Jump to content

Mystery ALR's


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I had the idea of plantin' some new hides, & running a couple experiments with 'em.

But first, looking for opinions.

 

Caches will be '?' or Mystery caches. No actual puzzle(s) - the caches are located at published coordinates, and the ALR would only be learned once you're there & read it/them on the Logbook cover.

 

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

And a final, related question:

3- Considering many folks filter out ALL '?' caches....do you think Puzzle (does it really need defining here?) caches should be broken out from 'Mystery' caches like this, where only the unknown ALR keeps it from being a Traditional?

 

More's involved, but that'll do for now.

Thx!

~*

Link to comment

I had the idea of plantin' some new hides, & running a couple experiments with 'em.

But first, looking for opinions.

 

Caches will be '?' or Mystery caches. No actual puzzle(s) - the caches are located at published coordinates, and the ALR would only be learned once you're there & read it/them on the Logbook cover.

 

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

And a final, related question:

3- Considering many folks filter out ALL '?' caches....do you think Puzzle (does it really need defining here?) caches should be broken out from 'Mystery' caches like this, where only the unknown ALR keeps it from being a Traditional?

 

More's involved, but that'll do for now.

Thx!

~*

 

#1 is a definite ignore list qualifier. what is 1b? is it part of 1? I have no problem with ? caches.

 

Jim

Link to comment

I had the idea of plantin' some new hides, & running a couple experiments with 'em.

But first, looking for opinions.

 

Caches will be '?' or Mystery caches. No actual puzzle(s) - the caches are located at published coordinates, and the ALR would only be learned once you're there & read it/them on the Logbook cover.

 

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

And a final, related question:

3- Considering many folks filter out ALL '?' caches....do you think Puzzle (does it really need defining here?) caches should be broken out from 'Mystery' caches like this, where only the unknown ALR keeps it from being a Traditional?

 

More's involved, but that'll do for now.

Thx!

~*

 

#1 is a definite ignore list qualifier. what is 1b? is it part of 1? I have no problem with ? caches.

 

Jim

 

If you only learn about the mandatory trading requirement after finding the logbook you can't very well ignore the cache.

 

There are a lot of people that don't trade trinkets and would probably be a bit annoyed to find a cache, only to discover that they can't log it because there were not carrying any swag. You'd probably get a lot of "took nickel, left 5 pennies" logs.

Link to comment

I had the idea of plantin' some new hides, & running a couple experiments with 'em.

But first, looking for opinions.

 

Caches will be '?' or Mystery caches. No actual puzzle(s) - the caches are located at published coordinates, and the ALR would only be learned once you're there & read it/them on the Logbook cover.

 

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

And a final, related question:

3- Considering many folks filter out ALL '?' caches....do you think Puzzle (does it really need defining here?) caches should be broken out from 'Mystery' caches like this, where only the unknown ALR keeps it from being a Traditional?

 

More's involved, but that'll do for now.

Thx!

~*

The bolded requirement would immediately put these caches on my Ignore list.

 

If you don't tell me what the ALR is in the cache page, I'm going to assume it is going to be something I'm not going to want or be able to do.

Link to comment

If your cache page said, "there's an additional logging requirement, it's written in the logbook", I'd ignore the cache.

If your cache page said, "there's an additional logging requirement, and it is:

1) Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

2)Logging trades in cache log also required

3) Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

 

or some other requirement, I might hunt it. None of those requirements would deter me.

 

Why would you want to "hide" the ALR? I think it makes the cache hugely LESS attractive.

On the other hand, it attracts you, and it may attract others. I rather like the unknown in caching, but I prefer that in the form of a multi-cache. To each his own, I guess.

 

Break out ALR as their own category. yes, and no.

Yes, because they really are a category unto themselves, and

No, because I think that having a category would drive the creation of even more of them. Most of them aren't fun. They add nothing good to the caching experience.

Link to comment

If the cache page said I had to trade I would do it. If you make it so you have to find the cache to find out you had to bring something to trade, a lot of people will:

1a. Lie

1b. Leave something handy, such as a penny, twig, pebble, etc, in trade.

 

I think I am like most people in that I try to play this game by the simple rules. If you make it to complex to play I'll stay away from your cache.

