update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?

Perspective. It's obvious from your other posts that you just don't have it.

Wow, a moderator insulting some one he moderates.

So, how is my perspective skewed? In order to log a puzzle you must solve the puzzle or not do the cache. My cache requires you to answer questions or you do not do the cache.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Second, I have to say, I've only looked at one of your caches (GC1C6Q2), but it seems to me that you could easily make your ALRs into real puzzles. Take the cache I looked at as an example:

Take a photo of the sign.

Locate and sign the log book.

Email me the photo and tell me:

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage?

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment?

Turn that into:

1) What is the name of the famous American poet who wrote about Admiral d'Anville's voyage? Give each letter in the last name a numerical value (A=1, B=2...Z=26) and add them together. Add 100 to this number for the bearing you must take.

2) According to the small plaque ( not the plaque at the published coordinates) located in the park, How many people perished at the encampment? Subtract this number from 1000 to give you the number of meters in your distance.

Using your GPSr, follow a the bearing and distance you figured above.

Locate and sign the log book.

As I don't know the particulars of what is on site at ground zero in this case, the details may need to be adjusted to fit what is available, but something like this keeps the flavor of the waypoint projection in your cache, and assures that the cachers are getting the information you want to be sure they are getting.

As others have noted, your Earthcaches are exempt from the new guideline, so no change needs to be made there.

I think archiving these caches would be a shame, since one of the aspects I really like of caching is the fact that it brings me to interesting places.

So, again, what is the difference in the result of the way you propose and the way I did it. Both methods require the seeker to go to the historic data and find the answer. If I make the changes those who complain about ALRs still need to do an ALR to complete the cache. You are just calling it some else. What is the difference?

Both methods require you to do something that unless you do it, you can not log a find. In fact my way is less frustrating, because I give the final coords. Your method can lead to errors if you count incorrectly. My method is simpler.

And if there's a sign to find information on, there's a good chance some people are not reading and absorbing the information on the sign any way. Some skim and look for the information they need, even if they have to skim it 5 times as opposed to reading the entire thing.

Edited by VirginiaGator

Okay... so I just change my cache listings REQUESTING that two particular cachers stay away from them because I HATE THEIR FREAKIN' GUTS!!!

I hope this isn't a problem.

Okay, I'm kidding I love everybody but this was just the first stupid example I could come up with. My point is people will ALWAYS push the envelope, forcing the reviewers into making decisions as to what constitutes an appropriate request.

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?

Perspective. It's obvious from your other posts that you just don't have it.

Wow, a moderator insulting some one he moderates.

So, how is my perspective skewed? In order to log a puzzle you must solve the puzzle or not do the cache. My cache requires you to answer questions or you do not do the cache.

Doesn't look like an insult to me, but it might give insight as to why you're having trouble understanding this!

In order to find the cache, they must answer the questions...that's forcing them to answer the questions (letting them choose to skip the cache is not a valid argument)

In order to log a find on a puzzle cache you must solve the puzzle. Why is me skipping a puzzle cache because I do not want to or can not solve it any more or less valid?

Perspective. It's obvious from your other posts that you just don't have it.

Wow, a moderator insulting some one he moderates.

So, how is my perspective skewed? In order to log a puzzle you must solve the puzzle or not do the cache. My cache requires you to answer questions or you do not do the cache.

I apologize if you viewed that as insulting. That was certainly not my intent.

Take a look at the posts by others...you are looking at the issue from a different perspective than everyone else here.

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published.

Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.

Edited by Plasma Boy

I apologize if you viewed that as insulting. That was certainly not my intent.

Take a look at the posts by others...you are looking at the issue from a different perspective than everyone else here.

Just because my perspective is different from yours and others does not make it wrong. It is just different.

On Another Note:

I asked this question a ways back, but suspect it got missed as the last post on a page:

While turning an ALR into a real, workable puzzle will solve some of the issues with this new guideline, there are still others that will be nonviable as an Unknown Cache.

Groundspeak's apparent solution is to convert these caches into Traditionals.

Since I've been here in the forums, any time someone suggests that they want to turn a Multi into a Traditional, or vice versa, someone (usually a reviewer, it seems) chimes in that the CO is better off archiving the cache and resubmitting it as the new cache type, so as not to change other cachers' history. Has this logic gone out the window?

It has. Why? Can you imagine the outcry that would happen if caches everywhere were suddenly archived because of their ALR? TPTB realize they'd have a whole lot more upset people if they did this the right way, so they're taking the dodge.

If Groundspeak wants to make this change, I think they need to bite the bullet and tell people to archive & re-list rather than try and take the easy way out.

