update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

[Radman Forever]

Edit: Taking back a comment I would regret.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Radman Forever

[+roziecakes]

 

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.

 

 

I so want to visit this cache now. I know this is OT, but this one looks so cool! Too bad it's WAAAAAYYY across the country for me.

 

-Rozie

[+oldnavy59]

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.

 

AMEN

[+sbell111]

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.

Maybe you could just look at the comply/don't comply ratio as a dipstick to tell exactly what the community thinks of your ALR, sort of like how many cache owners view TFTC-type logs.

[+sbell111]

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.

 

AMEN

Sure, it doesn't match the reality of the situation, but Praise Jebus!

[+Jumpin' Jack 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.

Maybe you could just look at the comply/don't comply ratio as a dipstick to tell exactly what the community thinks of your ALR, sort of like how many cache owners view TFTC-type logs.

 

Quote tag got mixed up there, I didn't actually say that but I do pretty much agree.

[+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.

 

AMEN

Sure, it doesn't match the reality of the situation, but Praise Jebus!

 

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

 

AMEN

Sure, it doesn't match the reality of the situation, but Praise Jebus!

 

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

 

The funny thing about that, you couldn't stop them from finding the cache to start with, you only were holding the smiley hostage!

[+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.

 

AMEN

Sure, it doesn't match the reality of the situation, but Praise Jebus!

 

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

 

The funny thing about that, you couldn't stop them from finding the cache to start with, you only were holding the smiley hostage!

 

So. Maybe I like hostage smilies. I even like to tie one up and torture it now and then. Some of 'em, like this one , deserve it.

 

The fact is that there would be no smiley if I didn't choose to hide that particular cache. So, I hide cache, you get smiley. What's so all-fired wrong with me wanting you to do something more that will give me a bit of extra enjoyment.

 

For the record, I've seen ALRs which I don't like. I didn't do the caches then and I won't go back and do them now even if the owner can no longer "hold the smiley hostage".

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Someone asked me through PM about Wherigo caches. They were confused about a possible double standard in relation to ALRs. Here's my response:

 

Wherigo caches require you to complete the cartridge to get the completion code. This is an acceptable part of the Wherigo cache type according to what MissJenn has posted.

 

Requiring the finder to do more than that, such as write a poem for your log entry or upload a photo, would be considered an ALR and not acceptable under the new guidelines.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Team GPSaxophone

[+MickEMT]

OK, I'll admit that while I do think some of the ALR's out there were "silly", or downright outrageous, there were, and are some good ones.

I had (have) one where the ALR was to upload any favorite photo from geocaching. Didn't matter if it was agroup photo from an event, a nice landscape photo, your 1st, 100th or 100,000th find, just upload a photo to share. Yes, I did take in to account that some people still use film, and some cachers don't even know how to upload a photo. I even offered on the cache page to assist them if needed.

Yes, once I saw the new guideline, I re-wrote the cache page, and asked my approver to change the cache type.

Do I think TPTB made a good decision? Frankly, no. My reasons?

1. Can ANYONE name a cache type that hasn't had some controversy? LPC's, Cemetery caches, Puzzles, Virtuals, Eartcaches, "Extreme Caches", night caches, event caches, heck even the good old "ammo can in the woods" cache has more than a fe people who would LOVE to see them banned.

2 Isn't it the RESPONSIBILTY of the INDIVIDUAL cacher to decide what caches he or she wants to go and find?

3. I just have this "feeling" that the anti (insert you most hated cache type here) cropwd will try to use this as a precedent to ban whichever "flavor of the moth" they are against.

 

Quite frankly, one of the reasons I don't spend more time on the forums is the incessant bit***ng along the lines of "this should be banned and thos ethat don't agree should have their GPS units taken away for good"

 

Personaly, I thing Groundspeak should consider putting something like the following in the TOS.

 

"It is the responsibility of the individual cacher to decide which caches he or she will attempt, the cacher is also responsible to take the time to review the cache listing before searching for the cache to make sure they understand the requierments of the cache.

Also, geocaching is a sport/hobby that is designed to be enjoyed by people of all ages and physical/ mental abilities, if you do not like a certain type or difficulty level of cache, it is your right to not search for that type. We have even given you the ability ti "ignore" those caches. Please understand that even though you may not wish to search for a certain type of cache, there are many others who do, and those cachers have just as much of a right to participate in the sport as you do. By using this site you agree that the rights of other cachers are just as important as your own. If you feel that this is not acceptible to you, there are other geocaching sites available for your use and enjoyment."