Link to comment
They add nothing good to the caching experience.

I agree with this, with the qualifier of "usually". On rare occassion, an ALR adds a funny twist to an otherwise uneventful hide.

(rub blue mud in your navel / stand on your head while whistling Yankee Doodle / Use the included camera to take a picture of a funny face / etc)

I think ALRs should have a seperate designation, however I rue the day when, (if?) Groundspeak creates one, as I believe folks will go out in droves to create some, just for the shiny new icon.

Link to comment

I don't read the description on most caches unless I need to so how would I know to trade. I received a log deletion recently from one and read the page. They had put a trade requirement. If I had known that I would have made one up. Just like I would do on yours. IMHO it should be an ALR which would force people to read the description not a traditional. I don't see any need to start creating subset's. It is either an ALR or it isn't.

Link to comment

I had the idea of plantin' some new hides, & running a couple experiments with 'em.

But first, looking for opinions.

 

Caches will be '?' or Mystery caches. No actual puzzle(s) - the caches are located at published coordinates, and the ALR would only be learned once you're there & read it/them on the Logbook cover.

Yes, that is how the vast majority of ALR caches are handled. No problems there!

 

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

Not a problem at all! In fact, these ALR requirements are very lenient and mild compared to the requirements for many existing ALRs.

 

And a final, related question:

3- Considering many folks filter out ALL '?' caches....do you think Puzzle (does it really need defining here?) caches should be broken out from 'Mystery' caches like this, where only the unknown ALR keeps it from being a Traditional?

 

More's involved, but that'll do for now.

Thx!

~*

Although it might be marginally useful to have ALRs broken out into their own separate type, they REALLY are a type of mystery cache, and so I see no problem with leaving them in the current ? category. Besides, the same people -- such as paperless numbers-seekers who want only P&Gs -- who tend to avoid traditional mystery caches, would also avoid ALRs as well, even if they were broken out into their own separate category.

 

Oh, and since some posters in this thread have used the thread as an excuse to vent about ALRs, I will say here, once again, that I usually enjoy well-done ALRs, and I have, at times, traveled long distances just to log some really good ALRs.

Link to comment

Multi-responding:

 

"...what is 1b? is it part of 1?"

Yes, as inferred at the end of 1a by the word "or"

 

"If you don't tell me what the ALR is in the cache page, I'm going to assume it is going to be something I'm not going to want or be able to do."

Hence the word, "MYSTERY". Assume what you will.....& maybe your loss.

 

"If you only learn about the mandatory trading requirement after finding the logbook you can't very well ignore the cache."

EXACTLY!

 

"...You'd probably get a lot of "took nickel, left 5 pennies" logs."

Which would be fine. I believe if recording a find is, e.g. 'important' to you, you can come up with SOMETHING to trade! Even if it is just a nearby acorn. *

 

Part of the experiment (statistical) would be to 'hint' on some, or even tell outright, that trades are expected. Then see what people actually do once at the cache. (Hope telling it here isn't much of a spoiler!)

 

*Ever had an employee (&c) who does just the very absolute minimum to get by, & nothing more? Never seeks to excel? Sometimes I like to present covert opportunities, to see how they'll react....then let them later discover they'd have been much better off had they expended some extra effort. Think of the reasoning BEHIND "trade up or even". Want the world to know YOU are a spoilsport? :rolleyes:

 

"Why would you want to "hide" the ALR? I think it makes the cache hugely LESS attractive.

On the other hand, it attracts you, and it may attract others. I rather like the unknown in caching, but I prefer that in the form of a multi-cache. To each his own, I guess. "

 

It's my intent for these to be fun things....with little or no difficulty factor. If they don't attract some folks....fine -- life's that way! But - "nothing ventured, nothing gained" - ever heard that? And if you'll think 'big picture', hopefully the first few brave spirits' logs will help get the word out about it being a positive experience. I don't see these as 'torture mechanisms'.....I save those for my 'evil' hides. :lol:

 

"On rare occassion, an ALR adds a funny twist to an otherwise uneventful hide."

And BINGO! Only, I'd say 'fun', not necessarily just 'funny'.

