Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Clarkbowman

Seed caches and such.

Recommended Posts

As of now GS is now longer letting you hide any caches that require some one else to hide a cache or suggest hiding another cache. Here is a quote from an email I received about a cache I placed and was denied.

 

"There is no "proper" hide-to-find ratio in geocaching. Some people are ready to hide a cache after they have found four -- some are not ready or willing until they have found forty or four hundred. "Giving back" to the sport does not necessarily require hiding caches, although most people eventually do hide a cache. We have found that good things do not result by holding a find hostage until someone hides another cache. Some of those who find your cache may not only be unwilling to hide, but unable -- what about out-of-towners who find the cache on a trip? What about the disabled (I notice this is a 1-star-terrain cache and therefore handicap accessible)? What about the chronically overworked and busy person who occasionally geocaches, but has no desire to hide a cache? Shouldn't caches be placed by those who are eager to do it? Don't you want to seek out caches placed by people who enjoy it and not those who are under duress to place a cache? "

 

I was not even allowed to place the cache, even if I made it only a suggestion and not a requirement as to getting a smiley on a puzzle cache. So if this is and idea you have been working on, Don’t waste your time, THEY are now ILLEGAL...

I have more brewing on this but for now, and I am looking for any others placed since mine was denied. Before then I can't say much, because this is a unwritten rule and I'm not sure when it went into affect. But any placed after Aug 5th can expect the cache to be brought up again for review.

 

Let the discussion begin____________________________

Edited by Clarkbowman

Share this post


Link to post

I understand the purpose of seed caches trying to get more caches out there for yourself and others to find, but I can also understand this breeds poorly thought out cache placements purely for the sake of a Smiley.

 

Perhaps you could just leave the other caches as 'swag' with no requirements or suggestions?

 

Or perhaps you could give the containers to others you know who enjoy hiding caches so they may place them for you?

 

Just my two cents....

Share this post


Link to post

Leave the "seeds" as swag with a note urging the hiding of same - drop the requirements and the description as a "seed" cache. Go hide it(in the same spot). Should be no problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't find this cache in the archives so it is difficult to talk to it.

 

However, what you say is true, caches that require another cache to be placed will no longer be published.

 

A few years ago, it was a pretty popular idea to place seed caches out there to get more people to place caches. In many areas, caches were scarce and finding caches in a person's caching range were hard to find. After they found the 25-100 caches within 25 miles, they had to go to other cities to get caches.

 

Times have changed. We don't have the need to fill the area with more caches as they are typically plentiful and seed caches propagate more unmaintained or "lame" caches that they do quality thought out caches.

 

Even suggesting that everyone place a cache, although within the guidelines, can be viewed as undue influence on a cacher to do something that they are not ready to do.

Share this post


Link to post

As of now GS is now longer letting you hide any caches that require some one else to hide a cache or suggest hiding another cache.

 

YAY!!! B)B)B)B)

 

Glad to see they've taken this step. Even though it apparently happened a while back I wasn't aware of it.

Less compulsory hides = fewer traches. Good news!

Share this post


Link to post

As of now GS is now longer letting you hide any caches that require some one else to hide a cache or suggest hiding another cache. Here is a quote from an email I received about a cache I placed and was denied.

 

"There is no "proper" hide-to-find ratio in geocaching. Some people are ready to hide a cache after they have found four -- some are not ready or willing until they have found forty or four hundred. "Giving back" to the sport does not necessarily require hiding caches, although most people eventually do hide a cache. We have found that good things do not result by holding a find hostage until someone hides another cache. Some of those who find your cache may not only be unwilling to hide, but unable -- what about out-of-towners who find the cache on a trip? What about the disabled (I notice this is a 1-star-terrain cache and therefore handicap accessible)? What about the chronically overworked and busy person who occasionally geocaches, but has no desire to hide a cache? Shouldn't caches be placed by those who are eager to do it? Don't you want to seek out caches placed by people who enjoy it and not those who are under duress to place a cache? "

 

I was not even allowed to place the cache, even if I made it only a suggestion and not a requirement as to getting a smiley on a puzzle cache. So if this is and idea you have been working on, Don’t waste your time, THEY are now ILLEGAL...

I have more brewing on this but for now, and I am looking for any others placed since mine was denied. Before then I can't say much, because this is a unwritten rule and I'm not sure when it went into affect. But any placed after Aug 5th can expect the cache to be brought up again for review.

 

Let the discussion begin____________________________

From my vantage point, there is little room for discussion. The ban on seed caches, as they are often called, has been well-known and well-aired on the Groundspeak forums and in a number of other geo-related venues for quite some while now, and personally, I think that the ban is a GREAT idea, and would not want it any other way! I think that seed caches, particularly caches that seed nanos, micros or smalls, can very easily become quite odious, and I am glad that the whole category was subjected to a quick and merciful death.