[+Rockin Roddy]

Let me see, same question that was asked, answered, asked again, answered again asked yet again and even answered to by those who have the power...about 100 times over? Are you expecting a different answer this time around?

 

There's always hope, I suppose! I'll sit back and see...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

3. I just have this "feeling" that the anti (insert you most hated cache type here) cropwd will try to use this as a precedent to ban whichever "flavor of the moth" they are against.

I'll admit, I've never tasted a moth, but I'm pretty sure I'm against that flavor already.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I think I read somewhere (and I could be wrong) that they weren't going to actively hunt for the ALR caches, but respond if there's a complaint. If this is true, and your (your being generic here) ALR is popular, you shouldn't ever hae a problem.

[+briansnat]

Asking the finder to do more than that, such as write a poem for your log entry or upload a photo, would be considered an ALR and not acceptable under the new guidelines.

 

Correction. Asking the finders to write a poem for a log entry, or to upload a photo, or to sign the log while standing on their heads is still perfectly fine under the new guideline. Forcing them to do so is what is off limits.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Quick note: Someone at Groundspeak needs to rewrite the definition of Mystery or Puzzle caches "?" at this page....

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Asking the finder to do more than that, such as write a poem for your log entry or upload a photo, would be considered an ALR and not acceptable under the new guidelines.

 

Correction. Asking the finders to write a poem for a log entry, or to upload a photo, or to sign the log while standing on their heads is still perfectly fine under the new guideline. Forcing them to do so is what is off limits.

Thanks. I edited my post to say "requiring" rather than "asking"

[+Logscaler and Red]

Boy, My wife is P.O.ed off at you people.

 

I am tired and groggy so this may read different later today when I re-read it but here goes.

 

I sat here and read this entire thread last night and this morning. (Out of work and no life at this stage.)

 

As I understand it, a burden was placed upon cache reviewers to decide if an "extra" task to log a cache was overboard or not. People started pushing the limit in ways no one had imagined, considered "reasonable" or bordered on just plain sick. (Sick is MY term for someone wanting photos of decaying animals.)

 

Anyway, A line had to be drawn somewhere, thus the new "guideline" we have now.

 

Why is GC being held as the "offending" party when they are just reacting to a situation thrust upon them by a few cachers who want to see how far they can push? I would bet there is just a few percentage points of cachers who have brought this whole thing down on the rest of us.

 

I will skip through the nitpicking details of the "he said - she said" arguments I read here already but the way I read the new "guideline" was things where starting to get out of control, even bordering on the stupid, and GC is trying to bring some sort of control back to cache listings. Yes, some have said "cracking a nut with a sledge hammer" but some people need smacked in the forehead with a 2x4 to get their attention.

 

Now GC has your attention. IF we geocachers had policed ourselves, I doubt this would have even been an issue. Yes, we can control cachers with our comments on the cache pages, in these forums, at events, in the local area forums and by word of mouth via e-mails and such as. Just because a cache is out there does not mean anyone has to look for it. After a while, people will get the idea they did something wrong. Yea, I know. There are people out there that will look for ANY cache.

 

Since this new "guideline" was installed, It seems as I have had to delete more logs in the last month then in the last 8 years, combined. People pushing. (It's 36 counties, not 1). I first try to start a dialog with the offending party but if they do not respond, what is a cache owner supposed to do ?

 

Puzzle cache = Task to be completed to get the coordinates to a cache.

ALR cache = Task to be completed to log a cache.

 

Big difference as I see it. No gray area at all.

 

Your choice to attempt the cache or not depended on your abilities. (As it still does)

You either skipped the caches, completed the caches as designed, teamed up to do the caches with people who had different skill levels then you or you found a different way to complete the cache staying within the scope of the intent of the cache hider.

 

Anyway, it is way early. I need some zzzz's.

 

I retain the right to edit this whole thing later after waking up. It sounds good now. But later? We will see.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

I will skip through the nitpicking details of the "he said - she said" arguments I read here already but the way I read the new "guideline" was things where starting to get out of control, even bordering on the stupid, and GC is trying to bring some sort of control back to cache listings. Yes, some have said "cracking a nut with a sledge hammer" but some people need smacked in the forehead with a 2x4 to get their attention.

