Feature request:

[+jimbolaya64]

I've found several caches that are incorrectly typed. For example, I'll find a traditional cache with instructions on how to solve a puzzle. This is frustrating when I get out in the field and can't find the cache. I'd like to download only traditional caches and find them when I get the chance. I don't want to have to read through each description and make sure it was typed correctly.

 

I propose that the web site include a button to cast a vote to retype the cache. The user could also include what they think it should be. The vote would automatically be sent to the cache owner. If the cache owner gets several votes they could consider retyping the cache. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks.

[+Miragee]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

If I have run into a Traditional cache that should be listed as a Multi, or a Traditional that is really a Puzzle or ALR (Additional Logging Requirements), I just email my local Reviewer. He can make the change if he deems it necessary.

[+Prime Suspect]

That's not the sort of thing that should be decided by a vote. As mentioned above, just email your local reviewer about it. They know the cache type definitions better than a random collection of cachers would.

[+jimbolaya64]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

If I have run into a Traditional cache that should be listed as a Multi, or a Traditional that is really a Puzzle or ALR (Additional Logging Requirements), I just email my local Reviewer. He can make the change if he deems it necessary.

 

I didn'tknow I could do that. Thanks! Ummmmm, errrr, ..... how do I find out who my local reviewer is? heh-heh

[+mtn-man]

Look at recent caches listed near your home location. Look at the entry down at the bottom that says "Published" with a green dot for the icon. That is your local reviewer typically.

[+jimbolaya64]

Look at recent caches listed near your home location. Look at the entry down at the bottom that says "Published" with a green dot for the icon. That is your local reviewer typically.

 

Got it! Thanks.

[+Lasagna]

Keep in mind that there are some older caches which may possess an inaccurate type -- because they predated the specific cache type. Reviewers are hesitant to changes the types of these caches because of the significant numbers of individuals who already found it.

[+jimbolaya64]

Keep in mind that there are some older caches which may possess an inaccurate type -- because they predated the specific cache type. Reviewers are hesitant to changes the types of these caches because of the significant numbers of individuals who already found it.

 

Yea. I contacted my reviewer and that's pretty much the answer I got. Oh well.

[+Michael]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

[+Miragee]

Yes, that is what happened when I contacted my Reviewer about a cache listed as a Multi that is really a Puzzle. However, it has been around for a long time, so he didn't think it should be changed.

 

I also ran into several "Offset" caches that are listed as Traditionals when I took a trip to Death Valley. Those really should be changed to Multis. In the meantime, since they have been like that for a long time, cachers just need to remember to read the entire cache description . . .

[+tozainamboku]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

This seems to be a change in policy (at least for a request that came from the cache owner). A while back the reviewers would regularly change caches that were mistyped as traditionals to the correct type. My guess is that those silly well rounded cacher type challenges have resulted in people complaining that they can't do the challenge if its a moving target. I don't know who is affected more, the poor cachers who go to find traditional with out taking the cache description or the poor cacher who are trying to complete a challenge. I guess Groundspeak can toss a coin or something each time this comes up.

[big_bob]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

[+jimbolaya64]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. I guess I could read all the descriptions. But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. I guess I could read all the descriptions. But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

 

It changes the history in that that 'multi' cache I found was actually a 'traditional'. I know that I should have read the cache page better, and the owner should have archived the multi, and rehid it as a traditional.

And, sometimes the line between 'multi' and 'mystery' is a fine line. I don't want voters changing the cache type on me! But, more importantly, if I needed a 'multi' on page 25, I don't want anyone changing it to a 'mystery' after I found it.

The current modus operandi seems to be 'let it be'. And I am happy with that.

[+Prime Suspect]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

This seems to be a change in policy (at least for a request that came from the cache owner). A while back the reviewers would regularly change caches that were mistyped as traditionals to the correct type. My guess is that those silly well rounded cacher type challenges have resulted in people complaining that they can't do the challenge if its a moving target. I don't know who is affected more, the poor cachers who go to find traditional with out taking the cache description or the poor cacher who are trying to complete a challenge. I guess Groundspeak can toss a coin or something each time this comes up.