Share this post


Link to post

With this rule in place, All One Degree of Separation caches placed in the past year also need to be taken off or changed. This project breaks this rule. The whole concept there is about pushing new caches to be placed.

There is also several others I have found doing just that. You can’t fairly allow some while you strike down others.

 

As for the rule I now understand the reasons they gave me. The reviewer I have does a great job, I some times may not agree with her, but o well. She does here job, so this is not a rant on her, GS though seems to be allowing some and not others, Why is this being done? If they have missed them, fine, they should go back and have each cache that has any suggestion of hiding another cache changed if posted in the past year.

Share this post


Link to post

As of now GS is now longer letting you hide any caches that require some one else to hide a cache or suggest hiding another cache. Here is a quote from an email I received about a cache I placed and was denied.

 

"There is no "proper" hide-to-find ratio in geocaching. Some people are ready to hide a cache after they have found four -- some are not ready or willing until they have found forty or four hundred. "Giving back" to the sport does not necessarily require hiding caches, although most people eventually do hide a cache. We have found that good things do not result by holding a find hostage until someone hides another cache. Some of those who find your cache may not only be unwilling to hide, but unable -- what about out-of-towners who find the cache on a trip? What about the disabled (I notice this is a 1-star-terrain cache and therefore handicap accessible)? What about the chronically overworked and busy person who occasionally geocaches, but has no desire to hide a cache? Shouldn't caches be placed by those who are eager to do it? Don't you want to seek out caches placed by people who enjoy it and not those who are under duress to place a cache? "

 

I was not even allowed to place the cache, even if I made it only a suggestion and not a requirement as to getting a smiley on a puzzle cache. So if this is and idea you have been working on, Don’t waste your time, THEY are now ILLEGAL...

I have more brewing on this but for now, and I am looking for any others placed since mine was denied. Before then I can't say much, because this is a unwritten rule and I'm not sure when it went into affect. But any placed after Aug 5th can expect the cache to be brought up again for review.

 

Let the discussion begin____________________________

 

It's about time.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still trying to figure out which guideline this cache is violating? B)

Share this post


Link to post

That rule has been in effect for over a year. I prefere to hide caches when i'm ready, and I especially dislike hiding crappy micro seeds.

 

It did? Where is that in the guidelines?

 

It's right next to the line that tells you up-front that work-in-progress caches of other cachers can keep you from placing a cache in the same area.

Edited by Castle Mischief

Share this post


Link to post

The way I read it seed caches are Ok where the finder can voluntarily take and hide a cache no strings, Requiring someone to take a seed and hide it to get a smiley are not allowed.

Or am I reading it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

... Let the discussion begin____________________________

Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) are either allowed or they are not. IF they are allowed they are up to the owner.

 

Apparently this site has chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs. Given that I had great success with a seed cache as the only ALR That ever worked as intended you can guess that I'm not on the "oh golly gee willikers bucky, isn't it great that this has been banned to enhance my caching enjoyment!" bandwagon.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

The way I read it seed caches are Ok where the finder can voluntarily take and hide a cache no strings, Requiring someone to take a seed and hide it to get a smiley are not allowed.

Or am I reading it wrong?

 

I changed my cache after they un-listed ( yes I say un-listed because it was published, then deactivated) it the first time, to the no strings attached approach and was still told NO. The mere mention of placing another cache is not allowed. By deactivating my they have already set a precedence on shutting down any others with any wording implying hiding another cache.

Share this post


Link to post

... Let the discussion begin____________________________

Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) are either allowed or they are not. IF they are allowed they are up to the owner.

 

Apparently this site has chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs.

 

The what ifs in the email apply to most all ALR caches.

 

I all so tried this approach, Did not work. I understood the Additional Logging Requirements rules and started my cache off as a puzzle cache. So from what I get from this is that this site is now chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs. And that is still not a issue realy with me. BUT post them in the rules and make them the same for all, not just a few.

Share this post


Link to post

... post them in the rules and make them the same for all, not just a few.

 

Agreed. They need a section of rules about cache restrictions. The rules that don't relate to land owners, and generic cache safety and longevity.

 

While we encourage creativity, we have nixed listing these kinds of caches, or restricted them.

"seed caches"

"ALR caches are now always listed as this kind of cache".

"you can't use any trademarked word in your cache as that's promotion".

"if you link to a commercial site"

"linking to a non commercial site that solicits funds via a pay pal donation link".

"caches actually locatd and listed near where other caches will someday be listed".

 

I'm sure there are more.

Share this post


Link to post

The way I read it seed caches are Ok where the finder can voluntarily take and hide a cache no strings, Requiring someone to take a seed and hide it to get a smiley are not allowed.

Or am I reading it wrong?

 

I changed my cache after they un-listed ( yes I say un-listed because it was published, then deactivated) it the first time, to the no strings attached approach and was still told NO. The mere mention of placing another cache is not allowed. By deactivating my they have already set a precedence on shutting down any others with any wording implying hiding another cache.