 

 

As someone put it earlier, AMEN!!

[+sbell111]

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

This is why it doesn't match reality:

 

Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

This is why it doesn't match reality:

 

Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?

 

Depends on how the invitation is stated.

If it says "Feel free to knock on the door and visit. I might even offer you a cup of coffee", then not doing so would be fine.

If it says "Please don't log your find unless you knock on the door and say howdy", then yes, it would be rude to log the find without doing so.

 

In the second case, I'd likely give the cache a pass (I usually pass on front yard caches anyway). I don't need the smiley that bad and it doesn't hurt me to skip caches which don't appeal to me for whatever reason.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

Maybe you could just look at the comply/don't comply ratio as a dipstick to tell exactly what the community thinks of your ALR, sort of like how many cache owners view TFTC-type logs.

You are both right.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?

Given the invite as opposed to the "if y'all find yourself in my front yard do stop in before you look for the cache" angle the rude kicks in on why you didn't knock. "Dat old wind bag ain't be worth me time". Yes. "Man, I'm late for work but can't resist the cache on the way..." maybe not.

 

I find a certain irony in that my ALR caches (most have gone away) are exactly as most people think. Yet some of my remaining "suggested" prep work keep you from doing things like tresspassing. "Park here" takes you to the access point. "use this access way" takes you to a narrow strip of public land alonside a sea of private. Again the goal is to keep you from trespassing. Thus far nobody has had a problem and I really didn't expect them too. But technically....

[+Rockin Roddy]

....Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?

Given the invite as opposed to the "if y'all find yourself in my front yard do stop in before you look for the cache" angle the rude kicks in on why you didn't knock. "Dat old wind bag ain't be worth me time". Yes. "Man, I'm late for work but can't resist the cache on the way..." maybe not.

 

I find a certain irony in that my ALR caches (most have gone away) are exactly as most people think. Yet some of my remaining "suggested" prep work keep you from doing things like tresspassing. "Park here" takes you to the access point. "use this access way" takes you to a narrow strip of public land alonside a sea of private. Again the goal is to keep you from trespassing. Thus far nobody has had a problem and I really didn't expect them too. But technically....

 

Now your comparing apples and oranges. Read the thread covering tis and decide on your own what you'll do in some situations!

[+Castle Mischief]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

[+Renegade Knight]

....Why is GC being held as the "offending" party when they are just reacting to a situation thrust upon them by a few cachers who want to see how far they can push? I would bet there is just a few percentage points of cachers who have brought this whole thing down on the rest of us....

 

I'll tackle this.

 

GC is the offending party because they took the action.

Cache owners are the offending party when they list a cache with ALR's that are unpopular. That's simple.

 

I tried ALR's and they were a PITA. However there are a few ALR's out there that make me smile. Nude Finds. Man I'd likely never play, but I actually like that someone did it, and I like that others find ways to hold the log sheet to get their photo in.

 

I like what we live in a world where Nude Cacher can be free, and where Anal Rentantive Engineers can see what the woods are like when they break free of their office. They may even meet Nude Cacher and have a good conversation.

 

For me this entire thing is about freedom. Cache owners make this world go. They have to learn lessons. One of the lessons is that ALR's are not popular. But every now and then one breaks the mold and people like it. I like that that one out of a thousand can exist.

 

For losing that one. For making the box that defines what caching is smaller I do hold GC.com and all the whiney finders who hate freedom but love the concept of a home owners association to tell us what color we can paint our house and that our 67' Camaro, or Old International Scout are 'wrecks' and need to be hauled off responsible.

 

Piss on them. I'd rather live next to an interesting family with an ALR in their front yard hidden inside their rusty 57 chevy up on bocks than the Yuppie clones.

 

Most ALRs suck. Some don't. Let the finders vote by avoiding the cache. The prior system was simple enough. Those finders who don't read the cache page deserve the suprise. I've got a couple of caches that the advice on the cache page keeps you from tresspassing. I didn't make those ALRs. Another cache I adopted out the ALR was actually related to bat hibernation though I didn't explain that on the cache page (because I didn't want to advertise the problem I was working around)

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

 

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

How does it not match the reality of the situation? I stated how I perceived their action.

