Penny for your thoughts...

[+Chrysalides]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

I'm pretty sure that 'seppuka' was what he meant.

Actually, it is "seppuku". And StumpWater must now consider that for having failed in spelling

[+BlueDeuce]

 

It doesn't work. Here a recent find on my cache that's a good 15 minute walk.

 

OK, I'll log it. My idea was to save it for another day, my stomach said it was time to get to the ABC for dinner. "B" and "M" went without me. Of course I couldn't eat until they were ready to go. They never listen to me. SL TFTC

 

Yep - that's a deletin'.

~*

They stated that they signed the log. Why would you delete their 'found it'? If I cared about challenging them, I'd trudge out to my cache and see if their name was on the log. If it wasn't, I'd send them a "What's up?" email.

 

Actually they sat in the car while the other two found the cache.

 

What I plan to do about it is absolutely nothing.

 

My point was that even 'not easy' caches aren't immune to carseat logging.

Edited April 3, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

Now this is the sad part.

 

And I am not making this up.

 

Just got back from lunch and this was just posted by another finder on the very same cache.

 

"What a grand adventure - the walk, the bridge, the climb . A true classic and one we will not forget. TNLN /TFTC"

 

I guess that's what you miss when you wait back at the car.

(Yes, this cache is typically well received)

Edited April 3, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Castle Mischief]

Now this is the sad part.

 

And I am not making this up.

 

Just got back from lunch and this was just posted by another finder on the very same cache.

 

"What a grand adventure - the walk, the bridge, the climb . A true classic and one we will not forget. TNLN /TFTC"

 

I guess that's what you miss when you wait back at the car.

(Yes, this cache is typically well received)

 

I'm confused. What did the person that made that log miss? Are you speculating that they didn't actually make the find based on the log? I don't understand.

[+BlueDeuce]

eh, nevermind. Sorry I brought it up.

[+Castle Mischief]

eh, nevermind. Sorry I brought it up.

 

Oh, I think you were referring to what the previous pseudo-finders missed that was mentioned by the most recent finder. Sorry, I just kind of fogged over for a second there.

[+wimseyguy]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

 

From the phrasing of the OP ** using the term, I'm pretty sure that means seppuku:("stomach-cutting"). And since we're translating from a foreign language with a different alphabet, the alteration of a vowel isn't unusual.

Seppuku: A a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai. Part of the samurai honor code, seppuku was used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies, as a form of capital punishment for samurai who have committed serious offenses, and for reasons that shamed them. Seppuku is performed by plunging a sword into the abdomen and moving the sword left to right in a slicing motion.

 

and not sepulcher: 1. A burial vault. 2. A receptacle for sacred relics, especially in an altar.

 

**

Seppuka. For you. Your caches are not worthy of their combined attention. You have failed.

[+KBI]

Now this is the sad part.

 

And I am not making this up.

 

Just got back from lunch and this was just posted by another finder on the very same cache.

 

"What a grand adventure - the walk, the bridge, the climb . A true classic and one we will not forget. TNLN /TFTC"

 

I guess that's what you miss when you wait back at the car.

(Yes, this cache is typically well received)

If you are saying, as you seem to be, that log-cheaters are only cheating themselves out of a good time when they log a find on a cache they didn’t actually experience for themselves, then I agree with you 100%. It is very sad indeed. It is their choice, of course, but nevertheless a pitiable thing to observe to those of us who know what they’re missing.

 

If, however, you are claiming that log-cheaters are somehow cheating, injuring, hurting, or harming others when they log a find on a cache they didn’t actually experience (and I DON’T think that’s what you’re saying), then I must DISagree 100% – because they are, in fact, ONLY cheating themselves.

[+KBI]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

 

From the phrasing of the OP ** using the term, I'm pretty sure that means seppuku:("stomach-cutting"). And since we're translating from a foreign language with a different alphabet, the alteration of a vowel isn't unusual.

Seppuku: A a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai. Part of the samurai honor code, seppuku was used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies, as a form of capital punishment for samurai who have committed serious offenses, and for reasons that shamed them. Seppuku is performed by plunging a sword into the abdomen and moving the sword left to right in a slicing motion.

 

and not sepulcher: 1. A burial vault. 2. A receptacle for sacred relics, especially in an altar.

 

**

Seppuka. For you. Your caches are not worthy of their combined attention. You have failed.

No, no, no, NO!! It's not a "light bulb." The proper term is "lamp."

 

How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?