 

This is just great, Snoogans has ruined it for everyone!! Kidding, I'm just kidding. See==> B)

 

Personally, I've never stumbled upon a seed cache where the hiding of a seed was mandatory. So even a cache like an ODS, where hiding one of the containers is not mandatory has been outlawed? Could Moose Mob or Keystone address that?

Share this post


Link to post

With this rule in place, All One Degree of Separation caches placed in the past year also need to be taken off or changed. This project breaks this rule. The whole concept there is about pushing new caches to be placed.

There is also several others I have found doing just that. You can’t fairly allow some while you strike down others.

 

As for the rule I now understand the reasons they gave me. The reviewer I have does a great job, I some times may not agree with her, but o well. She does here job, so this is not a rant on her, GS though seems to be allowing some and not others, Why is this being done? If they have missed them, fine, they should go back and have each cache that has any suggestion of hiding another cache changed if posted in the past year.

 

The guidelines may change, but caches approved under previous sets of guidelines are allowed to continue.

That is why we still have some Virtuals and a few Webcams.

 

... Let the discussion begin____________________________

Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) are either allowed or they are not. IF they are allowed they are up to the owner.

 

Apparently this site has chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs.

 

The what ifs in the email apply to most all ALR caches.

 

I all so tried this approach, Did not work. I understood the Additional Logging Requirements rules and started my cache off as a puzzle cache. So from what I get from this is that this site is now chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs. And that is still not a issue realy with me. BUT post them in the rules and make them the same for all, not just a few.

 

If I were you, I would just list a simple regular size cache.

Now, of course, the contents of the cache might just happen to include a few ready-to-hide micros that any finder might just happen to take and hide as a new cache.

No ulterior motive on your part, and no conspiracy theory for others to reveal or complain about

 

That being said, I am completely against the concept of forcing, coercing or in any way encouraging cachers to hide caches when they are not yet ready to do so of their own accord...

Share this post


Link to post

With this rule in place, All One Degree of Separation caches placed in the past year also need to be taken off or changed. This project breaks this rule. The whole concept there is about pushing new caches to be placed.

There is also several others I have found doing just that. You can’t fairly allow some while you strike down others.

 

As for the rule I now understand the reasons they gave me. The reviewer I have does a great job, I some times may not agree with her, but o well. She does here job, so this is not a rant on her, GS though seems to be allowing some and not others, Why is this being done? If they have missed them, fine, they should go back and have each cache that has any suggestion of hiding another cache changed if posted in the past year.

 

The guidelines may change, but caches approved under previous sets of guidelines are allowed to continue.

That is why we still have some Virtuals and a few Webcams.

 

... Let the discussion begin____________________________

Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) are either allowed or they are not. IF they are allowed they are up to the owner.

 

Apparently this site has chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs.

 

The what ifs in the email apply to most all ALR caches.

 

I all so tried this approach, Did not work. I understood the Additional Logging Requirements rules and started my cache off as a puzzle cache. So from what I get from this is that this site is now chosen to start banning certain kinds of ALRs. And that is still not a issue realy with me. BUT post them in the rules and make them the same for all, not just a few.

 

If I were you, I would just list a simple regular size cache.

Now, of course, the contents of the cache might just happen to include a few ready-to-hide micros that any finder might just happen to take and hide as a new cache.

No ulterior motive on your part, and no conspiracy theory for others to reveal or complain about

 

That being said, I am completely against the concept of forcing, coercing or in any way encouraging cachers to hide caches when they are not yet ready to do so of their own accord...

 

Yes the guidelines may change, and caches approved under previous sets of guidelines are allowed to continue. But any new caches placed as a requirement for that cache can’t refer back to it or it is breaking the rules. Then On top of that several new caches in the past year have been approved that break this un-written rule. Which each and every one of them should be archived or any suggestion of the placement of another cache, forced or voluntary should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post

The following is a list of some of the caches I have been able to locate up to this point that are in violation of this un-written rule and published after the new rule. They must be changed or archived, and claiming it has already been published means nothing. GS has already done away with 2 that I know of for sure that where published then forced to be changed or archived.

 

This one for starters.

 

(1.5/2)

 

21 Mar 08 Pirate's Treasure Chest (seed cache) by Hunster (GC1AD6B)

North Carolina

 

You are looking for a Pirate's Treasure Chest that was given to me by elf king at my 5K Event. It measures 2' wide x 3' long and 2' high. The Pirate's Treasure Chest contains about 150 micro jewel/cache containers of various sized medicine bottles and some 35mm containers. Take your pick but only remove one container per cacher! Feel free to camouflage your jewel however you choose. While this cache can provide temporary housing for travel bugs and Geocoins, I ask that you not leave any trade items in this cache. The purpose of the Pirate's Treasure Chest is simply to encourage you to get out there and hide a cache. YOU CAN RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THIS CACHE WITH OR WITHOUT HIDING A SEED.