I say "Here's a cache for you to find. While you're at it, please also do (whatever)."

They say "I'll find your cache but I don't want to do (whatever) and you can't make me."

 

Certainly seems to me to be the equivalent of thumbing their nose, flipping the bird, f*rting in my general direction or something along those lines.

 

I'm not all freaked out over the change. I changed my one cache which had a requirement. That doesn't mean that it isn't rude to log the find and ignore the request.

This is why it doesn't match reality:

 

Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?

 

Depends on how the invitation is stated.

If it says "Feel free to knock on the door and visit. I might even offer you a cup of coffee", then not doing so would be fine.

If it says "Please don't log your find unless you knock on the door and say howdy", then yes, it would be rude to log the find without doing so.

 

In the second case, I'd likely give the cache a pass (I usually pass on front yard caches anyway). I don't need the smiley that bad and it doesn't hurt me to skip caches which don't appeal to me for whatever reason.

If knocking was required, I'd visit at 2am. Signed log, woke owner up as required.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If knocking was required, I'd visit at 2am. Signed log, woke owner up as required.

 

I like that, good call!! Let the owner know you're more than willing to meet their demands!

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

 

If knocking was required, I'd visit at 2am. Signed log, woke owner up as required.

 

"Logging this one with my iPhone from the emergency room. T: buckshot L: quickly TFTC"

 

[Mushtang]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

 

Please. Been covered sooo many times now, it's boring!

[Trinity's Crew]

I understand that making ALRs requests rather than requirements will make SOME of the new submissions easier to list but that doesn't explain why TPTB killed existing ALRs.

 

My guess is that the biggest reason for putting the kibosh on ALRs was that arbitrating ALR log deletions was becoming unmanageable. The REAL ambiguity stemmed from dealing with owners who deleted logs out of spite or as a tool for revenge and used the ALR as their excuse. Look at it from this angle and it makes more sense. Eliminate the requirement, eliminate the headache of reviewing and arbitrating deleted found logs.

 

GS has a lot of customers. One ALR with an unreasonable owner can tick off a lot of cachers. Take away an owner's ability to delete logs and you've only ticked off one.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

I am ignoring something I don't want to participate in - ALRs. I've been geocaching for the last 7 years so I could go geocaching. If I wanted to take pictures of people (myself included) wearing funny hats or glasses, phooning (whatever that is), write poems, or whatever I would go to those websites and get involved. I'm on this website because I want to go geocaching.

[Mushtang]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

I am ignoring something I don't want to participate in - ALRs. I've been geocaching for the last 7 years so I could go geocaching. If I wanted to take pictures of people (myself included) wearing funny hats or glasses, phooning (whatever that is), write poems, or whatever I would go to those websites and get involved. I'm on this website because I want to go geocaching.

Right there, proof that ignoring something that you don't want to participate in can work. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

I shouldn't assume, but I can't help it here. I'm guessing you also wanted to solve puzzles, do field geology, pick up trash, have meetings with friends, copy down information needed on virtual stops, pose for pictures in front of web cams, or whatever you also find other websites and get involved with those too. You probably only stick to traditional caches and ignore all the additions. That's good. Again, it's possible to ignore the things you don't want to participate in on this site, I'm not sure why others don't see it like we do.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I understand that making ALRs requests rather than requirements will make SOME of the new submissions easier to list but that doesn't explain why TPTB killed existing ALRs.

 

My guess is that the biggest reason for putting the kibosh on ALRs was that arbitrating ALR log deletions was becoming unmanageable. The REAL ambiguity stemmed from dealing with owners who deleted logs out of spite or as a tool for revenge and used the ALR as their excuse. Look at it from this angle and it makes more sense. Eliminate the requirement, eliminate the headache of reviewing and arbitrating deleted found logs.

 

GS has a lot of customers. One ALR with an unreasonable owner can tick off a lot of cachers. Take away an owner's ability to delete logs and you've only ticked off one.

 

As has been stated in this thread a few times now, so the reviewers don't have to deal with "but that cache was allowed" for the next 5 years. It may have been missed with all the repeated questions and answers throughout the several pages here!

 

I mean, we're right back to stage one with the new round of questions we're seeing all of a sudden...right??

[+Castle Mischief]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

 

Please. Been covered sooo many times now, it's boring!

