update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

[+The Jester]

I looked over the last 50 finds on that cache, and only ten had pictures posted. 1 in 10.

And how many were group photos, where one person took the pics, but everyone logged the cache individually? No need to go count, it's still a significant ratio in favor of no hula-ing, as you point out. I'm just sayin'....

 

Someone else's turn to offer up a cache pinata!

Sorry, Hydnsek, I wasn't trying to dis your cache - I haven't had the chance to get back up that way to do it, I was up on the cliff above while you were hiding it - I was just using the example raised in this thread. I think it's great that people are choosing to do the hula (or something similar...).

 

I looked over the last 50 finds on that cache, and only ten had pictures posted. 1 in 10.

Isn't 10 pictures in 50 logs 1 in 5?

I guess I shouldn't try doing math late at night, especially when counting on my fingers...

 

"But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer."

Yeah, but I wasn't trying to do it in Base 8 - maybe I should have!

 

(I wonder how many other's recognize the quote - one of my favorite songster! I guess I'm showing my age... )

[+The Jester]

...

People telling people how to have fun is controlling, no matter how you want to say otherwise!

So by your definition, your are a controlling cache owner. Your night cache is 'forcing' them to hunt the cache at night.

 

The Anti-ALR crowd is fond of using the words controlling and forcing, but won't admit that every cache - of any type - is 'forcing' the finder to do something (if nothing else find the cache at that spot), thereby 'controlling' the fun (hunting caches) of the finder. But, then, these words have a certain power/emotional feel that makes for 'good' supporting arguements for their position.

 

A few more while the boy gets ready to go.

 

Maybe you don't understand what's written, so I'll help you. Can you point out where I have said I'd delete day finder's logs? So, my night cache is an invitation to enjoy it when you'll have the most fun??? AWESOME!! You'll note the "FTF" trio said they found it without following the reflectors, but I didn't make a stink, I didn't delete the logs...yep, I'm way to controlling!!

Nope, don't have to point out anything (BTW, can you point out where I said you did?). The threat of deleting isn't the only force/control used - that is my point. So the repeatitive use of 'force' and/or 'control' is an emotional arguement, it sounds bad, so by using it over and over you can make the idea of ALR's sound bad. ALR's aren't bad just not allowed any more on this site.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...

People telling people how to have fun is controlling, no matter how you want to say otherwise!

So by your definition, your are a controlling cache owner. Your night cache is 'forcing' them to hunt the cache at night.

 

The Anti-ALR crowd is fond of using the words controlling and forcing, but won't admit that every cache - of any type - is 'forcing' the finder to do something (if nothing else find the cache at that spot), thereby 'controlling' the fun (hunting caches) of the finder. But, then, these words have a certain power/emotional feel that makes for 'good' supporting arguements for their position.

 

A few more while the boy gets ready to go.

 

Maybe you don't understand what's written, so I'll help you. Can you point out where I have said I'd delete day finder's logs? So, my night cache is an invitation to enjoy it when you'll have the most fun??? AWESOME!! You'll note the "FTF" trio said they found it without following the reflectors, but I didn't make a stink, I didn't delete the logs...yep, I'm way to controlling!!

Nope, don't have to point out anything (BTW, can you point out where I said you did?). The threat of deleting isn't the only force/control used - that is my point. So the repeatitive use of 'force' and/or 'control' is an emotional arguement, it sounds bad, so by using it over and over you can make the idea of ALR's sound bad. ALR's aren't bad just not allowed any more on this site.

 

Still waiting for the teen to get around, gotta love kids. I believe the part you want me to point out is where you claim I'm controlling for having a night cache?? I believe I set that straight with my comment...you can disagree, your choice!

 

And, if you can find a better word for require than force, I'll be more than happy to use it. If you can find me a prettier way of saying it, I'm all for it! But, making it sound all kitty-cat soft and fluffly doesn't change the facts!

 

Lastly, did anyone say ALR's were bad? If so, sorry. I think everyone can agree there's good ALRs too, but that's not here nor there...is it?

[Radman Forever]

Radman...ever stop to think many of us refuse to carry our expensive cameras into the woods??? I'll tell you this, I'd have simply skipped your cache much like I do any earthcache which requires a picture. I will not carry another piece of expensive equipment out into the woods and worry it'll not make it back...sorry. now, if you'd like to buy a camera and put it in the cache, I'm on board and would be more than happy to visit the cache. Also, maybe you should check this out: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

Now, no required pics, no required epic story logs, just hid and expected to be found. Are all the logs long and drawn out?? Nope, all are giving honest feedback and not something I require of them. Not all have pics, but this IS a night cache...I'm thrilled to see any at all!! Do I believe everyone had fun?? YOU BET!! Would I be able to add more fun by making people dress funny, sign the log in a different way or force pics or long logs on them...nope, I probably wouldn't get as many visitors!

 

Peopel telling people how to have fun is controlling, no matter how you want to say otherwise!

 

Come up on US 127 sometimes and realize the shack where the frog was is about ten feet from your car. Hardly a challenge with the camera. And I never made it required.

 

And the cache with the long logs didn't require you to do anything but find the stages and answer the questions in order to find each stage. You didn't have to have long logs, and there were those who only had a few sentences, but still said they had fun (which was still much more than TFTC TNLN). It was no different than your cache being found at night. It didn't force people to do anything if they didn't want to find the cache.

 

Getting a million visitors with logs that say TFTC TNLN gets you excited, but I love log that state more than that. I can't force anybody to do anything, and I will never do that, but that doesn't mean I can't try to make the cache so fun and unique that they would feel bad to not at least write a couple sentences. That's not evil, that's fun caching!

 

These two caches I mentioned are not ALR caches, but they did ask you to do more than just find the cache. They were just used to make a point.

 

Did you bother to visit the cache I posted? Your argument shows otherwise!! Please, find me a single TNLN log on that cache...please?? Oh, wait, that darned Rusty didn't say anything but published. And, some of those logs were from kids, some were from family members who already had one person share their experience...but still no TNLN logs...go figure!

 

I wasn't talking about your night cache's logs, which I did read the descriptions. I was talking about your cache being a night cache, which would like to have people find the cache at night (I say this because you say some stages will "require" a flashlight), it is no different than my mystery multi that had people answer questions to help them find the next stage. Thy both require you to do something, which is a lot like ALR caches!

 

I just said about the logs because my one cache had long logs and I like reading long logs. You said you are just happy to get logs and I assume you like getting a lot of visitors. Getting more visitors doesn't make everyone happier than getting logs that are descriptive and fun to read.

 

Edit: Sorry Rod, I left while typing this to talk to someone and didn't know you were leaving the thread. Sorry if it seems I am still trying to drag you into this thread!

Edited April 9, 2009 by Radman Forever

[+NinjaCacher!]

I'm sorry, you can parse any statement you want, but for those actually reading this, they will note I HIGHLIGHTED your words for you...wriggle out of that, please!! I also used your own words when you yourself said you didn't read the thread, I could highlight that too if you need reminded!! So, forgive me if I don't answer to those posts which obviously have no merit!

Yet the funny thing is that you still do answer them

 

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation.

Ok please go ahead and quote the part where I said I'm not reading the thread or your answers?

 

And yes I noticed your HIGHLIGHTED words and replied to most of them, even though you take them out of context on purpose. But I can do again if you didn't read my answers:

1. The fact that I don't own an ALR cache has nothing to do with my opinion on them.

2. Making is not forcing, you're free to decide not to do any cache, same as a hard puzzle or T5 Trad.

3. If you're trying to tell me that, because the owner of one ALR cache deleted your log incorrectly, you now hate all ALR caches, then I think you're just going too far. If it's something else, than I'm sorry but I might have got you wrong.