 

* 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

 

* 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

 

* 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

 

* 1 to move it to the Lighting section

 

* 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section

 

* 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

 

* 5 to flame the spell checkers

 

* 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames

 

* 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid

 

* 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

 

* 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

 

* 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

 

* 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum

 

* 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

 

* 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

 

* 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

 

* 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

 

* 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

 

* 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

 

* 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

 

* 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

 

* 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

[+Sol seaker]

So my question here as a new cacher, then if 5 people in a car nearby is not OK, then how about two at the cache site? my friend and I often cache together, it's much more fun that way. most of them we actually do solve together. Most we could not find by ourselves but in the joint effort find together (I can list many examples). But some of them it is either him or I that clearly find it. With the other person right next to the other looking for it too, can they not log it then? I was led to believe by those who showed me the game, that if two are present it's OK to log it. Is this not right? Then since I just saw it being found, and know where it is, can I never log it then?

so then if this is indeed ok, then where do you draw the line? Three people not ok? Two people more than 20 ft away if they are not looking for it?

And where does the "this is just a game who really cares that much" come into play?

SS

[+sbell111]

So my question here as a new cacher, then if 5 people in a car nearby is not OK, then how about two at the cache site? my friend and I often cache together, it's much more fun that way. most of them we actually do solve together. Most we could not find by ourselves but in the joint effort find together (I can list many examples). But some of them it is either him or I that clearly find it. With the other person right next to the other looking for it too, can they not log it then? I was led to believe by those who showed me the game, that if two are present it's OK to log it. Is this not right? Then since I just saw it being found, and know where it is, can I never log it then?

so then if this is indeed ok, then where do you draw the line? Three people not ok? Two people more than 20 ft away if they are not looking for it?

And where does the "this is just a game who really cares that much" come into play?

SS

You guys are doing it right. Don't let some sour pussing lead you astray.

[+BlueDeuce]

If you are saying, as you seem to be, that log-cheaters are only cheating themselves out of a good time when they log a find on a cache they didn’t actually experience for themselves, then I agree with you 100%.

 

Bingo.

[+tozainamboku]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

I'm pretty sure that 'seppuka' was what he meant.

He probably meant seppuku, but then people call me tozainambuko.

 

Yep, hiding a cache that requires some effort to get to doesn't mean everyone in the group will actually physically sign the log. Seems sill to have everyone climb the tree to get to the cache. Just send one person up to get the cache and put in a sticker with the team name.

 

I can see individuals who personally want a stricter standard, but it seems silly to require it when a group finds your cache. This is a group that is going out and having fun together and that is the point of geocaching.

 

I think we wouldn't have these issues if they got rid of found/did not logs. Just log your experience. Have a checkbox which is hidden from the cache owner and everyone else that says "Ignore this cache from future searches" It would work for both caches you've aleady found and ones you are simply ignoring because you are never going to search for this one again. The "find" count would go away. Perhaps it could be replace by a "number of logs" count. Since a DNF would count as much as find you might get more people logging DNFs.

[+Star*Hopper]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

 

From the phrasing of the OP ** using the term, I'm pretty sure that means seppuku:("stomach-cutting"). And since we're translating from a foreign language with a different alphabet, the alteration of a vowel isn't unusual.

Seppuku: A a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai. Part of the samurai honor code, seppuku was used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies, as a form of capital punishment for samurai who have committed serious offenses, and for reasons that shamed them. Seppuku is performed by plunging a sword into the abdomen and moving the sword left to right in a slicing motion.

 

and not sepulcher: 1. A burial vault. 2. A receptacle for sacred relics, especially in an altar.

 

**

Seppuka. For you. Your caches are not worthy of their combined attention. You have failed.

No, no, no, NO!! It's not a "light bulb." The proper term is "lamp."

 

How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?

 

* 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

 

* 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

 

* 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

 

* 1 to move it to the Lighting section

 

* 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section

 

* 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

 

* 5 to flame the spell checkers

 

* 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames

 

* 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid

 

* 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

 

* 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

 

* 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

 

* 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum

 

* 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

 

* 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

 

* 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

 

* 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

 

* 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

 

* 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

 

* 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

 

* 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

 

* 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

 

Add:

* And 1 who questioned (knowing something of the poster's ability vis-a-vis spelling) if the intended word was perhaps 'sepulcher', the transitive verb meaning "To place into a sepulcher; inter", ie, a suggestion to just bury it - a valid, even if misspelled retort.

 

Now, if there's no further of my usage & interpretation of the English language you'd like to correct, Mr sbell, shall we return to the topic?