 

Another fairly new one, GC1D0FC

 

(1.5/2)

 

6 Jun 08 Seed Cache by Robert and His Dad and MTBDUDE (GC1D0FC)

Wyoming

 

Please take a cache and start a new cache with that cache that you took. If you put a cache out that you took from our cache , if you would like please put our name or something like that on that cache so we know that you got this cache from us. We made this cache so you would put more caches out. Thank You.......

This is a seed cache. A seed cache is a cache where there are a lot of cache containers inside the larger cache. The caches already have a pencil and a log book. If you take a cache please leave another cache in its place. It does not have to be anything much just a small container with a log and maybe a pencil nothin much. If your confused just read the back of the log. Just tryin this out for the first time. Try not to leave too many items other than containers in the cache, we want this to be caches only.

 

 

Here are some more that need to be changed, and there is several more yet that I have not listed:

 

GC1210H

GC14K70

GC11J9X

GCZZRC

GC13P54

GC12CJC

GC17KJ4

 

GC16RFN

GC19KP0

 

Again if this is a rule, it must be fairly inforced. Not hand picked.

 

Don’t get me wrong here, I do not mind this un-written rule or its intension and have no problem following it. But others have been allowed to break this rule while it has been enforced on some. That is a problem that can and should be fixed. All caches from what ever date this rule was supposed to of been put in place, MUST be changed, archived or this rule delegated to make it fair to all. After all know one forces any one here to hunt a cache, Each of us chooses to go after or not to. No one is forcing any one here that I know of.

Edited by Clarkbowman

Share this post


Link to post

The following is a list of some of the caches I have been able to locate up to this point that are in violation of this un-written rule and published after the new rule. They must be changed or archived, and claiming it has already been published means nothing. GS has already done away with 2 that I know of for sure that where published then forced to be changed or archived.

 

Snipped for brevity. I realize your frustration, and the inconsistency. I can remember pointing out very recent (at the time) blatant "commercial content" caches, complete with corporate logos as background images, when that whole thing was blowing up. This is going to happen, with the volunteer reviewer system, as it currently exists. I guess you're going to be forced to suck it up, and drive on. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Let me start this post by saying that the reviewer here has just doing what she has been told to do by GS, so nothing is implied against her.

 

This is a cache listed then latter Archived, setting the beginning of a precedence to shut down or change active caches when they are found to be in violation of this new un-written rule. GC1BRC2

 

Well the above previously posted list has now been found and now needs to be delt with. They have started the wheels when the made me change mine after it was published and the archiving this one, GC1BRC2, well after being published. If they want to go back and force one they must be fair and take care of all. It is not on the volunteer reviewers at fault here. I would not want their job. They catch enough dirt. It seems that GS is enforcing this rule as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me start this post by saying that the reviewer here has just doing what she has been told to do by GS, so nothing is implied against her.

 

This is a cache listed then latter Archived, setting the beginning of a precedence to shut down or change active caches when they are found to be in violation of this new un-written rule. GC1BRC2

 

Well the above previously posted list has now been found and now needs to be delt with. They have started the wheels when the made me change mine after it was published and the archiving this one, GC1BRC2, well after being published. If they want to go back and force one they must be fair and take care of all. It is not on the volunteer reviewers at fault here. I would not want their job. They catch enough dirt. It seems that GS is enforcing this rule as they see fit.

 

Which guideline is being violated by these caches? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Which guideline is being violated by these caches? :laughing:

 

The Un-written, over a year old rule that applies to some but not all.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like sour grapes to me. Just remember the guideline that previous caches have no bearing on current placements and get over it.

Share this post


Link to post

I started peeking at some of the examples on the hit list posted above. After going through several, I did not see that any of them share the attribute of the OP's cache that was archived: they do not *require* someone to hide a cache in order to log a find. That ALR is not permitted. Do any of the caches on the list have that requirement? To the contrary, some say specifically that hiding a cache is NOT required -- that is the earmark of a cache that started off as a "mandatory hide" seed cache, but was modified after the reviewer explained the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.

 

Your reviewer missed this feature of your cache when she published it. She acknowledged her mistake and apologized. I am also sorry that you are so upset about what has happened.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like sour grapes to me. Just remember the guideline that previous caches have no bearing on current placements and get over it.

 

If they would have left published caches alone, I would agree with you, but they have not, They have picked some to force a change upon after publishing, while leaving others to go on as they wish.

Share this post


Link to post

I started peeking at some of the examples on the hit list posted above. After going through several, I did not see that any of them share the attribute of the OP's cache that was archived: they do not *require* someone to hide a cache in order to log a find. That ALR is not permitted. Do any of the caches on the list have that requirement? To the contrary, some say specifically that hiding a cache is NOT required -- that is the earmark of a cache that started off as a "mandatory hide" seed cache, but was modified after the reviewer explained the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.