Look, there's only SO many "scenic", "great view", "historically significant", [yada-yada-yada] sites you can send folks to - they ARE finite. ESPECIALLY around a small community like mine!! On top of that....the way Geocaching's grown, nearly every one of those "good reasons" places have caches placed already, ie, 'taken', and far too many have absolutely LAME caches & you can do nothing to improve them (when they belong to others). At LEAST if I'm gonna bring folks to some nondescript, not terribly exciting location, I can try to provide them some entertainment, or at least a memorable experience.

 

But bottom line ie, e.g. once locals (especially) or passers-thru have visited the 4-6 "decent" cache sites around town....what are we to do, stop playing? Spend exhorbitant amounts on gas money to continue playing? I've still got paint but, you see the picture - I hope!?

 

"I don't read the description on most caches unless I need to so..."

Then aren't you setting up your own disappointment by your own actions? Some don't see the need to use tools available to them -- some never read assembly instructions nor user manuals. That's fine, play as you will.....but don't blame me when you fail. See how that works?

 

"If I had known that I would have made one up. Just like I would do on yours. IMHO it should be an ALR which would force people to read the description not a traditional. I don't see any need to start creating subset's. It is either an ALR or it isn't."

The spelling's good....but coherency-wise, I don't follow the logic here. You MUST've missed something in the original reading?

 

You're pre-warning me that you'd 'fake' a trade? And if I, thru the logic of the inventory vs trades, catch you, I'd bet you wouldn't expect me to delete your log as non-conforming or 'faked', and would be PO'd when I did -- am I right?

 

Again, with a mystery, assume some risk. Life isn't always about short-cuts, they don't always provide the best rewards. Nor get you where you really wanted to go. But if you walk into a room full of nuts & bolts with nothing but a screwdriver....keep your expectations low.

 

~*

Link to comment

Oh...sorry Vinny - you posted while I was away composing.

 

No....what I'm talking about re 'splitting' the "?" category up is,

'Puzzle' as in, having to solve riddles/problems/questions &c to derive the cache's location coordinates,

~vs~

'Mystery' - an unknown element which keeps it from being in regular 'Traditional' category, e.g. ALRs to be fulfilled (for one). Or more closely to subject - NOT a puzzle of any sort used to locate the cache.

 

(Guess it DID need defining.) :rolleyes:

~*

Link to comment

The fact that you want to keep the ALR hidden would deter me from seeking your cache. You say that it is my loss, but I'll take that risk (unless your cache is at a spectacularly beautiful location and I don't care if I get the smiley or not). Please consider that it may be your loss as well, by turning away many cachers who feel as I do. While these particular ALRs are not too burdensome, there are some ALRs that really are uncomfortable for many of us. Given a choice of caches to visit, I will select others (including traditional puzzle caches) before yours.

 

You also may want to consider how you would react to a 25-word log entry that explains in detail why the cacher did not enjoy visiting your cache. Would you be okay with that?

 

I do thank you for laying out the "rest" of your vision. It sounds like you are predicting an "end to geocaching as we know it" because beautiful locations are finite, and there must be a reason to bring people to "nondescript, not terribly exciting locations." Goodness, I hope not.

 

Bean

Link to comment

 

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

 

 

Looks like you and I have similar agendas. Here is one of mine that seems quite well received called "Picnic Pool Trade Experiment". It tries to force a trade, and so far all have traded, and traded up or even.

When making a trade mandatory to log a find, the reviewers felt that it was causing a "Pay to play" scenario and was not allowed. I felt that was fair, because with time the items in the cache are becoming quite valuable. So I allowed a "no trade" option.

Link to comment

Would it be considered unseemly or untoward to incorporate any of the following ALR's, singly or in concert?

1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log.

1a- Logging trades in cache log also required, or

1b- is optional (for time's sake w/runs, etc.)

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

 

I rarely read cache descriptions so would you delete my log if I found the cache but did not read all the requirements??

 

Also, a requirement for a 25 word log is silly. I would likely be irritated and post "Found it" over and over again.

Link to comment

You would be missing out on a lot of interesting stuff in my part of the world. Cache listings here are full of fascinating information on History, nature (threatened species, environmental impact), culture, technology...etc. Most people here really appreciate informative cache listings.