 

You do have an opinion, I never saw the OP require you to not. But, why not stop and think before adding more spew? Certainly not required of you, that'd stop your fun of spewing!

Hey, I'm still not spewing, just explaining why I think getting rid of ALRs is a loss in diversity for the game of geocaching.

 

I also see how you can't read numbers nor count...or was your misleading page count for effect?? Maybe to get out of having to actually read something so you know more about what your talking about??

How many pages do you see then? I get 41 now, that's just over 800 posts with 20 posts on each page. Maybe you have a different posts per page setting, no need to get angry or call names on this.

[CoyoteRed]

Exactly, some owners are tired of hiding caches that get the same TNLN TFTC logs that they get receive.

Maybe they should place better caches. I also present that maybe they're hiding caches for the wrong reason.

 

Personally, I don't hide caches for my own enjoyment, but that of others. If I get back logs that they voluntarily wrote saying they enjoyed the cache--which is more than a TFTC--then I know I've done my job. That makes me feel good.

Maybe you should not assume I need to hide better caches. I have hidden caches that are considered good by many.

What's really interesting is that I didn't say you needed to hide better caches. I was referring to those you said, those "some owners," who weren't getting the logs that they like. Were you saying you were getting the TFTC logs? Yes? No? I was referring to "some owners" and if you were part of the "some owners" then your next paragraph doesn't seem to fit.

 

I hide caches like most owners, for others enjoyment and mine. I love reading logs and I have gotten some great ones over the years. In fact, the best logs I ever got was on a cache that required you to do something more than just signing the log. Just look at my previous post for proof.

So, it's more about the logs you get--because you forced them to do something beyond find the cache--than their enjoyment. An honest, un-forced log is much better in my book, than the alternative.

 

It's also interesting that some the "best logs" are from caches that forced folks to do something extra as if you're maintaining that without the ALR no one would enjoy themselves. I say hogwash. I say, if your cache can't stand without an ALR, maybe it shouldn't have been placed to begin with.

[Radman Forever]

It's also interesting that some the "best logs" are from caches that forced folks to do something extra as if you're maintaining that without the ALR no one would enjoy themselves. I say hogwash. I say, if your cache can't stand without an ALR, maybe it shouldn't have been placed to begin with.

 

Don't confuse requirements with just ALRs, because I have never hidden an ALR cache. The one traditional I mentioned was an ALS that became a regular cache and the other was a cache that had you answer Michigan history questions, with each answer being either a dead end stage or the stage that takes you to the next level. Now archived.

 

I also never said people don't enjoy themselves without an ALR cache. I have gotten great logs from my basic caches, but I also have gotten TFTC logs also. I didn't get TFTC caches for my caches that had you do more than just sign the log (but didn't force you to do them), but I never forced them to log anything. They wrote long logs BECAUSE THEY LIKED IT, not because I had a requirement that they had to.

 

So, since I didn't hide an ALR cache, I feel that all of my caches stand. You can't tell me to enjoy TFTC logs just like I wouldn't force finders to log more than TFTC. Looks like we both need to read before assuming.

 

These are the two caches in question.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-803e7554d4b4

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c5-d0e0eb97ddbc

Edited April 9, 2009 by Radman Forever

[+sbell111]

... So yes, optional caches can get less participation than required caches. Please don't try to tell me otherwise.

Please see post 768.

[+sbell111]

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

 

Imagine that as a cache owner that you have two options.

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

Option 2: You hide an AL(Required) cache that 20 people have fun finding. These 20 people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. 80 people think your ALR is dumb and put your cache on their ignore list, even though your actual physical cache is located in a location that they would have enjoyed visiting.

 

Cache 1 pleased 100 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. Cache 2 pleased 20 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. As a cache owner, which cache would you rather own?

Sorry, honestly. I follow the philosophy of that great American poet, Ricky Nelson.

 

"You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"

 

I cache to make me happy. I was putting out caches because it made me happy. If fellow cachers are happy as a result of my being happy, BONUS. If I feel my effort is not appreciated then I am not happy and take measures to restore my happiness.

Apparently, it makes you happy to avoid answering that question. Allow me to restate it for you:

 

Would you get more pleasure out of owning a cache that is enjoyed by 100 people, 20 of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle or a cache that is enjoyed by only 20 people, all of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle?

[+tozainamboku]

More people visiting means the chance for more actually participating, which means the chance for your requests to be followed (I'm betting it'll still be about the same percentage of participants even while you get the added bonus of those who might only write a paragragh or two instead of your "epic story" log).

I hide cache that are long hikes in the wood and some difficult puzzles. I don't hide caches so that more people will visit them. If I want more visits I'd hide an LPC. Arguing that you should make ALRs into ALSs so that more people will participate isn't a very convincing argument.

 

Hasn't this thread run its course yet?

 

Those that like ALRs will never agree with those that don't...and the arguments/reasons have been repetitive for days now. I'd think it time to close this argument...but that's just me.

I've changed sides several times. So some people must be making some arguments that are persuasive. I will say that most are making rather silly arguments on both sides that come down to who likes there ice cream plain and how wants to only sell you ice cream with nuts on it.

 

I had this happen once!!! Since the owner wanted people to get into the spirit of baseball (it was a baseball themed cache), he required you to not only find the cache (which was already a puzzle), but to look up and send the words to a song to him as well. Caching related?? NO, but I wasn't too caught up on that, so I went after it.

 

I did all this, even after being beat out of an FTF (rotten friends waiting until I do the work so they can swoop in...), but my log was deleted! Now, this might not have mattered much, but I was working on a milestone and was on a deadline (a week or something before the event I wanted my milestone to be claimed at). When asked why, the owner said I hadn't sent in the right words (which I did). I then had a bit of back and forth with the owner, causing hard feelings...but when I sent in the exct same words, my log stayed...go figure! Since this little episode, I ignore almost ALL blue ? and many of the caches hidden by this cacher (even though we've long since buried the axe). Now, I'm sure my log will stand regardless of how controlling the owner wishes to be...it's a good thing and it might even get me to do more ALS caches!!!!

This is one of the problems with ALRs. You can actually do an ALR and the cache owner can say "You didn't use the right words". That wouldn't be fun. I cache owners realized the point of the game is to have fun and looked at your log and saw you were having fun with it they wouldn't delete your log. My guess it that the guideline change was more because some cache owners were losing sight of the supposed reason for having an ALR and were just doing it because they wanted to delete peoples logs.

 

Radman...ever stop to think many of us refuse to carry our expensive cameras into the woods??? I'll tell you this, I'd have simply skipped your cache much like I do any earthcache which requires a picture. I will not carry another piece of expensive equipment out into the woods and worry it'll not make it back...sorry. now, if you'd like to buy a camera and put it in the cache, I'm on board and would be more than happy to visit the cache. Also, maybe you should check this out: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

Now, no required pics, no required epic story logs, just hid and expected to be found. Are all the logs long and drawn out?? Nope, all are giving honest feedback and not something I require of them. Not all have pics, but this IS a night cache...I'm thrilled to see any at all!! Do I believe everyone had fun?? YOU BET!! Would I be able to add more fun by making people dress funny, sign the log in a different way or force pics or long logs on them...nope, I probably wouldn't get as many visitors!