 

Your reviewer missed this feature of your cache when she published it. She acknowledged her mistake and apologized. I am also sorry that you are so upset about what has happened.

 

Yes mine did start that way, and my reveiwer missed it. I worked with her and changed it to make it as a opption, not a requirement at all. And it was turned down by appeals at GS. All I was trying to do is reviltalize the area with some new caches, The whole placing mindless caches was brought in to it and so on. It does not take a cahe like this attempt to get folks placing mindless caches. I'm sure some of my hinds could have been thought of as that. I have sence archived many and I am trying to replace with better quaility ones.

Our area is loaded with tons of caches for any one visiting for several weeks to still pick and choose. But the locals here have few good hide locations left and the goal was to get more new caches so that we would have more in the local area to hunt.

Share this post


Link to post

With this rule in place, All One Degree of Separation caches placed in the past year also need to be taken off or changed. This project breaks this rule. The whole concept there is about pushing new caches to be placed.

There is also several others I have found doing just that. You can’t fairly allow some while you strike down others.

 

Hi,

 

The One Degree of Separation project was my brainchild. You are greatly mistaken on the "concept" and Groundspeak's guidelines. The concept was to link the entire geocaching continuum together. B)

 

I gave away 300 regular-large caches containing 12,500+ seed caches. There is a suggested naming and cache page template, but no hard and fast rule to hide new caches or even to hide the seeds within the project perameters to get credit for the original find. Well over 1,000 have been placed all over the world even though the official count is a little under 1,000.

 

My hidden agenda was for the project to reach 1,000 hides and without a doubt that has been realized officially or not. B) (Back, meet pat.)

 

My super secret hush-hush hidden agenda was to give the virtical smile to all the micro=LAME cache hating, seed cache hating, and crappy film can hating cachers who cry loudly and endlessly on the forums. :(:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

Caches within the project are still being approved and break no guideline written or unwritten. You don't HAVE to hide an O.D.S. cache to get credit for finding the O.D.S. cache you did or didn't take a seed from.

In fact, Phase 2 of O.D.S. is in the lab being refined by teams of O.D.S. scientists and a few stranded Greys (freaky chainsmoking aliens) that Vinny brought onboard who are working in shifts 24/7. Phase 1 sucessfully killed Santa Claus and Phase 2 has the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy clearly in its sights. The media blitz when Phase 2 launches will ensure my blatant self promotion machine will be well oiled for years to come. :anicute:

 

4d60b803-8e66-473f-996b-8f2468706d84.jpg

 

If you or ANYONE would like a FREE O.D.S. coin, You or ANYONE can send me a self addressed stamped envelope (with PROPER postage) and mention this thread, your user account, and maybe some small mention of any ODS caches you have encountered (if you want to) and I will send you that coin FREE of charge.

 

Send your S.A.S.E. to:

 

Mark aka Snoogans

C/O PRESS Your Luck!

P.O. Box 516

Missouri City, Texas 77459-0516

 

PS - I take no responsibility for SASE that do not have proper postage. Whatta ya expect fer nuthin'? A rubber biscuit? B):sad:

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.

 

Why can't Groundspeak share the guidelines with us?

 

I dislike forcing people to hide caches almost as much as I hate hidden guidelines that we're expected to follow.

 

Would the original poster be so upset right now if he'd read the guidelines and seen that this type of ALR isn't allowed?

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like sour grapes to me. Just remember the guideline that previous caches have no bearing on current placements and get over it.

 

If they would have left published caches alone, I would agree with you, but they have not, They have picked some to force a change upon after publishing, while leaving others to go on as they wish.

Yours slipped thru, was corrected and now you are on a hunt to find any other and make sure they are "corrected" too. That sounds like sour grapes to me. Put the same amount of energy into placing another cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe caches with additional logging requirements to hide another cache have been discouraged for awhile, and should not be confused with caches which simply contain other caches to hide voluntarily. (such as the ODS ones)

 

I'm not going to point to a specific cache, but lately I've seen two caches which have the requirement to place another cache nearby in order to count a find as a find.

 

Now I can understand the interest, nay, a need to seek out more caches, but forcing people to place a cache to log a cache?

 

I always hate to add new rules, but this should be discouraged. The short reason is because you're not encouraging people to place good caches, you're stressing quantity over quality.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.

 

Why can't Groundspeak share the guidelines with us?

 

I dislike forcing people to hide caches almost as much as I hate hidden guidelines that we're expected to follow.

 

Would the original poster be so upset right now if he'd read the guidelines and seen that this type of ALR isn't allowed?

Did I not read somewhere here in these forums, that the reviewer manual was very large? Are you sure you want to have a complete copy posted, and that you will check off "you have read and understood it"?

I bet there would be another 1000 threads a week posted, so some folks could argue about each and every word in it. In the end, would hiding and finding tuperware be any more fun?