 

Same goes for both sides.

 

Here's my contribution to the thread- it's all been said at this point. You either stand on one side or the other. Time to agree to disagree and move on. This was an announcement, not a call for a vote. Everybody's had there chance to get it off their chest and the posts are getting redundant. At this point you should either feel that the change is so positively detrimental to your fun and enjoyment that you need to move on and either explore other options or suck it up and continue caching - or you should be basically okay with the change and realize that no matter how you spin your own personal interpretation of what the mods and reviewers have laid out before you you can't make the other side feel any better about it.

 

There is no winning the debate folks. The thread is a week old about to reach the 900 posts mark, I don't see any sudden turn of events taking it in a new and exciting direction.

 

Roddy, I know that you're reaching for the reply button to tell me that I have no right to tell people that they can't talk about something- but respectfully, the horse is dead and this is only my opinion, I'm not telling anybody to do anything. I'm asking. I'm asking that everybody walk away from this thread for an hour (heck, go caching!) and reflect on the world outside this forum for a bit.

 

...then you can come back and continue the unstoppable force/unmovable object game if you want.

 

Happy caching.

[CoyoteRed]

Wherigo caches require you to complete the cartridge to get the completion code. This is an acceptable part of the Wherigo cache type according to what MissJenn has posted.

I can't find this. Can someone point me to this referenced post?

 

I particularly am not agreeing with a double standard in requiring posting a completion code on a physical cache when other codes are not allowed. The signature in the log should be enough.

 

Thanks.

 

EDIT: found it.

Edited April 10, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+3doxies]

Someone asked me through PM about Wherigo caches. They were confused about a possible double standard in relation to ALRs. Here's my response:

 

Wherigo caches require you to complete the cartridge to get the completion code. This is an acceptable part of the Wherigo cache type according to what MissJenn has posted.

 

Requiring the finder to do more than that, such as write a poem for your log entry or upload a photo, would be considered an ALR and not acceptable under the new guidelines.

 

Just to be clear here: this PM requested a response to the question posed in posts 707 and 708, which was not previously answered

 

So reviewers will still have to "judge" what is appropriate and not appropriate for an ALR that's content of a WIG. What remains of interest is the differentation between actions deemed necessary to "complete the cartridge" when they are not necessary in order to find the physical cache container (ie, emailing the owner a phrase out of the cartridge, for example), and a requirement to email the owner a passcode out of the lid of a "traditional" cache (an act now, I believe, deemed an ALR). By the logic previously presented here, if you've found the physical cache container and signed the log, no further requirement should be necessary in order for you to properly claim your prize. The argument used to validate the "ALR-ish" requirements allowed by Earthcaches is that, absent a phsyical log for verification, the CO needs to establish some means to verify an 'actual find' - understandable. That is not applicable here - there is a physical log for verification of the find.

[CoyoteRed]

I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

Wherigo cache owners can continue to require a completion code via the Wherigo cartridge.

Doesn't this leave a foot in the door as it relates to code words? Folks still ask about moving caches, virts and other grandfathered cache type simply because this type of exception. If you allow code words on one type of cache, why not another?

 

My opinion is the standard should be signing the log on a physical cache and nothing more. Why should Wherigo cache owners be privileged with not having to check the physical log when all other physical cache owners do? What about folks who tag along, stumble over the cache, etc.? You're also creating a paradigm shift in saying "you have to find the cache the way I intended and no other way." Again, a dangerous paradigm shift and applicable to other types.

 

Unless there is something I am missing the signature should be enough.

Edited April 10, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+Rockin Roddy]

Hey guys, I heard that whoever makes post #1000 unlocks the secret boss level battle. Deny/confirm?

Just like caches, this thread can be ignored if you don't wish to participate!!

You wouldn't think so by reading this thread though. Apparently just because you don't like an aspect of a cache you still HAVE to find every one of them, so complain enough about them and they'll be banned.

 

I guess if people start complaining enough about long threads, there will soon be a limit on how long they can get before being automatically locked.

 

It's not enough to be able to simply ignore something you don't want to participate in anymore.

 

Please. Been covered sooo many times now, it's boring!

 

Same goes for both sides.

