A new kind of cache?

[+Pendoe]

A snippet from my latest hide ("Follow the leader" awaiting publishing)

 

"Before you begin you must;

 

Hide an empty cache somewhere & take a photo of yourself or the hiding place.

 

On the back of this photo you must write the co-ordinates of your cache (this may be in a simple puzzle/code if you like)

 

Laminate this or otherwise protect it from the elements.

 

In order to claim this cache you must place this photo into the LAST cache in the chain & then e-mail me the coordinates of YOUR cache."

 

What do you think - have I come up with a new cache type?

[+UncleJimbo]

A snippet from my latest hide ("Follow the leader" awaiting publishing)

 

"Before you begin you must;

 

Hide an empty cache somewhere & take a photo of yourself or the hiding place.

 

On the back of this photo you must write the co-ordinates of your cache (this may be in a simple puzzle/code if you like)

 

Laminate this or otherwise protect it from the elements.

 

In order to claim this cache you must place this photo into the LAST cache in the chain & then e-mail me the coordinates of YOUR cache."

 

What do you think - have I come up with a new cache type?

Sounds like a Mystery Cache to me (one with additional logging requirements).

[+Pendoe]

Denied:

 

"One issue which has not yet been added to the guidelines, but which Reviewers have been instructed to use immediately by Groundspeak, the Owners of Geocaching.com. Is that the owner of a cache may not require Finders to place a container or cache as a requirement for logging the cache."

 

Pity really as I think it would have been entertaining

[+UncleJimbo]

Denied:

 

"One issue which has not yet been added to the guidelines, but which Reviewers have been instructed to use immediately by Groundspeak, the Owners of Geocaching.com. Is that the owner of a cache may not require Finders to place a container or cache as a requirement for logging the cache."

 

Pity really as I think it would have been entertaining

I can see their point.

 

I think the cache would not have had many logs, myself, or a lot of TNLNTFTC logs that you would have deleted.

[+briansnat]

I don't care for the "must" requirement. Do we really want to force people to hide caches who really aren't interested in doing so and aren't prepared to maintain one?

 

If you encourage people to do it, that's fine but the last thing we need are more thoughtlessly placed and unmaintained caches.

[+DavidMac]

"One issue which has not yet been added to the guidelines, but which Reviewers have been instructed to use immediately by Groundspeak, the Owners of Geocaching.com. Is that the owner of a cache may not require Finders to place a container or cache as a requirement for logging the cache."

 

While I fully agree with this change to the guidelines- I don't care for caches that require you to hide a new cache, and I don't do them- it does bother me that the reviewers are asked to enforce guidelines that are not written on the books. Is it that difficult to add a few sentences to the guidelines before denying caches? After all, it's not like this is a new issue; caches like the one you are trying to list have been around for years.

[+meralgia]

Do we really want to force people to hide caches who really aren't interested in doing so and aren't prepared to maintain one?

I think it's great because it encourages people to try a hide. If it doesn't work out, big deal. Besides, it's not like you have to find the cache--that's what the ignore button is for... I found one such cache, hid my own, went back to log the find/hide and enjoyed it very much.

[+KoosKoos]

Do we really want to force people to hide caches who really aren't interested in doing so and aren't prepared to maintain one?

I think it's great because it encourages people to try a hide. If it doesn't work out, big deal. Besides, it's not like you have to find the cache--that's what the ignore button is for... I found one such cache, hid my own, went back to log the find/hide and enjoyed it very much.

 

I'm all for encouraging people to hide new caches - seed caches work for that - it's the required part that I don't like.

 

And I do agree, if there's a change to what reviewers will allow to be published, then it needs to be in the guidelines. There shouldn't be these "unwritten" guidelines out there.

Edited June 8, 2008 by KoosKoos

[Earthdog Patrick]

what's wrong with secret guidelines? It's not like they're rules.

[Keystone]

The reviewers have been following the "no hiding a cache as a condition of logging a find" rule for the better part of a full year now. For me it only comes up once every few months. I'm able to explain it to the cache hider without any problems. The Earth still rotates on its axis and the GPS satellites have continued their orbit.

[+El Diablo]

Do we really want to force people to hide caches who really aren't interested in doing so and aren't prepared to maintain one?

I think it's great because it encourages people to try a hide. If it doesn't work out, big deal. Besides, it's not like you have to find the cache--that's what the ignore button is for... I found one such cache, hid my own, went back to log the find/hide and enjoyed it very much.

 

I'm all for encouraging people to hide new caches - seed caches work for that - it's the required part that I don't like.

 

And I do agree, if there's a change to what reviewers will allow to be published, then it needs to be in the guidelines. There shouldn't be these "unwritten" guidelines out there.

 

Caching is a ever evolving game that requires the guidelines to be constantly updated. There isn't always time to publish a new guideline before you have to react to the present situation that may not be currently covered.

 

The Reviewers and Moderators have their own forums where I'm sure they consult with each other on such issues before making a ruling.

 

El Diablo

[+the hermit crabs]

The reviewers have been following the "no hiding a cache as a condition of logging a find" rule for the better part of a full year now. For me it only comes up once every few months. I'm able to explain it to the cache hider without any problems. The Earth still rotates on its axis and the GPS satellites have continued their orbit.