Share this post


Link to post

This is just great, Snoogans has ruined it for everyone!! Kidding, I'm just kidding. See==> :laughing:

 

In 2003, I believe it was BigRedMed (if memory serves) who prophesied that I would destroy the "spirit" of geocaching (in the dark days before the discover option) by advocating counting coup on travel bugs. :laughing:

 

Knowing ME and upon hearing this news in 2005, CoastalFinds prophesied that I would indeed one day destroy geocaching. She didn't say how, but she seemed pretty certain. B)

 

Perhaps my micro proliferation projects and unseen minions who degrade cache contents to stock my world wide chain of dollar stores and broken McToy resale shops have finally broken the frog's back. It's alllll part of my plan to drive down Groundspeak's stock prices in readiness for my hostile takover. :anicute:

 

It was me folks. I DID IT! I'm just kidding. See==> :sad:

 

Personally, I've never stumbled upon a seed cache where the hiding of a seed was mandatory. So even a cache like an ODS, where hiding one of the containers is not mandatory has been outlawed? Could Moose Mob or Keystone address that?

 

beneath-the-planet-of-the-apes.jpg

 

Let's try to logic this before we bother the lawgivers.

 

Is hiding a cache, any cache, outlawed on this cache listing site? B)

 

This IS a cache listing site..... Right? B)

 

What difference does it make where the container came from? :(

 

Nope. Let 'em sleep. This this thread has plainly been promulgated from a failure to communicate or a failure to receive said communication. I honestly can't tell which. :laughing:

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind my last post.... Sorry OP.

 

Times have changed. We don't have the need to fill the area with more caches as they are typically plentiful and seed caches propagate more unmaintained or "lame" caches that they do quality thought out caches.

 

Even suggesting that everyone place a cache, although within the guidelines, can be viewed as undue influence on a cacher to do something that they are not ready to do.

 

:sad::(B):laughing:

 

Since you represent the frog here, may I just say again :laughing::anicute: ?

 

Are you saying that reviewers are now to determine what is and isn't lame as well as cache quality before publishing a cache and whether or not a cacher is fit to maintain it?

 

I don't envy your job if that is how things are going.

 

Please clarify. I can't be reading this right. Maybe it's all the cold medicine I'm taking. Seriously, I have a bad cold. :laughing:

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

***Voice of Ape Commander in "Planet of the Apes"***

 

"The only GOOD cache.....is a BIG PILE OF STICKS cache!"

 

***Huzzas and cheering from hundreds of minions!***

 

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Edited by chuckwagon101

Share this post


Link to post

__hr_URKO50.jpg

***Voice of Ape Commander in "Planet of the Apes"***

 

"The only GOOD cache.....is a BIG PILE OF STICKS cache!"

 

***Huzzas and cheering from hundreds of minions!***

 

OMG!

 

:laughing::laughing::anicute::sad::(

 

Okay, I just coughed up a piece of my lung trying to laugh..... :laughing: Ummm, OUCH! B)

 

BTW- His name is Urko.

Edited by Snoogans

Share this post


Link to post

I started peeking at some of the examples on the hit list posted above. After going through several, I did not see that any of them share the attribute of the OP's cache that was archived: they do not *require* someone to hide a cache in order to log a find. That ALR is not permitted. Do any of the caches on the list have that requirement? To the contrary, some say specifically that hiding a cache is NOT required -- that is the earmark of a cache that started off as a "mandatory hide" seed cache, but was modified after the reviewer explained the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.

 

Your reviewer missed this feature of your cache when she published it. She acknowledged her mistake and apologized. I am also sorry that you are so upset about what has happened.

 

That's all well and good, but what about the part where he removed the ALR and still couldn't get the cache published? That's a tad troubling.

 

I changed my cache after they un-listed ( yes I say un-listed because it was published, then deactivated) it the first time, to the no strings attached approach and was still told NO. The mere mention of placing another cache is not allowed. By deactivating my they have already set a precedence on shutting down any others with any wording implying hiding another cache.

 

And yes, our reviewer rocks. And nobody wants the full "reviewer handbook", just a clear list of what's not allowed, up front.

Edited by Castle Mischief

Share this post


Link to post

"I gave away 300 regular-large caches containing 12,500+ seed caches. There is a suggested naming and cache page template, but no hard and fast rule to hide new caches or even to hide the seeds within the project perameters to get credit for the original find. Well over 1,000 have been placed all over the world even though the official count is a little under 1,000"

 

OMG - That explains why I can never get any 35mm canisters from every Kmart, Walmart, Walgreens in the state... Thanks a lot Snoogans :laughing:

 

-HHH :laughing:

Edited by Headhardhat

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind my last post.... Sorry OP.

 

Times have changed. We don't have the need to fill the area with more caches as they are typically plentiful and seed caches propagate more unmaintained or "lame" caches that they do quality thought out caches.