 

Here's my contribution to the thread- it's all been said at this point. You either stand on one side or the other. Time to agree to disagree and move on. This was an announcement, not a call for a vote. Everybody's had there chance to get it off their chest and the posts are getting redundant. At this point you should either feel that the change is so positively detrimental to your fun and enjoyment that you need to move on and either explore other options or suck it up and continue caching - or you should be basically okay with the change and realize that no matter how you spin your own personal interpretation of what the mods and reviewers have laid out before you you can't make the other side feel any better about it.

 

There is no winning the debate folks. The thread is a week old about to reach the 900 posts mark, I don't see any sudden turn of events taking it in a new and exciting direction.

 

Roddy, I know that you're reaching for the reply button to tell me that I have no right to tell people that they can't talk about something- but respectfully, the horse is dead and this is only my opinion, I'm not telling anybody to do anything. I'm asking. I'm asking that everybody walk away from this thread for an hour (heck, go caching!) and reflect on the world outside this forum for a bit.

 

...then you can come back and continue the unstoppable force/unmovable object game if you want.

 

Happy caching.

 

Actually, I was reaching so I could applaud your comment!

 

I do, however, hold out hope that someone, ANYONE will come along with a side to this that hasn't been beaten into the ground!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

Wherigo cache owners can continue to require a completion code via the Wherigo cartridge.

Doesn't this leave a foot in the door as it relates to code words? Folks still ask about moving caches, virts and other grandfathered cache type simply because this type of exception. If you allow code words on one type of cache, why not another?

 

My opinion is the standard should be signing the log on a physical cache and nothing more. Why should Wherigo cache owners be privileged with not having to check the physical log when all other physical cache owners do? What about folks who tag along, stumble over the cache, etc.? You're also creating a paradigm shift in saying "you have to find the cache the way I intended and no other way." Again, a dangerous paradigm shift and applicable to other types.

 

Unless there is something I am missing the signature should be enough.

 

At the MWGB, a WIG cache was set up and they gave a guided tutorial on how to do the caches. I wanted to tag along because I was curious, even though I hadn't a GPS which could do these. Well, long story short, I was then given another choice...go to where friend said it was and wait to surprise the tour group or go with the group....you bet I bypassed the tutorial and went to the final! Signed the log and was going back after my easychair so I could wait for the group (a friend was in the group)...never made it as my friend and another were also taking the shortcut lol

 

Should my find be deleted because I bypassed the whole thing? Maybe it should since I didn't have the right tools? Or, maybe it should stand since I DID sign the log! And no, I never sent a code nor was ever asked for one!

[CacheNCarryMA]

The cache formerly known as "Wayland 11.0 - You want me to do WHAT?!? is now named "Wayland11.0-You suggest I do WHAT optional task?!?" Edited April 10, 2009 by CacheNCarryMA

[Trinity's Crew]

I understand that making ALRs requests rather than requirements will make SOME of the new submissions easier to list but that doesn't explain why TPTB killed existing ALRs.

 

My guess is that the biggest reason for putting the kibosh on ALRs was that arbitrating ALR log deletions was becoming unmanageable. The REAL ambiguity stemmed from dealing with owners who deleted logs out of spite or as a tool for revenge and used the ALR as their excuse. Look at it from this angle and it makes more sense. Eliminate the requirement, eliminate the headache of reviewing and arbitrating deleted found logs.

 

GS has a lot of customers. One ALR with an unreasonable owner can tick off a lot of cachers. Take away an owner's ability to delete logs and you've only ticked off one.

 

As has been stated in this thread a few times now, so the reviewers don't have to deal with "but that cache was allowed" for the next 5 years. It may have been missed with all the repeated questions and answers throughout the several pages here!

 

I mean, we're right back to stage one with the new round of questions we're seeing all of a sudden...right??

That's a weak argument IMO. They grandfathered virtuals and they didn't even have caches. I believe it WAS a control issue. Cachers don't like having their smiley withheld and GS didn't like the owner controlling it. Looked at from the GS perspective I understand it. I don't like it any better but I understand it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You either stand on one side or the other. Time to agree to disagree and move on. This was an announcement, not a call for a vote. ....

 

True. (I'm going to go for Post 1000 anyway though).