Thank you.

~*

[+Kit Fox]

 

Yep, hiding a cache that requires some effort to get to doesn't mean everyone in the group will actually physically sign the log. Seems sill to have everyone climb the tree to get to the cache. Just send one person up to get the cache and put in a sticker with the team name.

 

I can see individuals who personally want a stricter standard, but it seems silly to require it when a group finds your cache. This is a group that is going out and having fun together and that is the point of geocaching.

 

I think we wouldn't have these issues if they got rid of found/did not logs. Just log your experience. Have a checkbox which is hidden from the cache owner and everyone else that says "Ignore this cache from future searches" It would work for both caches you've aleady found and ones you are simply ignoring because you are never going to search for this one again. The "find" count would go away. Perhaps it could be replace by a "number of logs" count. Since a DNF would count as much as find you might get more people logging DNFs.

 

So people who stand around at the bottom of trees should get to log a 5 star terrain cache, because they saw someone else find the cache, and sign the log. Sounds like a hand-out rather than a cache find. I saw Mt. Everest in Google Earth, do I get to log a find?

[+KBI]

So people who stand around at the bottom of trees should get to log a 5 star terrain cache, because they saw someone else find the cache, and sign the log. Sounds like a hand-out rather than a cache find.

A hand out ... as in money? Do cachers make money off their smileys? Where is my check?

 

Seriously, why do you care?

 

Jane climbs a difficult tree, retrieves the cache container, and stays perched on the branch after lowering the container down to Bob via a rope. Bob signs for both of them. She thanks Bob for signing her name and hauls the cache back up. She replaces the cache and climbs down. Result: Two cachers enjoy logging the cache, and the owner (and subsequent finders) enjoy reading the logs. Everybody has a good time.

 

Ultimately, then, this is the very same outcome as if Jane had simply signed both names while still in the tree, saving a step – after Bob promises to swap places at the next five star climb-a-tree cache, of course. Same result: Two cachers enjoy logging the cache, and the owner (and subsequent finders) enjoy reading the logs. Everybody has a good time.

 

Do you see a difference? Do either of these scenarios actually bother you? Or maybe both? If so, why?

 

Why the outrage? Where is the harm?

 

(Or maybe you actually enjoy it, because it gives you someone to wag your Index Finger of Superiority at.)

 

I saw Mt. Everest in Google Earth, do I get to log a find?

If you’re asking whether I would personally be troubled if you were to log a cache find that way, the answer is no. Get crazy with it and the sheer clutter of your activity might get Groundspeak’s attention, but it wouldn’t bother me at all.

 

I also don’t care whether you "solve" your crosswords by peeking at the solutions.

 

Have fun.

[+StarBrand]

I suppose this post puts some definition into this topic.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218388

 

Particularly this new clause from the guidelines....

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

[+Star*Hopper]

I suppose this post puts some definition into this topic.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218388

 

Particularly this new clause from the guidelines....

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

Y-y-y-y-y-up! & I think it says a good bit about the 'official' stance on the "how people have fun" argument.

I've asked that they include a clarification on "signed by whom?".

It'll be interesting to see where this one takes us.

~*

[+tozainamboku]

I suppose this post puts some definition into this topic.....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218388

 

Particularly this new clause from the guidelines....

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

Y-y-y-y-y-up! & I think it says a good bit about the 'official' stance on the "how people have fun" argument.

I've asked that they include a clarification on "signed by whom?".

It'll be interesting to see where this one takes us.

~*

Essentially the new requirement says cachers do not have to do any ALR and can make an online Found It log after signing the physical cache log. It also says that the cache owner may not delete logs for not completing a an ALR. The guidelines for cache owners to delete logs that appear bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not with stated requirements remain. There is no guideline saying a cache owner must delete logs because the log wasn't signed nor is it clearly stated whether or not they may delete logs because the person had someone else sign the log for them or because a team sticker was used. I'm sure the puritans will use the new no-ALR guidelines as "proof" that TPTB require the log to be signed. I seriously doubt however that TPTB will clarify what they mean by signed the physical log or explicitly tell cache owner that they must delete online logs if the physical log is not signed. If anything it may mean that TPTB are not going to allow cache owners to delete any logs.

[+StarBrand]

....