 

Peopel telling people how to have fun is controlling, no matter how you want to say otherwise!

Sorry I only sell ice cream with nuts. If you don't like nuts get your ice cream from someone else. I find this argument against ALRs a bit tiring. Once ALRs were listed as unknown caches you can easily look at the cache before you hunt it and decide if you want to or not. If you don't want the nuts don't do the caches with the nuts.

 

I really believe that requirements were changed because people were putting out requirements whose only point was to see what you could make someone do to get a smiley. At some point you'd put out a cache that no one wanted to do. If there was a simple way to define which tasks were fun or added to the experience of doing the cache the guidelines would have been changed to allow these ALRs and only ban ones that didn't serve this purpose. This, of course, sounds like the purpose of the "Wow" requirement that we had for virtual aches. It was suppose to limit virtuals to worthy places and not have a virtuals in places where nobody was really going to have fun finding them. Of course that definition proved insufficient to stop people from submitting boring virtuals or from trying to push the envelope of what is allowed. For virtuals the eventual resolution was Waymarking. The current experiment for ALRs is to make them ALSs since the idea that fun requirements that add something to the experience would be done anyhow and the ones that didn't fit that definition (for any cacher) would simply not get done.

[Clan Riffster]

Hardly proof that would stand up to any kind of real test.

I think the Owasso Shalom Clothing Optional Cache is a good example of how folks will participate in a suggested task, so long as it's perceived to be fun. Out of 58 found logs, I saw 12 that mentioned the finders opted to leave their clothing on. Many of the other logs were ambiguous, so there's no way of knowing if those finders got nekid or not. In our society, having only 12 out of 58 not go in the buff is pretty darn compelling. Is it absolute proof that everybody who caches will perform whatever silly task is posted? Of course not. Is it a pretty good indicator that cachers will often do things outside their comfort zone simply because another cacher requested that they do so? I think it is.

 

Exactly, some owners are tired of hiding caches that get the same TNLN TFTC logs that they get receive.

It's been my experience that the way to get lengthy logs is to create a memorable caching experience.

As has been demonstrated time and again, you don't need an ALR to make a cache memorable.

If the only reason folks are typing verbose logs is because they feel compelled, maybe the cache is too lame to warrant longer logs?

 

Many T5 Caches need a log permission

Time to put yet another silly myth to bed:

I think what you're claiming is that, because a cache has a certain difficulty rating, the owners "must" institute some sort of determining factor, so they can "prove" that Billy Bob actually signed the logbook. That is pure fallacy. Some cache owners feel the need to control the input on their cache pages, and for them, they might perceive a need for each finder to offer proof they found the cache, however this is something they bring on themselves, and not an indicator of reality. I own several difficult caches, and to date, I've always been able to determine who signed the logbook and who didn't, during my maintenance visits. If Billy Bob's bogus log sits on the cache page for a few months, till I discover his prevarication, it doesn't cost anybody anything. At that point, I'll inquire about it, and determine an appropriate response.

 

I would also like you to get rid of the "pick up trash" requirement on a CITO.

Ooh Goody! More silliness. Is there a full moon out or what?

To date, I've never hosted or attended a CITO that required absolute proof that an attendee picked up garbage. In fact, I'd say a CITO falls a lot closer to an ALS, (Additional Logging Suggestion), than a requirement. in that the event host asks folks to take time out of their day to help clean up after others. There are no requirements, as far as I can tell.

 

How many of the reviewed caches were actually ALR caches? 1%? 2%? more? less?

Apparently enough that it became an issue. At that point, the actual numbers become irrelevant. When you have volunteers, and they are becoming unhappy, you either take what steps are needed to return them to their former state of happiness or you bid them adieu. The latter is not a very palatable resolution.

 

If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants.

Why do you suppose they have, (as you so inaccurately claim), a quasi-monopoly? Could it be that, out of the three leading competitors, Groundspeak offers the greatest overall service? After all, when talking business, won't most folks vote with their wallets or their feet? If the other two sites really were better than this one, wouldn't the majority of us be having this silly debate over there instead of over here? Obviously, that's an indicator that Groundspeak knows the hearts of their customers.

[Radman Forever]

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

 

Imagine that as a cache owner that you have two options.

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

Option 2: You hide an AL(Required) cache that 20 people have fun finding. These 20 people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. 80 people think your ALR is dumb and put your cache on their ignore list, even though your actual physical cache is located in a location that they would have enjoyed visiting.

 

Cache 1 pleased 100 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. Cache 2 pleased 20 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. As a cache owner, which cache would you rather own?

 

First of all, I meant "participation" as in participating in the things the cache asks you to do. Meaning more than just signing the log.

 

But I'll think about this and respond.

 

I'll use your option one:

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

I'll come up with my option two:

 

Option Two: The ALR cache become a cache with suggestion. Eighty people find the cache and move on without having to do the suggestion. They are as happy as one smiley can get you and you move on to the next cache. MAYBE 20 people do it say they did the task or put a photo up, but who says you will get twenty people to do the task after it is only made into a suggestion? Some people do a cache because it requires them too, but less people will do it if is a suggestion. The hula cache shows that as an example.

 

100 get a smiley otherwise and the owner gets a few pictures, but might be disappointed the cache is no different than their other traditionals.

 

Obviously, not every cache is going to be like that, and owners might be happy that they have some participation. Others, however, might be disappointed to witness only seeing a minority of the geocachers doing what they ask. This is the situation where the owners lose.

 

And to say it again, more finders does not make every owner happy. Participation with the cache might.

[+Plasma Boy]

 

Sorry, honestly. I follow the philosophy of that great American poet, Ricky Nelson.

 

"You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"

 

I cache to make me happy. I was putting out caches because it made me happy. If fellow cachers are happy as a result of my being happy, BONUS. If I feel my effort is not appreciated then I am not happy and take measures to restore my happiness.

Apparently, it makes you happy to avoid answering that question. Allow me to restate it for you:

 

Would you get more pleasure out of owning a cache that is enjoyed by 100 people, 20 of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle or a cache that is enjoyed by only 20 people, all of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle?

Sorry, if that was not clear enough for you. OPTION 2

[+Castle Mischief]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Radman Forever]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like to say that I do not agree with this comment and find it highly offensive! I will later come back and write a 500-word response as to why your comment is incorrect.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I say, if your cache can't stand without an ALR, maybe it shouldn't have been placed to begin with.

 

Lets spin that a bit.

 

If your cache can't stand as a micro, maybe it should't exist at all.

If you can't log right maybe you souldn't be logging at all.

If you can't stand ALR's then maybe ALR's aren't for you.

If you like ALR's then maybe ALR's are for you.

If your cache can stand without the logbook maybe it doesn't need that ALR either.

If you can't have fun without anti ALR guidelines maybe you aint all that fun to begin with.

 

Seems to spin out a bunch of directions.

 

As I believe in the freedom to make miserable caches that nobody is going to like so that we may also be blessed with the true outside the box gems, I'm going to stick with this "problem" would be best fixed with an ALR catagory. It's not like they aren't common enough to warrant it. Of course I think Micro's deserve their own catagory as well just for the angst factor.

[+Renegade Knight]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll drink to that. I don't even remember if we agree or dissagre on the topic but danged if this isnt a good summary.

[+lacey38655]

I would like to see a new database created. List all the different types of caches together and then also independently. That way if you have a member who just wants to hunt for Traditional ammo cans in the woods, he would not have to partake in seeing any other type of geocache listing.