 

Even suggesting that everyone place a cache, although within the guidelines, can be viewed as undue influence on a cacher to do something that they are not ready to do.

 

:anicute::sad::(:laughing:

 

Since you represent the frog here, may I just say again B):laughing: ?

 

Are you saying that reviewers are now to determine what is and isn't lame as well as cache quality before publishing a cache and whether or not a cacher is fit to maintain it?

 

I don't envy your job if that is how things are going.

 

Please clarify. I can't be reading this right. Maybe it's all the cold medicine I'm taking. Seriously, I have a bad cold. :laughing:

 

Several people have missed parts of this discussion, at first my cache did have it as a requirement, Then I changed it and still it was shoot down.

 

Here is some of what I was told. Please read carefully.

 

"I'm sure you mean this to be encouraging, but this tactic tends to backfire. We have found that the end result tends to be carelessly placed and haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.

There is no "proper" hide-to-find ratio in geocaching. Some people are ready to hide a cache after they have found four -- some are not ready or willing until they have found forty or four hundred. "Giving back" to the sport does not necessarily require hiding caches, although most people eventually do hide a cache. We have found that good things do not result by holding a find hostage until someone hides another cache. Some of those who find your cache may not only be unwilling to hide, but unable -- what about out-of-towners who find the cache on a trip? What about the disabled (I notice this is a 1-star-terrain cache and therefore handicap accessible)? What about the chronically overworked and busy person who occasionally geocaches, but has no desire to hide a cache? Shouldn't caches be placed by those who are eager to do it? Don't you want to seek out caches placed by people who enjoy it and not those who are under duress to place a cache?

 

I know this is probably more than you ever wanted to read, but I wanted you to understand my position (and Groundspeak's instructions) as fully as I can explain them.

 

You may invite people to hide a cache; you may strongly suggest it; you may even encrypt their log if they don't; but you may not REQUIRE the placement of another cache in order to log yours.

 

Remember that geocaching is an evolving sport. You may have seen (or even found) other caches with this requirement. However, the guidelines state, "there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is."

 

 

A couple of key points here;

1. If this would have been a written rule, (not one they pick and choose to enforce) I would not even be here.

2. I changed initial cache and made it voluntary to hide another. (It was then still shoot down)

3. I as told that this leads to "haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.” This was not me saying this.

4 I was also told that “If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.”

So I will do just this, Seeing as mine was killed even after I changed it for suggesting some one to place a cache, I will hunt down any that perpetuate this un written rule until something is done about it. Soogaans, I hate it for your ODS cache idea. It was a great idea, and any cache placed before this new rule can stand and be hunted, BUT any cache placed now that mention it in the description ( even one to promote ODS) or anything about placing,

"haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.” Are illegal, the rules apply to all new caches not some. Only the one placed before “prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is." New caches are just that and can not promote this or any agenda.

 

In Short GS has set a precedence already by forcing a change or archiving, already published caches with a rule that no one other then themselves has seen. This leaves only 2 choices,

1. It means that any and all caches, since this rule was put in place, that suggest a cache be placed will have to be changed or archived. No exceptions.

2. Continue to allow caches that only suggests hiding a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind my last post.... Sorry OP.

 

Times have changed. We don't have the need to fill the area with more caches as they are typically plentiful and seed caches propagate more unmaintained or "lame" caches that they do quality thought out caches.

 

Even suggesting that everyone place a cache, although within the guidelines, can be viewed as undue influence on a cacher to do something that they are not ready to do.

 

:anicute::sad::(:laughing:

 

Since you represent the frog here, may I just say again B):laughing: ?

 

Are you saying that reviewers are now to determine what is and isn't lame as well as cache quality before publishing a cache and whether or not a cacher is fit to maintain it?

 

I don't envy your job if that is how things are going.

 

Please clarify. I can't be reading this right. Maybe it's all the cold medicine I'm taking. Seriously, I have a bad cold. :laughing:

 

Several people have missed parts of this discussion, at first my cache did have it as a requirement, Then I changed it and still it was shoot down.

 

Here is some of what I was told. Please read carefully.

 

"I'm sure you mean this to be encouraging, but this tactic tends to backfire. We have found that the end result tends to be carelessly placed and haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.

There is no "proper" hide-to-find ratio in geocaching. Some people are ready to hide a cache after they have found four -- some are not ready or willing until they have found forty or four hundred. "Giving back" to the sport does not necessarily require hiding caches, although most people eventually do hide a cache. We have found that good things do not result by holding a find hostage until someone hides another cache. Some of those who find your cache may not only be unwilling to hide, but unable -- what about out-of-towners who find the cache on a trip? What about the disabled (I notice this is a 1-star-terrain cache and therefore handicap accessible)? What about the chronically overworked and busy person who occasionally geocaches, but has no desire to hide a cache? Shouldn't caches be placed by those who are eager to do it? Don't you want to seek out caches placed by people who enjoy it and not those who are under duress to place a cache?