Essentially the new requirement says cachers do not have to do any ALR and can make an online Found It log after signing the physical cache log. It also says that the cache owner may not delete logs for not completing a an ALR. The guidelines for cache owners to delete logs that appear bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not with stated requirements remain. There is no guideline saying a cache owner must delete logs because the log wasn't signed nor is it clearly stated whether or not they may delete logs because the person had someone else sign the log for them or because a team sticker was used. I'm sure the puritans will use the new no-ALR guidelines as "proof" that TPTB require the log to be signed. I seriously doubt however that TPTB will clarify what they mean by signed the physical log or explicitly tell cache owner that they must delete online logs if the physical log is not signed. If anything it may mean that TPTB are not going to allow cache owners to delete any logs.

....however, you'll have to agree that clause is probably going to be quoted a lot in the future..........

[+Kit Fox]

So people who stand around at the bottom of trees should get to log a 5 star terrain cache, because they saw someone else find the cache, and sign the log. Sounds like a hand-out rather than a cache find.

A hand out ... as in money? Do cachers make money off their smileys? Where is my check?

 

Seriously, why do you care?

 

Geocachers who don't put in the required effort to find the cache especially my caches, don't deserve to log a find.

 

Jane climbs a difficult tree, retrieves the cache container, and stays perched on the branch after lowering the container down to Bob via a rope. Bob signs for both of them. She thanks Bob for signing her name and hauls the cache back up. She replaces the cache and climbs down. Result: Two cachers enjoy logging the cache, and the owner (and subsequent finders) enjoy reading the logs. Everybody has a good time.

 

Translation,

 

Jane earned the smiley for this geocache. She made the climb, she recovered the cache. She circumvented the intentions of the cache owner, by lowering the cache down to the ground, for the "welfare cacher." The "welfare geocacher" stood around, and waited for his "check" to be handed to him, he signed his name, and he got paid.

 

My hard caches aren't handouts for those not willing to make the effort to find them.

 

Ultimately, then, this is the very same outcome as if Jane had simply signed both names while still in the tree, saving a step – after Bob promises to swap places at the next five star climb-a-tree cache, of course. Same result: Two cachers enjoy logging the cache, and the owner (and subsequent finders) enjoy reading the logs. Everybody has a good time.

 

Do you see a difference? Do either of these scenarios actually bother you? Or maybe both? If so, why?

 

Why the outrage? Where is the harm?

 

(Or maybe you actually enjoy it, because it gives you someone to wag your Index Finger of Superiority at.)

 

If I was on a boat with another geocacher who happened to be a scuba diver, and we stopped for a scuba cache. I would wish my friend luck as he dove for the scuba cache. If my friend surfaced with the cache container, I would congratulate him, on his find. Would I log a find on this cache? Absolutely not. I'm not scuba certified, so I have no business logging finds on scuba caches.

 

I would be happy to post a note to the cache page, sharing my experience with the finder, but I wouldn't log a find.

 

My cache at the top of a tree has this note on the cache page:

 

Note to log a find on this cache, you must physically reach the cache, and sign the log. Being near ground zero, and pointing to the cache is not a find.

 

In almost two years, only one geocacher has logged a find on this cache. He should be proud of his accomplishment.

 

August 16, 2007 by qzmstrspd (2235 found)

Reconnaissance Trip - $12.00, 9-PIECE INTRODUCTORY CLIMBING KIT - $399.00, Extra Carabiners - $75.00, New Tribe Frog Climbing System - $220.00, - Extra climbing rope (2) - $204.00, Climbing Instruction - Free, Celebration Dinner - $26.00, Understanding Friends, Dr. Chuck and Q-Tip, with all this equipment enabling me to log "First To Find" - Priceless!!!

Thanks to Kit Fox for another very challenging cache.

 

 

The same goes for Pezcachers who was the only person who ever found my Operation Wreckhunter cache.

 

June 23, 2007 by PezCachers (4227 found)

Operation Wreckhunter is a great cache series that test your endurance and rewards you with outstanding locations and spectacular scenery. The final had me driving over 280 miles and a twelve-hour round trip from our home. Worth ever minute of it! I especially liked the 60+ mile off-road drive.

The cache is one of the best stocked we have come across in a while-lots of quality items. It’s well camoed and hidden from view. That had to be a big job getting it up there!

I saw deer, quail and bear scat all along my hike to GZ. This location is one that I would love to come back and spend the night and do more exploring.

I came across a couple that was filtering water while thru-hiking the PCT. I gave them drinks, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, fruit and cookies. They were very happy to receive those gifts.

I think the girl was just as happy when I took their trash bag for them. They had six more days on trail before hitting a place to resupply.

Operation Wreckhunter is a great adventure and a first-class cache. Anybody willing to find the final will keep the high quality cache content going, I’m sure.