Your loss I suppose.....

Link to comment

I never carry any swag, so I'd be a bit peeved to get to a cache and find that trades are required. You'd get a log from me saying something like "took Persian rug, left grand piano" so if you'd be happy with that log, have a ball placing your cache.

 

The 25 word part is fine. Words are cheap, plentiful, and I always have some with me. As long as you don't mind a few 4-letter words muttered under my breath, we'll both be happy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

"I rarely read cache descriptions so would you delete my log if I found the cache but did not read all the requirements??"

1- Did you meet the cache's logging requirements? If no, then yes. PERIOD.

 

"Also, a requirement for a 25 word log is silly. I would likely be irritated and post "Found it" over and over again."

2- Fine. If, in the spirit of the game and the fun the cache tries to bring, someone wants to leave a written record showing what a jerk they are, I won't stop 'em! (That's 33 words, by the way - and only one 'u'.)

 

~*

Link to comment

What I would prefer is some sort of division, seperating puzzle caches from ALRs.

I recognize Groundspeak's logic in diverting ALRs to the "?" cache type, however I think they could do better.

I'm kind of an ol' fogey, and when I see a "?", I think there's some kind of puzzle to solve, either on site or prior to the hunt.

ALRs just feel different to me. They don't seem like they should have a "?" by them. :)

Maybe something else? An open book icon to indicate I need to read the cache page? :P

Heck, I dunno...

Link to comment

...1- Swag trade required - and traded items (left and taken) MUST be logged on online log....

 

I did one of these way back. I didn't care if they traded up or down, pocket lint, or cracker crumbs. They just needed to trade.

 

Naturally one cacher took a photo of the cache and didn't trade. They logged the find, I emailed and said they need a trade or I'd have to delete the find. They sent me the photo's proving the find and I said "nope you need a trade" and deleted their find. They threatened to adjust my attitude for me and logged again. I deleted again. This was the first of several ALR's that I tried out that were less fun than dental work. Ultimatly I learned that it's easiest to remember how lab rats do their best work. "Press the lever, get the reward works" "Get the reward, then press the lever" doesn't.

 

Thus ALR's are a PITA but AEF's (Additinal Effort to Find) may get less finds but do get more cooperation from those who do.

 

Some trivial ALR's most folks would comply with. Things like "your log has to rhyme" ...maybe.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

You would be missing out on a lot of interesting stuff in my part of the world. Cache listings here are full of fascinating information on History, nature (threatened species, environmental impact), culture, technology...etc. Most people here really appreciate informative cache listings.

Your loss I suppose.....

sounds interesting to me.

Link to comment

What I would prefer is some sort of division, seperating puzzle caches from ALRs.

I recognize Groundspeak's logic in diverting ALRs to the "?" cache type, however I think they could do better.

...ALRs just feel different to me. They don't seem like they should have a "?" by them. :)

...

agreed.

 

I'd prefer the '?' stay with the 'Unknown' category, for the 'Mystery' connotation; & they break out the true puzzle caches, & maybe use one of those li'l jigsaw pieces, like Jigsaw_Puzzle_2_Mix_icon01.gif or sump'n. Heck, that's just an icon selection, & no big brains needed to do that.

The real bugaboo is about changing all those already published -- I wish they'd done it long ago.

~*

Link to comment

I can understand why people want to encourage trade even or trade up. I cannot understand why anyone would care if someone does not trade at all, just signs the log book.

 

I seldom trade, and would be a little irritated if someone wanted me to put a trinket into a cache, just to take out a trinket I didn't want.

 

When I do trade out I always try to make it a trade up. (sometimes you are not sure what something is worth, so you guess.) I have often left something in a cache that was getting low on trades, without taking anything out of it, But if you are bothered when I don't trade at all, I think you are being a little silly. :P:)

Link to comment

2- Online log MUST be 25 words or more.

If you want 25 word logs, PUT OUT A CACHE THAT PEOPLE WILL WANT TO WRITE ABOUT. Put a really well done cache in an interesting place, and the logs will come. Trying to force it, is really lame. icon_no.gif

I agree about #2. I don't really like #1 but I would do it. I have always wished that puzzles were split from ALRs. To me they are totally different flavors.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...