 

It could also be an option to click on the tab and select what types of geocaches to hunt for in your area, then give a list of only those caches. So lets see I want to only hunt for Micros, Events, and ALR caches, cool no more seeing those Traditional Ammo cans.

 

Think Pocket Queries, without running a PQ, sending to email and then running it through a program such as GSAK.

 

Instead of removing ALR's or any additional type of geocache, why not create it's own icon and/or have a way to filter those out when you run a PQ.

 

Traditionals

Puzzle

Multi

Cito

Event

Mega Event

Flashmob event

ALR

Letterbox

Earthcache

Virtual

Waymarking

Benchmark

LPC's

Nano ...etcc

 

I am like several others, instead of removing types of caches, why not think of new ways to grow this sport.

 

I am going to use some random numbers here as an example.

 

In XYZ, MS we have 1000 caches hidden. Now take out 400 Micros, 125 puzzle caches, another 200 multi caches, 8 letterboxes, 12 earthcaches, now you will be left with exactly 255 Traditional caches hides for the whole state of MS.

 

So how long do you think it is going to be before even those that are not numbers hungry to find all those 255 caches and get bored with the sport and move on to something else.

 

For those of us that live and breath all things geocaching, we like having options. I tend to bore of ammo cans in the woods, for my on personal reasons. So mixing it up, by having options is a good thing.

 

As so many people before me have said, if you don't like driving on a bumpy road, exit sooner and take a detour on another road.

 

I happen to light LPC, Micros, ALR's, 15 stage multi caches, letterboxes, benchmarks, Waymarking, and climbing trees, don''t hate me for being creative and interesting.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I hide cache that are long hikes in the wood and some difficult puzzles. I don't hide caches so that more people will visit them. If I want more visits I'd hide an LPC. Arguing that you should make ALRs into ALSs so that more people will participate isn't a very convincing argument.

 

Can you point out where I ever said this? I am not arguing anything here at all, just telling of the positive results of the change!

 

Sorry I only sell ice cream with nuts. If you don't like nuts get your ice cream from someone else. I find this argument against ALRs a bit tiring. Once ALRs were listed as unknown caches you can easily look at the cache before you hunt it and decide if you want to or not. If you don't want the nuts don't do the caches with the nuts.

 

I really believe that requirements were changed because people were putting out requirements whose only point was to see what you could make someone do to get a smiley. At some point you'd put out a cache that no one wanted to do. If there was a simple way to define which tasks were fun or added to the experience of doing the cache the guidelines would have been changed to allow these ALRs and only ban ones that didn't serve this purpose. This, of course, sounds like the purpose of the "Wow" requirement that we had for virtual aches. It was suppose to limit virtuals to worthy places and not have a virtuals in places where nobody was really going to have fun finding them. Of course that definition proved insufficient to stop people from submitting boring virtuals or from trying to push the envelope of what is allowed. For virtuals the eventual resolution was Waymarking. The current experiment for ALRs is to make them ALSs since the idea that fun requirements that add something to the experience would be done anyhow and the ones that didn't fit that definition (for any cacher) would simply not get done.

 

Again, not an argument against the change at all, but pointing out WHY some caches get passed over. Sorry if I confused anyone with this.

 

Radman asked the difference between my night cache and an ALR...the night cache requires you to use a tool to find the cache, the ALR requires you to do something besides finding the cache. On the night cache, you couldn't fidn the cache without a flashlight, on an ALR, you CAN find it, you're just forced to do something else besides find the cache to please the cache owner!

[+sbell111]

... I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away?

For who?

 

Those people that did the ALR last month presumably had fun doing it and that fun cannot be taken away.

Those people that find the cache next month and think the suggested activity is fun will enjoy doing it and that fun cannot be taken away.

Those people who find the cache next month but didn't think the suggested activity was fun still presumably had fun finding the cache and that fun cannot be taken away.

The only person who might have less fun based on this guideline is a cache owner who derives his fun out of deleting people's logs.

It's not about control crazed owners. It's about diversity and having another way of making people try something new, as in for example a difficult puzzle.

It should be noted that ALRs never 'made someone try something new'. People that didn't care to phoon merely skipped that cache. Also, those people who 1) think that the suggested cache is fun or 2) like to try new things even if they don't think they are fun will still perform the suggested activity.

I had this happen once!!! Since the owner wanted people to get into the spirit of baseball (it was a baseball themed cache), he required you to not only find the cache (which was already a puzzle), but to look up and send the words to a song to him as well. Caching related?? NO, but I wasn't too caught up on that, so I went after it.

I can understand if you're frustrated if a (control crazed or not) owner has deleted your log. But didn't you know about that requirement BEFORE you went there? Why did you decide to go anyway?

You are misunderstanding his post. He knew the ALR going in and complied with it. His post was still initially deleted.

Radman...ever stop to think many of us refuse to carry our expensive cameras into the woods??? I'll tell you this, I'd have simply skipped your cache much like I do any earthcache which requires a picture. I will not carry another piece of expensive equipment out into the woods and worry it'll not make it back...sorry.

Come up on US 127 sometimes and realize the shack where the frog was is about ten feet from your car. Hardly a challenge with the camera. And I never made it required. ...

For many, that won't work. If you bring the camera, you either have to take it with you to every cache site, or leave it locked in the car and risk having it stolen.

"Optional" gets more "noncompliant" logs than compliant. Some of my fun as an owner comes from logs which meet my requests...is your smiley as a finder more important than my smile as an owner? ...

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

 

Imagine that as a cache owner that you have two options.

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

Option 2: You hide an AL(Required) cache that 20 people have fun finding. These 20 people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. 80 people think your ALR is dumb and put your cache on their ignore list, even though your actual physical cache is located in a location that they would have enjoyed visiting.

 

Cache 1 pleased 100 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. Cache 2 pleased 20 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. As a cache owner, which cache would you rather own?

Honestly, I'd prefer option 2. Those 20 people had enough respect to comply with my wishes. In option 1, the other 80 people didn't and basically thumbed their noses at my wishes. I have plenty of caches which they are welcome to log with no strings attached, I prefer that they provide me with an extra bit of fun on this one.

How are they thumbing their noses at you if the activity is not required?

Not sure if we're working with the same definition of a "quasi" or "near" monopoly. The fact that there are competing sites only proves that it's not an "absolute" monopoly.

The very reason that I discussed barriers to entry and the ease to move from one site to another is to show that GC.com doesn't fit any part of the definition of monopoly. Edited April 9, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm sorry, you can parse any statement you want, but for those actually reading this, they will note I HIGHLIGHTED your words for you...wriggle out of that, please!! I also used your own words when you yourself said you didn't read the thread, I could highlight that too if you need reminded!! So, forgive me if I don't answer to those posts which obviously have no merit!

Yet the funny thing is that you still do answer them

 

So we agree these posts are without merit, good!

 

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation.

Ok please go ahead and quote the part where I said I'm not reading the thread or your answers?

 

I don't need to, you did for me, THANKS!! If you're not reading the whole thread, you're misssing answers which have been gone over and over and...

 

And yes I noticed your HIGHLIGHTED words and replied to most of them, even though you take them out of context on purpose. But I can do again if you didn't read my answers:

1. The fact that I don't own an ALR cache has nothing to do with my opinion on them.

2. Making is not forcing, you're free to decide not to do any cache, same as a hard puzzle or T5 Trad.

3. If you're trying to tell me that, because the owner of one ALR cache deleted your log incorrectly, you now hate all ALR caches, then I think you're just going too far. If it's something else, than I'm sorry but I might have got you wrong.