That policy has been in effect for a while now. The only ones that will get changed are those that are recently published, and were submitted with the wrong type. If the owner just changes his mind, he's generally asked to resubmit it.

[+WRASTRO]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. undefined But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

[+The Hornet]

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

But the whole essence of a Traditional cache is that the coordinates alone should be sufficient to enable you to find the cache. You should not have to do any research in order to find it.

 

Sure, reading the cache page may enhance the experience but by definition it's not actually necessary as far as Traditionals are concerned.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

But the whole essence of a Traditional cache is that the coordinates alone should be sufficient to enable you to find the cache. You should not have to do any research in order to find it.

 

Sure, reading the cache page may enhance the experience but by definition it's not actually necessary as far as Traditionals are concerned.

Almost.

My search tactics change according to container description and then some times those are wrong.

I almost logged a find as DNF due to it's container description.

If I had not read the logs I wouldn't have know about the container change and assumed it was not a GC published cache. Now when I download the pdf I go for 10 logs instead of zero.

 

And with other caching sites out there it is possible to have 2 caches nearly on top of each other.

Need them descriptions, I do. Shouldn't have to for a traditional but I do.

 

~~~edit apostrophe t apostrophe t why can I remember apostrophe t

Edited July 23, 2008 by Vater_Araignee

[+jimbolaya64]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. undefined But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

 

I don't need your sympathy. I think my opinion is pretty well shared by several members here.

Edited July 23, 2008 by jandr100

[+jimbolaya64]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. undefined But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

 

I don't need your sympathy. I think my opinion is pretty well shared by several members here.

[+WRASTRO]

As a general rule we do not change cache types as it changes the history of every person that has ever found the cache.

I can't see how the "history" matters very much, after all the person logging the cache in the past either found or did not find the cache. That's not going to change at all. Surely it's more important that a cache is correctly classified so that future cachers get the right information.

 

I agree here. I'm getting frustrated going out expecting a traditional and not be able to find it. undefined But, it's seems like it should not have be necessary to have to prescreen them. I'd like to just download a big list a of traditionals and find them when I can.

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

 

I don't need your sympathy. I think my opinion is pretty well shared by several members here.

Yep, your opinion is shared by others but I will be so bold as to suggest that it is certainly not held by the majority or anywhere near it. Nor is it endorsed by Groundspeak.

 

There are a variety of reasons why you should be reading the cache page before you search for a cache, including any notes regarding hours restrictions, parking suggestions, and on and on. By not reading the cache page you are potentially going to search for a cache in a way that could cause problems for you and/or for the cache and the cache owner. There have been numerous topics in the past discussing these reasons and discussing the problems that cachers have encountered and the problems they have caused.

 

You still get no sympathy from me but you do get a request that you reconsider the potential downside to your preferred method of caching.

Edited July 23, 2008 by WRASTRO

[+WRASTRO]

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

But the whole essence of a Traditional cache is that the coordinates alone should be sufficient to enable you to find the cache. You should not have to do any research in order to find it.

 

Sure, reading the cache page may enhance the experience but by definition it's not actually necessary as far as Traditionals are concerned.

I agree that the current definition of a traditional cache is that it is at the posted coordinates. That does not mean there isn't additional information on the cache listing that can be essential to a successful search. Where have you ever seen a definition that states there is no reason to read the cache page for a traditional cache?

 

Why not hop in to a cemetery or a park during the hours they are closed to search for the traditional cache that is placed there? Aside from common sense telling you that you shouldn't be doing it you might see that the particular cache has restricted hours during which you can hunt. I would suggest that is bad form, illegal, has the potential to get you into some trouble, AND has the potential to harm the game by creating a problem with the land managers/owners.

[+TotemLake]

I certainly have no sympathy for you if you can't even be bothered to read the cache page. Do your research!

But the whole essence of a Traditional cache is that the coordinates alone should be sufficient to enable you to find the cache. You should not have to do any research in order to find it.

 

Sure, reading the cache page may enhance the experience but by definition it's not actually necessary as far as Traditionals are concerned.

Then it sounds like you don't want to evolve with the direction the game went with this listing service. I said it before and I'll say it again... when you rolls the dice, you takes yer chances. Make it part of your fun instead of part of your frustration.