 

I know this is probably more than you ever wanted to read, but I wanted you to understand my position (and Groundspeak's instructions) as fully as I can explain them.

 

You may invite people to hide a cache; you may strongly suggest it; you may even encrypt their log if they don't; but you may not REQUIRE the placement of another cache in order to log yours.

 

Remember that geocaching is an evolving sport. You may have seen (or even found) other caches with this requirement. However, the guidelines state, "there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is."

 

 

A couple of key points here;

1. If this would have been a written rule, (not one they pick and choose to enforce) I would not even be here.

2. I changed initial cache and made it voluntary to hide another. (It was then still shoot down)

3. I as told that this leads to "haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.” This was not me saying this.

4 I was also told that “If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.”

So I will do just this, Seeing as mine was killed even after I changed it for suggesting some one to place a cache, I will hunt down any that perpetuate this un written rule until something is done about it. Soogaans, I hate it for your ODS cache idea. It was a great idea, and any cache placed before this new rule can stand and be hunted, BUT any cache placed now that mention it in the description ( even one to promote ODS) or anything about placing,

"haphazardly maintained caches, not the high quality caches that you want to encourage.” Are illegal, the rules apply to all new caches not some. Only the one placed before “prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is." New caches are just that and can not promote this or any agenda.

 

In Short GS has set a precedence already by forcing a change or archiving, already published caches with a rule that no one other then themselves has seen. This leaves only 2 choices,

1. It means that any and all caches, since this rule was put in place, that suggest a cache be placed will have to be changed or archived. No exceptions.

2. Continue to allow caches that only suggests hiding a cache.

 

You got me lost, Man! All these "he said"....."then I said"......"they did this"....."why does Leroy get to do it?"....etc. etc.

 

Here is some great advice! Put a PERIOD and MOVE ON! B)

 

You will probably appreciate a great peace of mind when you do it!

 

Think......Henry David Thoreau! B) Think "Walden"! :)

 

Best of luck to you! :)

Share this post


Link to post

You may invite people to hide a cache; you may strongly suggest it; you may even encrypt their log if they don't; but you may not REQUIRE the placement of another cache in order to log yours.

 

I changed initial cache and made it voluntary to hide another. (It was then still shoot down)...

Seeing as mine was killed even after I changed it for suggesting some one to place a cache, I will hunt down any that perpetuate this un written rule until something is done about it.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the quoted advice from your cache reviewer vs. what you say you were told. The quoted advice clearly says that you can have a cache page that "invites" or "suggests" that finders hide a cache. This matches my understanding.

 

Where, exactly, is the rewritten cache page and the advice that it wasn't acceptable?

 

I don't plan on archiving any of the "voluntary" non-ALR seed caches I've published in the past year, nor any of the seeds that have been planted or are planted in the future from any seed cache, regardless of whether it's a grandfathered "mandatory hide" seed cache, or a voluntary seed cache. I am sure that my benevolent Frog Masters will correct me if I'm misunderstanding this little corner of my job.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post
That rule has been in effect for over a year. I prefere to hide caches when i'm ready, and I especially dislike hiding crappy micro seeds.
It did? Where is that in the guidelines?
I'm still trying to figure out which guideline this cache is violating? :laughing:
Which guideline is being violated by these caches? :laughing:
the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.
Why can't Groundspeak share the guidelines with us?

 

I dislike forcing people to hide caches almost as much as I hate hidden guidelines that we're expected to follow.

 

Would the original poster be so upset right now if he'd read the guidelines and seen that this type of ALR isn't allowed?

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Some time ago, enforcement of the 'agenda' part of the guidelines was made a bit more rigorous. There have been several threads regarding this.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

 

There is a fundamental disconnect between the quoted advice from your cache reviewer vs. what you say you were told. The quoted advice clearly says that you can have a cache page that "invites" or "suggests" that finders hide a cache. This matches my understanding.

 

Where, exactly, is the rewritten cache page and the advice that it wasn't acceptable?

 

I don't plan on archiving any of the "voluntary" non-ALR seed caches I've published in the past year, nor any of the seeds that have been planted or are planted in the future from any seed cache, regardless of whether it's a grandfathered "mandatory hide" seed cache, or a voluntary seed cache. I am sure that my benevolent Frog Masters will correct me if I'm misunderstanding this little corner of my job.

 

This I know there is, But yet I was told by appeals to change it. So I did.

What I will do is go and change my cahce page around to do what I wanted to begin with, Get folks to hide more caches. Every one here keeps saying that the suggestion of placing a cache is still leagel, so I will do just that. Sugest.

Untill GS Forces all that do the same from the time this un-written rule has been put in place, they will have to let mine stand. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
... Untill GS Forces all that do the same from the time this un-written rule has been put in place, they will have to let mine stand. End of story.
Thanks for the laugh.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×