 

Apology accepted.

 

You do have an opinion, I never saw the OP require you to not. But, why not stop and think before adding more spew? Certainly not required of you, that'd stop your fun of spewing!

Hey, I'm still not spewing, just explaining why I think getting rid of ALRs is a loss in diversity for the game of geocaching.

 

When you don't read the thread but just want cover to stuff already covered several times over, I call it spew, some might call it something else I suppose. It's great to have opinion, but come on...I am assuming here that you didn't read the parts where you're going back over stuff, but that would mean you didn't read about 90%-95% of the thread!

 

I also see how you can't read numbers nor count...or was your misleading page count for effect?? Maybe to get out of having to actually read something so you know more about what your talking about??

How many pages do you see then? I get 41 now, that's just over 800 posts with 20 posts on each page. Maybe you have a different posts per page setting, no need to get angry or call names on this.

 

In this thread? 41 pages? WOW! I'll take another look after posting this comment, because I could be waaaaay off?? NOPE, I see 17 pages, but you were right about post numbers being 800!!

Edited April 9, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

 

Imagine that as a cache owner that you have two options.

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

Option 2: You hide an AL(Required) cache that 20 people have fun finding. These 20 people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. 80 people think your ALR is dumb and put your cache on their ignore list, even though your actual physical cache is located in a location that they would have enjoyed visiting.

 

Cache 1 pleased 100 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. Cache 2 pleased 20 finders and rewarded you with 20 pics of the people doing the requested activity. As a cache owner, which cache would you rather own?

First of all, I meant "participation" as in participating in the things the cache asks you to do. Meaning more than just signing the log.

 

But I'll think about this and respond.

 

I'll use your option one:

 

Option 1: You hide an AL(Request) cache that 100 people have fun finding. 20 of these people think your requested activity is a hoot and have loads of fun complying. The rest don't think your ALR is fun, so they skip it and have fun finding your fine cache.

 

I'll come up with my option two:

 

Option Two: The ALR cache become a cache with suggestion. Eighty people find the cache and move on without having to do the suggestion. They are as happy as one smiley can get you and you move on to the next cache. MAYBE 20 people do it say they did the task or put a photo up, but who says you will get twenty people to do the task after it is only made into a suggestion? Some people do a cache because it requires them too, but less people will do it if is a suggestion. The hula cache shows that as an example.

I used 20 because it is the same ratio as was claimed for the hula example. I have no reason to believe that the hula cache isn't representative of most every cache that would be affected by the new guideline.

 

Therefore, please answer my question as I presented it, if you don't mind.

100 get a smiley otherwise and the owner gets a few pictures, but might be disappointed the cache is no different than their other traditionals.

But it is different because of the people who voluntarily phoon for you.

Obviously, not every cache is going to be like that, and owners might be happy that they have some participation. Others, however, might be disappointed to witness only seeing a minority of the geocachers doing what they ask. This is the situation where the owners lose.

 

And to say it again, more finders does not make every owner happy. Participation with the cache might.

If you come up with a suggested activity that's fun, people will have fun doing it.

Sorry, honestly. I follow the philosophy of that great American poet, Ricky Nelson.

 

"You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself"

 

I cache to make me happy. I was putting out caches because it made me happy. If fellow cachers are happy as a result of my being happy, BONUS. If I feel my effort is not appreciated then I am not happy and take measures to restore my happiness.

Apparently, it makes you happy to avoid answering that question. Allow me to restate it for you:

 

Would you get more pleasure out of owning a cache that is enjoyed by 100 people, 20 of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle or a cache that is enjoyed by only 20 people, all of which send you a picture that makes you chuckle?

Sorry, if that was not clear enough for you. OPTION 2

How does option two provide more fun for the cache owner? The very same number of cachers send you the pic. Is the only thing that makes it more fun the fact that non-phooners enjoyed it also or is the power to delete logs of non-phooners the thing that is fun for you? Edited April 9, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I like to say that I do not agree with this comment and find it highly offensive! I will later come back and write a 500-word response as to why your comment is incorrect.

 

Hey, where's that 500 word reply??

 

I can't wait to get up there for the AYGE event so I can buy you a beer!!

[Trinity's Crew]

 

In this thread? 41 pages? WOW! I'll take another look after posting this comment, because I could be waaaaay off?? NOPE, I see 17 pages, but you were right about post numbers being 800!!

He mentioned that he is viewing 20 posts per page. It's 42 pages now.

 

Edit to add: You can change the number of posts per page in the board settings.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+sbell111]

 

In this thread? 41 pages? WOW! I'll take another look after posting this comment, because I could be waaaaay off?? NOPE, I see 17 pages, but you were right about post numbers being 800!!

He mentioned that he is viewing 20 posts per page. It's 42 pages now.

That's alot of Norms.

[+tozainamboku]

I hide cache that are long hikes in the wood and some difficult puzzles. I don't hide caches so that more people will visit them. If I want more visits I'd hide an LPC. Arguing that you should make ALRs into ALSs so that more people will participate isn't a very convincing argument.

 

Can you point out where I ever said this? I am not arguing anything here at all, just telling of the positive results of the change!

My point exactly. Who says that more people finding a cache is a positive result. Some with an ALR that is enforceable sees that cause a particular experience. Cachers like Rockin Roddy are pissed off because they can't get a smiley if they don't do the ALR. Please note: they could still find the cache and enjoy the location, they just can't log a 'Found It' log. Other cachers may decide that in order to get that smiley they are willing to do something they might not ordinarily do. Some will find the new experience enjoyable and some may feel really stupid that they tried this task just for some stupid smiley. Change this to an ALS and the experience is different. People who get pissed off because the cache owner wouldn't let them log a 'Found It' are now pissed off because it turned out the cache was just another lame LPC. People who may have tried something new now decide that it really isn't worth it so they don't get try something new.

 

Sorry I only sell ice cream with nuts. If you don't like nuts get your ice cream from someone else. I find this argument against ALRs a bit tiring. Once ALRs were listed as unknown caches you can easily look at the cache before you hunt it and decide if you want to or not. If you don't want the nuts don't do the caches with the nuts.

 

I really believe that requirements were changed because people were putting out requirements whose only point was to see what you could make someone do to get a smiley. At some point you'd put out a cache that no one wanted to do. If there was a simple way to define which tasks were fun or added to the experience of doing the cache the guidelines would have been changed to allow these ALRs and only ban ones that didn't serve this purpose. This, of course, sounds like the purpose of the "Wow" requirement that we had for virtual aches. It was suppose to limit virtuals to worthy places and not have a virtuals in places where nobody was really going to have fun finding them. Of course that definition proved insufficient to stop people from submitting boring virtuals or from trying to push the envelope of what is allowed. For virtuals the eventual resolution was Waymarking. The current experiment for ALRs is to make them ALSs since the idea that fun requirements that add something to the experience would be done anyhow and the ones that didn't fit that definition (for any cacher) would simply not get done.

 

Again, not an argument against the change at all, but pointing out WHY some caches get passed over. Sorry if I confused anyone with this.

Again I wasn't arguing against the change but against your reasons for supporting it. In fact if you don't like ALRs you can easily avoid ALRs. No cache owner can force you do the ALR. They can't even stop you from finding their cache a signing the log. They can only prevent you from getting a stupid smiley face on your online log.