Edited by Too Tall John

Your other comments clearly indicate that you have a control problem and are overly worried about things that really don't need to be worried about. You need to relax, this is a game with few rules, leave it that way. I have a six cache series with a final. In order to get the co-ordinates for the final you "should" find all six. But you know if a person is cleaver and only finds the right two they can score the final. People have found the final WITHOUT finding all six. You know what, I really don't care because they had fun finding the ones they did find and that is what it is all about. I'm happy and they are happy.

You're probably reading too much into my other comments. Personally I agree with you that it is silly to delete someone's log because they didn't do every stage of my multi or because they didn't work my puzzle but instead found it when caching with some who had solved it.

My concern is who gets to determine when a log can be deleted and when a log must stand.

There are some people, whom I will call puritans for lack of a better word that won't get me a warning from the moderators, who can't stand the fact that some people will use the 'Found It' log in ways that they (the puritans) find inappropriate. Whether this is because these puritans use the count of the number of 'Found It' logs as some kind of rating of geocachers or whether they simply believe that without a common definition of finding a cache the meaning of the 'Found It' log is degraded, the puritans can't fathom that some people may want to use this log in a slightly different way. The general attitude of the puritan has been "you must sign the physical log to log a 'Found It' and you must not be required to do any thing more than sign the log". Any other definition is anathema to the puritan.

Many other people view the 'Found It' log differently. They see the 'Found It' log as an agreement between the finder and the cache owner. The cache owner decides which logs can stay and which to delete. Some cache owners invite people to log 'Found It' on their cache from the comfort of your armchair, or invite people to log "Attended" on an event for each temporary cache they find at the event. Some will say "I'm not going to check the physical log so if you say you found the cache I'll take you at your word". Many people (even some semi-puritans) will accept a log that says "Couldn't sign the physical log because it was too wet" or "I was so excited at finding the cache that I forgot to sign the log". Just as some cache owners are willing to accept some logs that puritans wouldn't, there are cache owners who expect a little more than just signing the log. Cache owners delete logs because of spoilers or because the logger wrote something derogatory about the cache. Hopefully, these cache owners would allow the logger to relog with out a spoiler or without the offensive comment. Some cache owners of physically or mentally challenging caches wish to ensure that everyone who logs a 'Found It' on their cache actually completed the physical or mental challenge they setup. Some cache owners want to make sure that people looking for their cache are obeying local laws and park rules, or at least they don't go revealing that they broke laws when going after this cache. And prior to last Friday, some cache owners wanted to have people fulfill additional requirements in order to post a 'Found It' log.

Personally, I enjoyed the fact that a 'Found It' had so many different meanings and wasn't entirely tied so some narrow definition that I don't fully agree with. I have my own personal guidelines for when I would log a 'Found It' just as I do for logging a 'DNF'. So I generally don't log a 'Found It' unless I've signed the log. But there have been occasions when the log was too wet and I didn't have any paper for a temporary log, when got to the cache to discover I had forgotten a pen, or where I've found a micro log that was too full to leave any legible mark. There is even at least one case I know of when I simply forgot to sign my name after writing a long entry in the physical log. I also don't log puzzles that I find with friend until after I have solved them myself. I've never had a log deleted, although I have been asked to remove spoilers and also to remove comments that the cache owner felt were inappropriate. Had a cache owner deleted my log because I didn't meet his requirements, I would have decided to either comply with the owner's requirements or simply put that cache on my ignore list. In my personal records I would know that I found the cache. Unlike the puritans, I do not need for the number of my 'Found It' logs to equal the number of caches I've found.

The change to guidelines is a concern for me in that it signals Groundspeak moving in the direction of accepting the puritan view of the 'Found It' log. I see this as turning geocaching from a fun lighthearted activity into some kind of official sanctioned contest. When people compare geocachers' find counts now I can smile because I know there is no meaning in the find count. But if the 'Found It' log is given an official meaning then it is harder to argue that the points mean nothing.

The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.

If the onus is placed on the cache hider, it would certainly make it easier to enforce the cache type. If the cache hider can not clearly demonstrate the connection between location, requirement and cache, it is a simple, "Nope." from the reviewer.

I guess I'm thinking of it as a type of cache that takes the best parts of virtuals and the physical caches and smashes them together. History, geology, ecology, etc could be core components of the guidelines of enforcement, and must be based on the location of the physical cache.

Yes, but history, geology, and ecology have nothing to do with the actual game/sport/activity that is geocaching - using GPS to hide things for others to find.

