hiding it well and off the beaten path.

 

Power cachers still get around!

 

Here is a cacher with currently 24,814 finds at one of my 5-Star terrain caches:

 

Here he is near another of my 5-Star caches over 30 miles away the day before:

Now THAT'S power cachin'.

 

It makes no sense to punish "power" cachers. It has to be a jealousy thang or some deep personal issue. Entertaining though. Like watching a train wreck or

or sumthin'. Edited October 23, 2007 by Snoogans

[4wheelin_fool]

Here's a note that was pointed out to me recently.

 

"Note to Power cachers: I reserve the right to delete all finds to any cacher who exceeds 50 finds on the day when this was found "

 

Any thoughts?

So... it's someone on a power trip who is annoyed at the power cachers... Hmm

 

The same person also deletes all DNFs too (once the cache is found) on all their caches

 

It's his little kingdom, let him play..

[+ShowStop]

I think the real way to punish a power cacher is to archive your caches or not hide any at all. There cant be power cachers if there arent lots and lots of caches to be found.

[+simpjkee]

I'd post a note saying that I was ignoring the cache because of the ridiculousness of the "rule".

[+Team GeoBlast]

I don't often get cache machines and number hounds visiting my caches, because they are not easy. If you don't want these people wasting your paper, don't implement ridiculous logging requirements, just put some effort into hiding it well and off the beaten path.

 

I had the same thought--if these sorts of visitors and their copy-n-paste logs irritate you, just place you cache off the beaten path (or some distance from the nearest road). Silly to have to put yourself in the position of auditing logs and deleting otherwise legit finds.

 

I concur with this. With work and family obligations, I only have so much time and energy to devote to geocaching. I'd like to spend that finding, hiding, and maintaining my caches. Maybe planning an event from time to time. There's no way that I am going to expend that much time and energy into this type of regulation of one of my caches.

 

In fact, this ALR is so out there that I'm inclined to think that the entire story was not presented.

[+CYBret]

OP has asked for this one to be closed.

 

Buh bye