 

Now if you were clever you could have used my ice cream analogy to make a good argument for the change. You could say that you don't like nuts but you could still buy my ice cream and eat around the nuts. When you are through you would have enjoyed my ice cream and have a bowl full of nuts you don't eat. "So why" you could then ask, "do I delete your review of my ice cream on iceCream.com?" I'd agree that it is silly to delete someones review of my ice cream because he didn't eat the nuts. Just don't tell me I can't sell the ice cream with nuts.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

In this thread? 41 pages? WOW! I'll take another look after posting this comment, because I could be waaaaay off?? NOPE, I see 17 pages, but you were right about post numbers being 800!!

He mentioned that he is viewing 20 posts per page. It's 42 pages now.

That's alot of Norms.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

In this thread? 41 pages? WOW! I'll take another look after posting this comment, because I could be waaaaay off?? NOPE, I see 17 pages, but you were right about post numbers being 800!!

He mentioned that he is viewing 20 posts per page. It's 42 pages now.

 

Edit to add: You can change the number of posts per page in the board settings.

 

Ahhhh, THANKS!! I apologize!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Now if you were clever you could have used my ice cream analogy to make a good argument for the change. You could say that you don't like nuts but you could still buy my ice cream and eat around the nuts. When you are through you would have enjoyed my ice cream and have a bowl full of nuts you don't eat. "So why" you could then ask, "do I delete your review of my ice cream on iceCream.com?" I'd agree that it is silly to delete someones review of my ice cream because he didn't eat the nuts. Just don't tell me I can't sell the ice cream with nuts.

 

I have not, nor ever will claim to be clever, my friend!! Just not a possibility.

 

One thing I would add though, I am not one to get irked about it, I just ignore the blue ? altogether.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

How are they thumbing their noses at you if the activity is not required?

 

Required or requested, I asked them to perform the activity. Refusing to do so but insisting that they be allowed the find anyway is, to me, akin to thumbing their nose. You may wish to call it something which sounds less rude and I'm certain that most of those folks don't want to use that terminology (some probably do), but that's what it looks like to me.

[+jtbrady01]

I cache paperless. A lot of these additional requirements were embedded in a photograph or at the bottom of a very long cache description and were truncated. So, I found the cache at the posted coordinates and now what do I do? I sign the log book. Should my log be deleted because I couldn't read the ALR in the field?

 

That's why they had to be marked as "?" not as Traditional. Do you go up to Puzzle, Multi or Virtual caches and search for a box without reading the description?

 

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. When you cache paperless and the cache is At the posted coordinates and you have read through the entire cache description on the Colorado and there is no ALR listed why should my log be deleted? It's not my fault that you (cache owner) decided to write an essay on the cache that caused the ALR to be truncated (left off) of the Colorado. I get home look up the cache page and it says at the very bottom to include a photo, or a transcription. I log the cache and send an email to the owner and they delete it anyway. Now, my thought. If I was going to do an ALR I would have put the requirement at the top of the cache page. Also, don't include a photo on the page and state to email me the dimensions of the object I'm pointing to. What are you pointing to? I don't carry my laptop out into the field and not everyone has a cell phone with internet capability. Maybe at the beginning the code word in the cache was a good idea. However too many got carried away and started asking for all of us to do some really stupid things that had nothing to do with Geocaching. If you really need to know who visited your caches do the maintenance and stop putting out 200+ caches. Sorry if that upsets some of you. But, if that was the way that you expected to maintain your caches then you were going about it the wrong way.

[Clan Riffster]

For those of us that live and breath all things geocaching, we like having options. I tend to bore of ammo cans in the woods, for my on personal reasons. So mixing it up, by having options is a good thing.

Kewl! Options are a good thing!

With your particular likes/dislikes, this new guideline shouldn't affect you one iota.

After all, you, as a cache seeker, retain the "option" of wearing the silly hat or not.

You, as the cache hider, retain the "option" of suggesting that others wear the silly hat.

Looks like a win-win to me.

(Unless you're just a closet control freak. In that case, yes, you'd be losing out)

Edited April 9, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

If you really need to know who visited your caches do the maintenance

Well put. Hopefully, if I ever get so anal that I find myself carefully scrutinizing my cache logbooks, comparing them line by line with the online logs, some kind soul will put me out of my misery.

[+Plasma Boy]

How does option two provide more fun for the cache owner? The very same number of cachers send you the pic. Is the only thing that makes it more fun the fact that non-phooners enjoyed it also or is the power to delete logs of non-phooners the thing that is fun for you?

Because the twenty who have done my cache have sent me very nice emails about my cache. That is a 100% joy factor.

 

If only 20 out of a 100 send me emails, then I only have 20% of the joy. The other 80 loggers just get a smily and I do not have the joy of meeting them. They do not want to share in my investment.

 

I would rather have 20 people really enjoy my cache, rather than 80 who just want a smily.

 

The 20 who email, I see as givers. The other 80 are just takers. I prefer the givers. The takers can take from somewhere else.

[Radman Forever]

I used 20 because it is the same ratio as was claimed for the hula example. I have no reason to believe that the hula cache isn't representative of most every cache that would be affected by the new guideline.

 

Therefore, please answer my question as I presented it, if you don't mind.

 

Fine, I like the cache where owners still have ownership of their caches and geocachers still have the right to choose which caches they like to find. I still own my caches, but with less control. The decision has been made for me and now I am told what I can or cannot require on my cache. My opinion, my answer.

 

If you come up with a suggested activity that's fun, people will have fun doing it.

 

If you came up with a fun activity that was required, those who wanted to do it have fun.

 

Is the only thing that makes it more fun the fact that non-phooners enjoyed it also or is the power to delete logs of non-phooners the thing that is fun for you?

 

First of all, why the heck is the word "phoon" used? Anyways, why do you assume that ALR cache owners only hid them to delete logs. Maybe they hid the cache to have them do something shows them something new, just like showing people a cool area by hiding a cache there. Making it required does have those who choose to do the cache do something.

[Clan Riffster]

If you came up with a fun activity that was required, those who wanted to do it have fun.

True. Likewise, if you came up with a totally lame activity, many would still do it, however their degree of fun might be in question.

(Makes me wonder, over the years, how many folks exclaimed in joy, "Yeah! I get to take a picture with a stuffed frog! Whoo Hoo!!)

Either way, according to Groundspeak, folks coming up with a forced activity to claim a find, lame or otherwise, became a burden for the reviewers.

Whether ALRs go the way of the do do, or they get reinstated with a new icon, matters little to me, so long as the reviewers are happy.

[Swamp-Thing]

Now if you were clever you could have used my ice cream analogy to make a good argument for the change. You could say that you don't like nuts but you could still buy my ice cream and eat around the nuts. When you are through you would have enjoyed my ice cream and have a bowl full of nuts you don't eat. "So why" you could then ask, "do I delete your review of my ice cream on iceCream.com?" I'd agree that it is silly to delete someones review of my ice cream because he didn't eat the nuts. Just don't tell me I can't sell the ice cream with nuts.

 

Let me see if I got this right.

 

I could buy your ice cream, eat around your nuts, toss your nuts aside, enjoy the ice cream, and still get my review of your ice cream, all the while letting you sell your ice cream with nuts?

 

Isn't that what making the ALR a suggestion does? You get to sell the ice cream with nuts and I get to eat the ice cream and thumb my nose at your nuts and you would be fine with my log.

 

You did agree that it is silly to delete someones review of your ice cream because he didn't eat the nuts.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Swamp-Thing

[Swamp-Thing]

Double post

Edited April 9, 2009 by Swamp-Thing

[Radman Forever]

If you came up with a fun activity that was required, those who wanted to do it have fun.