Thanks Kit Fox. Your efforts were well worth it.

Pezcachers

 

Hard work and effort is earned, it isn't handed to you.

[+KBI]

So people who stand around at the bottom of trees should get to log a 5 star terrain cache, because they saw someone else find the cache, and sign the log. Sounds like a hand-out rather than a cache find.

A hand out ... as in money? Do cachers make money off their smileys? Where is my check?

 

Seriously, why do you care?

Geocachers who don't put in the required effort to find the cache especially my caches, don't deserve to log a find.

 

My cache at the top of a tree has this note on the cache page:

 

Note to log a find on this cache, you must physically reach the cache, and sign the log. Being near ground zero, and pointing to the cache is not a find.

Maybe you haven’t heard the news, but ALR caches have now been banned. Sorry, but you will no longer be allowed to enforce that one.

 

Everyone who signs your logbook must now be allowed to log online. Doesn’t matter where they were standing when they wrote their name.

 

And no, I don’t like it either.

[+Kit Fox]

Maybe you haven’t heard the news, but ALR caches have now been banned. Sorry, but you will no longer be allowed to enforce that one.

 

Everyone who signs your logbook must now be allowed to log online. Doesn’t matter where they were standing when they wrote their name.

 

And no, I don’t like it either.

 

This is the part of their decision I disagree with. If I find out people are circumventing my caches, i'll archive the cache. The new ALR rules are going to create some clashes between cache

owners, and TPTB.

[+KBI]

This is the part of their decision I disagree with. If I find out people are circumventing my caches, i'll archive the cache. The new ALR rules are going to create some clashes between cache owners, and TPTB.

People are always griping about wanting more creativity and inspiration. This new rule is not going to help, and is in fact only going to encourage more mediocrity in my estimate.

 

My very first cache was an ALR. I required all online loggers to log with a poem. My sole reason for doing so was an attempt to create something new, something fun, something challenging ... but mostly, something that hadn’t been done before.

 

Folks are going to be much less interested in pushing the envelope if they have to worry about their new ideas getting quashed by a gamewide ban – and without the benefit of grandfathering, no less. At least the existing virtuals got to stay after the virt ban. Your ALR, and mine, are now toast. That’s our reward for creating a special challenge for our fellow cachers.

 

Maybe I’ll turn mine into a skirtlifter out of protest. What say you?

Edited April 4, 2009 by KBI

[+mrbort]

KBI for ... king?

 

I am totally in agreement with all that has been said by KBI... i think that this game is so appealing to such an interesting cross section because it allows for playing the game how you want to play it. If the CO feels the need to delete the logs then... meh... the only part that really rankles is the idea that they would not treat the cache with the same respect with which it was placed. IMO that, and only that, is what ruins the game. Logging or not logging does not change the enjoyment of the next cacher. A cache misplaced or disrespectfully replaced is the only thing that would affect the next finder. And that to me is what it's all about: find things your way; log things your way; it doesn't matter really unless the cache is harmed...

[+Kit Fox]

This is the part of their decision I disagree with. If I find out people are circumventing my caches, i'll archive the cache. The new ALR rules are going to create some clashes between cache owners, and TPTB.

People are always griping about wanting more creativity and inspiration. This new rule is not going to help, and is in fact only going to encourage more mediocrity in my estimate.

 

My very first cache was an ALR. I required all online loggers to log with a poem. My sole reason for doing so was an attempt to create something new, something fun, something challenging ... but mostly, something that hadn’t been done before.

 

Folks are going to be much less interested in pushing the envelope if they have to worry about their new ideas getting quashed by a gamewide ban – and without the benefit of grandfathering, no less. At least the existing virtuals got to stay after the virt ban. Your ALR, and mine, are now toast. That’s our reward for creating a special challenge for our fellow cachers.

 

Maybe I’ll turn mine into a skirtlifter out of protest. What say you?

 

I think Vinny said it best:

 

I must agree with your points. I tend, for the most part, to only go after extreme geocaches with a Terrain rating of 4.0 or above, and I regularly pass up the vast majority of mainstream/pedestrian caches as too boring. However, some of my favorite caches in the world have been ALRs, and, at times, I have even traveled great distances simply to find and log some truly great ALRs.

 

I am very disappointed at this decision by Groundspeak, and it looks like, at least in this arena, they have sold out to the numbers-hunters, those geocachers who cannot stand the fact that there might exist geocaches where they must put in a little bit (or a lot) of extra effort before being allowed to claim a smiley.