 

I'm going to use my favorite example of not agreeing all the time with CR (Coyote Red). We often disagree, and have done so for one heck of a long time. Not because we don't like the same caches. I have a feeling that we could have one heck of a good cache day, and would likely skip over a lot of the same caches and maybe if we had fishing poles stop at the same fishing hole. Yet here in the forums we often take opposite sides of the issue. Not because we have opposing goals. It's merely because our opinion on how to make caching better for us all differs. Were I cache king my world would have a heck of a lot of crap caches in it, but hopefully the freedom to do that would also encourage some that break the mold, rise above and become legends. More crap, more legends. CR were he cache kind would have a heck of a lot less crap caches surrounding us all. Your PQ would immediatly have a higher level of what most of us would describe as quality caches. However there would be fewer legendary caches.

 

Do the legendary caches rule the day, or does the lesser crap all around make for an uplifting experience in daily caching that more than offsets the less legendarys? Flip a coin. We will likely never know. Neither of is us Cache King.

[Clan Riffster]

Why is GC being held as the "offending" party when they are just reacting to a situation thrust upon them by a few cachers who want to see how far they can push? I would bet there is just a few percentage points of cachers who have brought this whole thing down on the rest of us.

Isn't that true with most any major guideline change? Weren't most of the guidelines created because someone, somewhere, did something stupid? Would we have the "Don't hide caches at potential terrorist targets" guideline if BillyBobNosePicker hadn't done exactly that? I'm betting the same holds true for most of the guidelines. Prior to their creation, nobody thought a particular guideline would be necessary. Then a cacher pushed the limits of stupidity beyond reason, and "Poof" we've got another guideline.

Maybe?

 

One ALR with an unreasonable owner can tick off a lot of cachers. Take away an owner's ability to delete logs and you've only ticked off one.

Quite possibly. That would be consistent with what the reviewers have stated so far.

 

Here's my contribution to the thread- it's all been said at this point. Everybody's had there chance to get it off their chest and the posts are getting redundant.

Agreed. I think things started getting repetitive around page 3, with absolutely no new insight added.

But, that's just my $0.02. I know some folks will rant & rave about how the sky is falling right up till this thread gets locked. Maybe it really is time for this one to die a natural death.

[Trinity's Crew]

One ALR with an unreasonable owner can tick off a lot of cachers. Take away an owner's ability to delete logs and you've only ticked off one.

Quite possibly. That would be consistent with what the reviewers have stated so far.

 

Not exactly. They have tap danced around the issue of GS wanting or needing to control the online logs and tried to paint it more as a listing problem, but I believe the log control issue was the driving force.

[CoyoteRed]

Should my find be deleted because I bypassed the whole thing? Maybe it should since I didn't have the right tools? Or, maybe it should stand since I DID sign the log! And no, I never sent a code nor was ever asked for one!

I think it should be the same standard as if you were given the final location of a puzzle or multi. (And a different debate.)

 

As I see it, a Wherigo cache is little different than a puzzle or a multi in the respect that there is an obstacle in front of the final physical cache. The cartridge can be viewed as little more than an electronic version of pen and paper while doing a multi. It does the figuring for you and knows where you are in the real world. Kind of like a cartridge is to pen and paper clues as a GPS is to a map and compass.

[+3doxies]

Should my find be deleted because I bypassed the whole thing? Maybe it should since I didn't have the right tools? Or, maybe it should stand since I DID sign the log! And no, I never sent a code nor was ever asked for one!

I think it should be the same standard as if you were given the final location of a puzzle or multi. (And a different debate.)

 

As I see it, a Wherigo cache is little different than a puzzle or a multi in the respect that there is an obstacle in front of the final physical cache. The cartridge can be viewed as little more than an electronic version of pen and paper while doing a multi. It does the figuring for you and knows where you are in the real world. Kind of like a cartridge is to pen and paper clues as a GPS is to a map and compass.

 

Agreed. And, in a strange sort of way, the indication that a WIG does not require "special equipment" lends support to that line of thinking...

 

EDIT: And since someone is bound to ask, this quote from the Cache Listing Guidelines: "A device that can play Wherigo is not considered special equipment."

Edited April 10, 2009 by 3doxies

[+Logscaler and Red]

Not in the mind frame to argue this morning but I see some points I have to address. No offense intended if implied. Don't read between the lines to "see" something not there. If I have something to say, I will come right out and say it. I get in trouble for this "problem" a lot.

 

So here goes. In reply to Post #876.