True. Likewise, if you came up with a totally lame activity, many would still do it, however their degree of fun might be in question.

(Makes me wonder, over the years, how many folks exclaimed in joy, "Yeah! I get to take a picture with a stuffed frog! Whoo Hoo!!)

Either way, according to Groundspeak, folks coming up with a forced activity to claim a find, lame or otherwise, became a burden for the reviewers.

Whether ALRs go the way of the do do, or they get reinstated with a new icon, matters little to me, so long as the reviewers are happy.

 

Same can be said for finding a lame micro, or an owner going "Whoo hoo, someone gave me a TNLN TFTC log!"

 

Serious now, reviewers had a problem with deleted logs, not with the caches themselves. They were no harder than any other mystery cache (a reviewer on my local group forums admitted that). They are still going to have to answer the million questions of "Is my challenge/puzzle/math/etc. cache impacted by this rule?" "Can I hide this such and such cache"? "What suggestions are fine and what aren't"? "Why aren't challenge caches banned also"?

 

These questions that are (or at least trying) being answered on the forums, but only a small percetage of geocachers read these threads. You are still going to have thousands asking these questions.

 

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. At least these caches would've still been left alone.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If you came up with a fun activity that was required, those who wanted to do it have fun.

True. Likewise, if you came up with a totally lame activity, many would still do it, however their degree of fun might be in question.

(Makes me wonder, over the years, how many folks exclaimed in joy, "Yeah! I get to take a picture with a stuffed frog! Whoo Hoo!!)

Either way, according to Groundspeak, folks coming up with a forced activity to claim a find, lame or otherwise, became a burden for the reviewers.

Whether ALRs go the way of the do do, or they get reinstated with a new icon, matters little to me, so long as the reviewers are happy.

 

Same can be said for finding a lame micro, or an owner going "Whoo hoo, someone gave me a TNLN TFTC log!"

 

Serious now, reviewers had a problem with deleted logs, not with the caches themselves. They were no harder than any other mystery cache (a reviewer on my local group forums admitted that). They are still going to have to answer the million questions of "Is my challenge/puzzle/math/etc. cache impacted by this rule?" "Can I hide this such and such cache"? "What suggestions are fine and what aren't"? "Why aren't challenge caches banned also"?

 

These questions that are (or at least trying) being answered on the forums, but only a small percetage of geocachers read these threads. You are still going to have thousands asking these questions.

 

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. At least these caches would've still been left alone.

 

You did read Rusty's post, right? If you still think this, please go read it again!

[Swamp-Thing]

How does option two provide more fun for the cache owner? The very same number of cachers send you the pic. Is the only thing that makes it more fun the fact that non-phooners enjoyed it also or is the power to delete logs of non-phooners the thing that is fun for you?

Because the twenty who have done my cache have sent me very nice emails about my cache. That is a 100% joy factor.

 

If only 20 out of a 100 send me emails, then I only have 20% of the joy. The other 80 loggers just get a smily and I do not have the joy of meeting them. They do not want to share in my investment.

 

I would rather have 20 people really enjoy my cache, rather than 80 who just want a smily.

 

The 20 who email, I see as givers. The other 80 are just takers. I prefer the givers. The takers can take from somewhere else.

 

I don't see your logic. 20 emails is 20 emails.

 

If we use the ice cream analogy.

 

You sell just 20 ice creams and 20 people like your nuts., or you sell 100 ice creams and 20 people lick your nuts. You still get your nuts licked by 20 people but you are selling way more ice cream!

 

Or do you want to just control all the cachers ice cream buyers and have all 100 of them lik your nuts instead of the 20 that lik nuts?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Swamp-Thing

[Radman Forever]

"I also want to make it clear that I never had a problem with ALR's as a reviewer. They are no more time consuming to review than a regular traditional. My beef was as a cacher. I still remember doing my first skirt lifter and thinking it was a novel idea Rolling Eyes same thing goes for ALR's. I enjoyed the first couple but then...."

 

"Sorry but I have very strong opinions on these both as a reviewer and as a cacher. Probably more so as a cacher, they were never hard to review."

 

Rod, try to get my point before you claim I should do something.

 

I know Rusty is against these also, my point was that he said these caches are no harder to review than traditionals. That was the point of my post, so try to get my point.

 

You don't have to agree with it, because I don't care.

[+Rockin Roddy]

"I also want to make it clear that I never had a problem with ALR's as a reviewer. They are no more time consuming to review than a regular traditional. My beef was as a cacher. I still remember doing my first skirt lifter and thinking it was a novel idea Rolling Eyes same thing goes for ALR's. I enjoyed the first couple but then...."

 

"Sorry but I have very strong opinions on these both as a reviewer and as a cacher. Probably more so as a cacher, they were never hard to review."

 

Rod, try to get my point before you claim I should do something.

 

I know Rusty is against these also, my point was that he said these caches are no harder to review than traditionals. That was the point of my post, so try to get my point.

 

You don't have to agree with it, because I don't care.

 

Gee Radman, you're right, Rusty didn't say that, it was in these forums posted by Miss Jenn, my bad. But, since we're posting the reviewer posts, let's post some of interest! Had I known this was such a hot topic for you, I'd have posted it myself and spared you the turmoil! Me? I get a good laugh watching the people get worked up over this, it's great! Where is that popcorn?? I do wonder though, if this bothers some as much as they let it appear it does, why do they do this to themselves?? I mean, posting here is likely about the same as spitting into the ocean and hoping it raises the water level...

 

Any idea that these are the tip of an iceberg is pure BS !!! TINCT

 

ALR's were removed from the guidelines because people abused them, just like they abused virtuals and code word caches before them. The only difference is that this time all the stupid ones are not being grandfathered in so that reviewers have to answer questions for the next 5 years from newbies asking why their cache isn't allowed when this one is. Geocaching is about geocaching and the cache experience is to go out and find a cache! All this garbage of doing this and that has nothing to do with geocaching or enhancing the geocaching experience. I have ignored the majority of them and thought they hurt the sport for a long time, now they are gone and good riddance in my opinion.

 

And, just to make sure we get yet another reviewer perspective, let's try this one on for size:

 

Personally I think it's a good thing too. We've been pretty lucky in MI as most of the ALRs we have fall in the decent to really good categories. What really prompted the restriction is what's been happening elsewhere. Hiders have been putting out caches where the finders need to "have 5000 finds to log this cache", "Take your picture near a purple house to log this cache" "have hidden at least 300 hides to log this cache" "have visited a foreign country" etc. These are basically "instant ignore" for the majority of cachers, or belong to a waymark category. Then there are the ones that haven't made it though - "have graduated from a local college" "have worked for company X" "female only/male only can sign log" etc. I've seen some really neat ALR's and I'm sad to see those go, I have however, seen far more bad ones, and I'm glad they are going...

 

I don't know if this will allay any fears or not, but this change has been in the works for over 4 months and involved a large discussion of many cognizant individuals over that time.

Keep in mind too that what are now called "challenge caches" used to be lumped in with all ALRs. So essentially the Geocaching related ALRs fall more into the challange cache category now. The new guidelines are intended to keep them reasonable and hopefully keep it fun.

 

Furthermore, guessing how much work this change will or will not take off the reviewers is just that, a guess. So, it is your opinion this will not have the effect the PTB were looking for, and nothing more! I guess the PTB had a good idea this would help or that 4 months of thought was a true waste of time, right?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+The Jester]

 

100 get a smiley otherwise and the owner gets a few pictures, but might be disappointed the cache is no different than their other traditionals.