 

Worse, the admins have specifically mentioned that requiring that potential finders must first submit a special code number from the logbook prior to being allowed to log an online -- a practice commonly employed by owners of extreme 5/5 caches to ensure that putative finders really did find the cache and sign the log -- is no longer allowed. In effect, this throws the door wide open to fraudulent find logs by hoax finders. This, to me, is nightmarish, and, as an owner or a number of extreme 5/5 caches which employ such code requirements, it affects me, and every other extreme cache owner who employs similar measures, drastically.

Sure, there have been some complaints over the years from a minority about ALR caches, just as there have been complaints about puzzle caches, extreme terrain caches and numerous other types of caches, but to eliminate the category entirely is, to me, asinine and insulting. In fact, ALL of the complaints about ALRs could have been addressed either by ensuring that ALL ALRs were classified as "?" caches, or even better, classified in a separate "ALR" category. However, for some odd reason, the admins chose not to do that, and rather, chose the drastic action of eliminating ALRs.

[+sbell111]

PS: Seppuka? Would that be, "sepulcher"?

From the phrasing of the OP ** using the term, I'm pretty sure that means seppuku:("stomach-cutting"). And since we're translating from a foreign language with a different alphabet, the alteration of a vowel isn't unusual.

Seppuku: A a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai. Part of the samurai honor code, seppuku was used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies, as a form of capital punishment for samurai who have committed serious offenses, and for reasons that shamed them. Seppuku is performed by plunging a sword into the abdomen and moving the sword left to right in a slicing motion.

 

and not sepulcher: 1. A burial vault. 2. A receptacle for sacred relics, especially in an altar.

 

**

Seppuka. For you. Your caches are not worthy of their combined attention. You have failed.

No, no, no, NO!! It's not a "light bulb." The proper term is "lamp."

 

How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?

 

* 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

 

* 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

 

* 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

 

* 1 to move it to the Lighting section

 

* 2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section

 

* 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

 

* 5 to flame the spell checkers

 

* 3 to correct spelling/grammar flames

 

* 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid

 

* 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

 

* 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

 

* 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

 

* 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum

 

* 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

 

* 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

 

* 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

 

* 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

 

* 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

 

* 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

 

* 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

 

* 13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

 

* 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

Add:

* And 1 who questioned (knowing something of the poster's ability vis-a-vis spelling) if the intended word was perhaps 'sepulcher', the transitive verb meaning "To place into a sepulcher; inter", ie, a suggestion to just bury it - a valid, even if misspelled retort.

 

Now, if there's no further of my usage & interpretation of the English language you'd like to correct, Mr sbell, shall we return to the topic?

Thank you.

~*

First, very impressive attempt at rewriting history. Second, you realize that Bruce and I are not the same person, right?

[+sbell111]

... Essentially the new requirement says cachers do not have to do any ALR and can make an online Found It log after signing the physical cache log. It also says that the cache owner may not delete logs for not completing a an ALR. The guidelines for cache owners to delete logs that appear bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not with stated requirements remain. There is no guideline saying a cache owner must delete logs because the log wasn't signed nor is it clearly stated whether or not they may delete logs because the person had someone else sign the log for them or because a team sticker was used. I'm sure the puritans will use the new no-ALR guidelines as "proof" that TPTB require the log to be signed. I seriously doubt however that TPTB will clarify what they mean by signed the physical log or explicitly tell cache owner that they must delete online logs if the physical log is not signed. If anything it may mean that TPTB are not going to allow cache owners to delete any logs.

....however, you'll have to agree that clause is probably going to be quoted a lot in the future...

I bet that this post is trotted out every time that happens:

Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context.

Maybe you haven’t heard the news, but ALR caches have now been banned. Sorry, but you will no longer be allowed to enforce that one.

 

Everyone who signs your logbook must now be allowed to log online. Doesn’t matter where they were standing when they wrote their name.

 

And no, I don’t like it either.

This is the part of their decision I disagree with. If I find out people are circumventing my caches, i'll archive the cache. The new ALR rules are going to create some clashes between cache owners, and TPTB.

Still, the log that troubled you will remain in place. Your archival of the cache will ONLY serve to inconvenience those future finders who would find the cache your way.

[+Ed56]

I haven't read all of the responses but I agree that you are better off just to smile and forget about it. I've seen similar instances where someone has looked for a cache for all of 30 seconds then whipped out their trusty cell phone to call a life line. What that tells me is that this is a person is mostly interested in running up an "impressive" score of finds.