 

I think in principal we are on the same side RK, just a slightly different view of the same problem.

 

"....Why is GC being held as the "offending" party when they are just reacting to a situation thrust upon them by a few cachers who want to see how far they can push? I would bet there is just a few percentage points of cachers who have brought this whole thing down on the rest of us....

 

I'll tackle this.

 

GC is the offending party because they took the action.

Cache owners are the offending party when they list a cache with ALR's that are unpopular. That's simple."

 

Without the latter, the former would not have happened as I see it. Cachers willing to accept and do the stupid ALR's can be held to task as well.

 

"I tried ALR's and they were a PITA. However there are a few ALR's out there that make me smile. Nude Finds. Man I'd likely never play, but I actually like that someone did it, and I like that others find ways to hold the log sheet to get their photo in.

 

I like what we live in a world where Nude Cacher can be free, and where Anal Rentantive Engineers can see what the woods are like when they break free of their office. They may even meet Nude Cacher and have a good conversation."

 

These conditions are acceptable to you and others but what about the few who do not accept the idea of meeting Nude people on the trails - at a cache? Are you not forcing them to accept something they are against? Yes, the could not look for "that" cache but if said cache is in a public location with several caches along the trail or in the area, they still run the risk of meeting nudist therefore they have to avoid the entire area. You would be punishing them and the other cachers owner by requiring nudity. Just a minor few are offended you say? Isn't that the whole point to this entire thread? A minority of cachers caused this and we the caching majority now have to deal with it.

 

"For me this entire thing is about freedom. Cache owners make this world go. They have to learn lessons. One of the lessons is that ALR's are not popular. But every now and then one breaks the mold and people like it. I like that that one out of a thousand can exist.

 

For losing that one. For making the box that defines what caching is smaller I do hold GC.com and all the whiny finders who hate freedom but love the concept of a home owners association to tell us what color we can paint our house and that our 67' Camaro, or Old International Scout are 'wrecks' and need to be hauled off responsible.

 

Piss on them. I'd rather live next to an interesting family with an ALR in their front yard hidden inside their rusty 57 Chevy up on blocks than the Yuppie clones."

 

I tend to agree with your statement but the few who did not learn their lesson slung mud all over the rest of us and we as a group have to clean it up. Yes, we are now restricted from doing certain things. It is kinda like the one person running their ATV through a creek bottom and cutting a cookie in the mud. Now the entire trail has to be re-routed so no one else can get close enough to do it again. All punished for the one.

NOT the fault of the land manager but the land manager will be blamed and held accountable by the masses. They will get flak from both sides. From those wanting MORE restriction by barring all ATV's in an area and flak from those who are now barred from the location.They just reacted to a situation with the tools they have at their disposal. They can not win no matter which way they jump. Kinda like GC.com.

 

"Most ALRs suck. Some don't. Let the finders vote by avoiding the cache. The prior system was simple enough. Those finders who don't read the cache page deserve the surprise. I've got a couple of caches that the advice on the cache page keeps you from trespassing. I didn't make those ALRs. Another cache I adopted out the ALR was actually related to bat hibernation though I didn't explain that on the cache page (because I didn't want to advertise the problem I was working around)"

 

I agree with you but those few caused the entire problem.

 

Enough cachers voted with their feet - car- 4 wheeler by doing the stupid ALRs to cause a reaction. In this case, a negative one.

 

All cachers will be painted with the same brush by LEO, land mangers and property owners when the few cause the problem.

 

I personally hate to give up even small liberties like this. It bothers me to the core and I blame low IQ's on behalf of the person's writing the stupid ALRs - vindictive about something maybe? - as well as the people doing them, but mostly I blame the people who caused the restrictive ALRs to be needed in the first place.

 

I can accept the humors ALRs as part of the entertainment factor involved in this game seeing as this game is supposed to be fun.

 

Anyway, I have spoken my piece and it is off to do some yard work until Red gets home, then a few caches to be found and an event to attend tonight.

 

I am not going to let this effect my outlook on life in the least. It's kinda like stepping in dog crap in the park. Who caused the problem? Who knows. The rest of the people just have to live with the problems caused by the few. Just don't let the idiots drag you down to their level or they win. Just do your part in keeping caching on the positive side and hope the idiots get bored and fall to the wayside. After all, supposedly change works both ways.

 

Logscaler.