But it is different because of the people who voluntarily phoon for you.

Obviously, not every cache is going to be like that, and owners might be happy that they have some participation. Others, however, might be disappointed to witness only seeing a minority of the geocachers doing what they ask. This is the situation where the owners lose.

 

And to say it again, more finders does not make every owner happy. Participation with the cache might.

If you come up with a suggested activity that's fun, people will have fun doing it.

If and only if they read the cache page and know about it. How many on here have talked about NOT reading the page before finding a cache. This is one of the reasons ALR's were made Mystery caches. As traditionals those 80 non-doers may not even know about the fun suggestion.

[Radman Forever]

Gee Radman, you're right, Rusty didn't say that, it was in these forums posted by Miss Jenn, my bad. But, since we're posting the reviewer posts, let's post some of interest! Had I known this was such a hot topic for you, I'd have posted it myself and spared you the turmoil! Me? I get a good laugh watching the people get worked up over this, it's great! Where is that popcorn?? I do wonder though, if this bothers some as much as they let it appear it does, why do they do this to themselves?? I mean, posting here is likely about the same as spitting into the ocean and hoping it raises the water level...

 

Any idea that these are the tip of an iceberg is pure BS !!! TINCT

 

ALR's were removed from the guidelines because people abused them, just like they abused virtuals and code word caches before them. The only difference is that this time all the stupid ones are not being grandfathered in so that reviewers have to answer questions for the next 5 years from newbies asking why their cache isn't allowed when this one is. Geocaching is about geocaching and the cache experience is to go out and find a cache! All this garbage of doing this and that has nothing to do with geocaching or enhancing the geocaching experience. I have ignored the majority of them and thought they hurt the sport for a long time, now they are gone and good riddance in my opinion.

 

And, just to make sure we get yet another reviewer perspective, let's try this one on for size:

 

Personally I think it's a good thing too. We've been pretty lucky in MI as most of the ALRs we have fall in the decent to really good categories. What really prompted the restriction is what's been happening elsewhere. Hiders have been putting out caches where the finders need to "have 5000 finds to log this cache", "Take your picture near a purple house to log this cache" "have hidden at least 300 hides to log this cache" "have visited a foreign country" etc. These are basically "instant ignore" for the majority of cachers, or belong to a waymark category. Then there are the ones that haven't made it though - "have graduated from a local college" "have worked for company X" "female only/male only can sign log" etc. I've seen some really neat ALR's and I'm sad to see those go, I have however, seen far more bad ones, and I'm glad they are going...

 

I don't know if this will allay any fears or not, but this change has been in the works for over 4 months and involved a large discussion of many cognizant individuals over that time.

Keep in mind too that what are now called "challenge caches" used to be lumped in with all ALRs. So essentially the Geocaching related ALRs fall more into the challange cache category now. The new guidelines are intended to keep them reasonable and hopefully keep it fun.

 

Furthermore, guessing how much work this change will or will not take off the reviewers is just that, a guess. So, it is your opinion this will not have the effect the PTB were looking for, and nothing more! I guess the PTB had a good idea this would help or that 4 months of thought was a true waste of time, right?

 

I have to ask you Rod, why do you like the Are You Geocacher Enough event? After all, it really is one big ALR-style cache that forces you to go find a bunch of caches set out for you to find. You are going to love this year, Sleepyweasel wants to put up puzzle caches and other mystery caches. Not really a bunch of quick finds. You have to find certain caches in order to claim for certain prizes.

 

Is it the prizes? You don't like being told what to do by another geocacher, other than the occasional puzzle, which you are not actually being told to do something. The closest legal cache this comes to is the challenge cache, and I haven't seen any that you have found.

 

Maybe events that require you to do something will no longer be allowed. It can only go back to the basics of meeting, eating, and leaving. That was the way the original cachers intended.

 

Who knows? Maybe I'll have to come back and gripe about that when that happens.

[Clan Riffster]

I have to ask you Rod, why do you like the Are You Geocacher Enough event? After all, it forces lets you find a bunch of caches

Fixed it for ya!

 

Back on topic: I've never met Roddy, but I think I can answer this one for him.

(Roddy, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Uh... Because he's a geocacher? And there are geocaches to find? Other cachers to schmooze with? Maybe some good vittles?

 

Dude, is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

[Radman Forever]

I have to ask you Rod, why do you like the Are You Geocacher Enough event? After all, it forces lets you find a bunch of caches

Fixed it for ya!

 

Back on topic: I've never met Roddy, but I think I can answer this one for him.

(Roddy, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Uh... Because he's a geocacher? And there are geocaches to find? Other cachers to schmooze with? Maybe some good vittles?

 

Dude, is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

 

Wow, I don't remember asking you why you wanted to attend this event, even though you probably don't understand the event I am talking about. It requires more than just talking and eating. Don't know a thing about it, but you have to be a smart*** to prove a point, right?

 

Thanks for your input, it was totally necessary and worth it.

 

I've about run my course and have little energy. Rod is right that there is little that can convince TPTB that they might be wrong or to let the geocaching community have a more open role in the course of geocaching decisions. I don't know why I did this after doing the same thing for virtuals five years ago.

 

Guess I never learn eh?

[+Plasma Boy]

 

I don't see your logic. 20 emails is 20 emails.

 

If we use the ice cream analogy.

 

You sell just 20 ice creams and 20 people like your nuts., or you sell 100 ice creams and 20 people lick your nuts. You still get your nuts licked by 20 people but you are selling way more ice cream!

 

Or do you want to just control all the cachers ice cream buyers and have all 100 of them lik your nuts instead of the 20 that lik nuts?

I suppose the only thing I can say is that it is my understanding that seeking caches is not mandatory. I can not force anyone to look for them, just as I am not forced to look for others peoples caches. The people who did my caches, did them because they wanted to and apparently wanted to fulfill my legal requirements. Those who did not do my caches had their reasons for doing so, I hope the requirement of licking my nuts did not put them off.

 

Your analogy doesn't really help your position. I do like ice cream and I really like having my nuts licked. Maybe I can work that into a puzzle cache.

 

My logic is that you are correct that 20 emails is 20 emails. Your math is above reproach. But 20 emails and 100 logs make me feel that 80 of those loggers do no appreciate the effort I put into the creation of my cache. As I said I make the caches for me. I share them in the hope that cachers will appreciate them. If only 20% appreciate them, then I would rather not bother being a cache owner.

 

So, as far as I know, I have not said anything personal against anyone on this thread. I have put my position forward politely. I accept the position of others on this thread, I just do not agree with many of them and have said so without making it personal.

 

PS Could you give me the address of the ice cream shop you go to. I would really like to check out that place.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Plasma Boy

[+Rockin Roddy]

I have to ask you Rod, why do you like the Are You Geocacher Enough event? After all, it forces lets you find a bunch of caches

Fixed it for ya!

 

Back on topic: I've never met Roddy, but I think I can answer this one for him.

(Roddy, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Uh... Because he's a geocacher? And there are geocaches to find? Other cachers to schmooze with? Maybe some good vittles?

 

Dude, is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

 

Yes, Clanster, all of the above!

 

I need a prize like a hole in the head, I thought events were to meet and visit with friends! Oh well, many many places to cache in this world!

 

Now, back on topic....Good idea, this change! THANKS for looking out for our volunteers!