Apologies if I'm not understanding you correctly, but just because the world doesn't end doesn't mean everything is fine as it is. Geocaching could be outlawed entirely, and the Earth would still rotate on its axis and the GPS satellites would still stay in their orbits; does that mean that none of us should be unhappy or upset about it?

 

Yes, you are able to explain it to the cache hider "without any problems". No problems for you as the reviewer, anyway. But pity the hapless hider: he may have spent a significant amount of time and money creating a unique cache hide, and has done all of the proper homework regarding permissions, proximity to other caches, and every other written guideline, only to be rejected because of an unwritten rule that has existed for almost a full year and yet is not disclosed anywhere in the guidelines?

 

Not, it doesn't cause the world to stop spinning on its axis. But it causes frustration and anger that is completely avoidable.

 

This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon from several years ago, which I can't find a link to at the moment. Either a marketing guy or the pointy-headed boss says "The requirements are forming in my mind ... changing ... changing ... there! Naturally I won't be sharing them with you." And Dilbert (having more resources available than your average cache hider), says "That's okay. I budgeted for some goons to beat it out of you."

[Keystone]

It's a simple matter to publish the cache without the "hide a cache" ALR. The container isn't affected, and permissions aren't affected. There's also a number of alternatives such as a bonus smiley for hiding a cache, or an entirely different ALR. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to rewrite the cache page to make it guidelines-compliant.

[+the hermit crabs]

It's a simple matter to publish the cache without the "hide a cache" ALR. The container isn't affected, and permissions aren't affected. There's also a number of alternatives such as a bonus smiley for hiding a cache, or an entirely different ALR.

Yes -- they could change the page, they could change the cache, they could use a different listing service, or they get get so ticked off that they just drop out of caching altogether. None of these makes any difference in the long run. GC.com could decide to just stop publishing caches altogether. The Earth wouldn't stop spinning on its axis, etc. etc. etc. But --

 

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to rewrite the cache page to make it guidelines-compliant.

But it would take even less effort to just publish the guideline so that rewriting isn't necessary. (And that phrasing makes it sound like it's the hider's fault for not being compliant with the hidden guidelines!)

 

I'm not worked up about the particular unwritten rule in this case. I don't have an issue with ALRs or with requirements to hide caches. What is frustrating to me is the combination of two issues:

(1) This type of thing seems to be happening a lot lately: hiders follow all of the published guidelines, but their caches are rejected because of unlisted guidelines or rules. They are understandably frustrated or upset, and then:

(2) Their concerns are just brushed off with comments like "It's no big deal, just change it to be compliant" -- compliant with rules that Groundspeak intentionally withholds until they're violated.

 

So many times it is repeated here that all a hider has to do is "just follow the guidelines and you'll be fine." But in reality it's not like that at all. Unless the hider is a mind reader, or has access to some goons.

[+KoosKoos]

 

Caching is a ever evolving game that requires the guidelines to be constantly updated. There isn't always time to publish a new guideline before you have to react to the present situation that may not be currently covered.

 

El Diablo

 

Yep, the new guidelines have been in place for "the better part of a year", but the terms that a hider agrees to read and follow can't be updated?

 

I agree with the Hermit Crabs on this one...not the end of the world, I think it's a worthy guideline, but why are there quite a few instances lately of guidelines that are known only to the reviewers and those hiders who violate them? (whether a new guideline or a stricter interpretation)

 

edit: edited my time frame to better match what Keystone said

Edited June 8, 2008 by KoosKoos

[GOF and Bacall]

This one seems different than the other "It isn't in the rules" arguments. Most of them are actually over how things are interpreted. This one just plain isn't there.

 

It's a simple matter to publish the cache without the "hide a cache" ALR. The container isn't affected, and permissions aren't affected. There's also a number of alternatives such as a bonus smiley for hiding a cache, or an entirely different ALR. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to rewrite the cache page to make it guidelines-compliant.

 

Yes, the cache can be changed to remove that particular ALR. But then it isn't the same cache anymore.

 

How is a bonus smiley for hiding a new cache any different than requiring the finder to hide one in the first place? Not to mention the whole multi logging argument that will be brought to the forums the first time someone gets a bug up their skirt.

[+J-Way]

The reviewers have been following the "no hiding a cache as a condition of logging a find" rule for the better part of a full year now. For me it only comes up once every few months. I'm able to explain it to the cache hider without any problems. The Earth still rotates on its axis and the GPS satellites have continued their orbit.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the "better part of a year” bit. A small swarm of "Play if Forward" caches (you must hide one to claim a find) were published in my area in the past year. Here are two just off the top of my head, and there are several more published after these that I didn't want to take the time to look up: GC15XN9 (9/13/07) and GC16BPH (10/1/07).

 

That being said, I don't disagree with "banning" these style caches. I agree that it adds more smileys for the locals caches who have found everything nearby, and it's really helpful for those who cache for the numbers. And it might get someone interested in hiding who goes on to hide numerous creative and interesting caches. But for the most part it results in caches being tossed under the nearest lamp post skirt then forgotten.

 

My main area of concern is the revelation of yet another "unwritten rule". How many of these have to be revealed before Groundspeak, its lackeys, and its lawyers decide to just do the right thing and publish the REAL rules (oops, I mean “guidelines”)???