I may use a mountain bike, 4x4, car, or boat to get to a cache, but mountain biking, off roading, driving, or boating are not geocaching or required for geocaching to exist. Some caches teach you about history, geology, or ecology, but that doesn't mean that they are an essential part of geocaching either.

Erm..."location-based".

I beg to differ on the comment history, ecology or geology are not essential parts of geocaching. They are certainly part of an interactive process between physical geocaches and the location you are in. Those things have to do with the location.

Is suggesting a more in-depth (more effort) caching experience, based on your interactions and observations of your location such a crazy thing? One could argue, based on your statements, that puzzles aren't geocache related, as they have nothing to do with the location (yes, yes, I get the chicken and egg scenario of solve/find or find/extra work). I think that a well-executed version of ALRs would fall in line not only with the mission statement, but with the spirit of involving cachers more with the areas they are in, while still finding a physical cache.

I agreee with the blue saxophone guy and TPTB on this decision. You even seem to agree with your statement above that suggesting a more in-depth experience is what is being asked for here. Suggestion is the key word. A suggestion is not a requirement.

I think this may bring to light whether folks agree with ALR or not. Will your cache get more visitors who agree with the additional logging suggestions or will you get more visitors who ignore them? If you get more people who do the logging suggestions, then that would seem to indicate that folks in your area don't mind performing whatever your specific suggestions are. If more folks ignore such suggestions, then maybe they weren't that great of an idea to suggest anyway, since the voices (or logs in this case) of the masses will let you know how folks feel.

If that's not good enough and people feel they have to require such things to be done, then that indicates they are more interested in controlling people's behaviors than they are in placing caches for people to find.

This is a win-win scenario if folks will let it be so. Those who enjoy doing additional things at a cache can still do them. You can make as long a list of suggestions as you want to make and ask that folks do them all. Those that would enjoy doing them will still do so. Those that wouldn't enjoy them don't have to.

They can still enjoy finding the cache by itself.

Some have said that this limits creativity. Not at all. There's no reason anyone's cache has to be less creative now. If you can't find a way to make a cache creative without a requirement being placed on the finder, you already have a lack of creativity that no amount of rules or guideline changes will alter.

Please don't use my comments out of context to argue an unrelated point. The "suggestion" was not the much-argued "requirement clause" of ALRs. The "suggestion" was the option to create a different category for geocaching based on an organized, clear type falling within the mission statement of the company.

Is mentioning the creation of a more in-depth (more effort) caching experience and new cache type, based on your interactions and observations of your location such a crazy thing? One could argue, based on your statements, that puzzles aren't geocache related, as they have nothing to do with the location (yes, yes, I get the chicken and egg scenario of solve/find or find/extra work). I think that a well-executed version of ALRs would fall in line not only with the mission statement, but with the spirit of involving cachers more with the areas they are in, while still finding a physical cache.

On Another Note:

I asked this question a ways back, but suspect it got missed as the last post on a page:

While turning an ALR into a real, workable puzzle will solve some of the issues with this new guideline, there are still others that will be nonviable as an Unknown Cache.

Groundspeak's apparent solution is to convert these caches into Traditionals.

Since I've been here in the forums, any time someone suggests that they want to turn a Multi into a Traditional, or vice versa, someone (usually a reviewer, it seems) chimes in that the CO is better off archiving the cache and resubmitting it as the new cache type, so as not to change other cachers' history. Has this logic gone out the window?

It has. Why? Can you imagine the outcry that would happen if caches everywhere were suddenly archived because of their ALR? TPTB realize they'd have a whole lot more upset people if they did this the right way, so they're taking the dodge.

If Groundspeak wants to make this change, I think they need to bite the bullet and tell people to archive & re-list rather than try and take the easy way out.

No one is forcing the cacher to change or archive, they have choices. If they choose to archive, that's their choice just as they can choose to make the cache fit the guidelines. Truly, the owner could even choose to archive and re-submit since some of the caches could be a totally different experience!

I have no problem with rules changing but notice should be given. The word should have been given that starting on x day such and such will not be allowed. That allows for any caches in the que or ready to go to be published. I attended an event this past weekend where the organizer had placed dozens of caches. They had marked them as puzzles so that attendees would be FTF. The reviewer notified the organizer at the last minute that the caches had to be changed. The organizer went to all the trouble to change them all so that they would be ready the next morning. For whatever reason the caches still haven't published (but then that is a whole different topic). I know it must be very disheartening to the organizers after all the work they put into placing and writing up cache pages for this event. The event was GREAT anyway but...

You're probably reading too much into my other comments. Personally I agree with you that it is silly to delete someone's log because they didn't do every stage of my multi or because they didn't work my puzzle but instead found it when caching with some who had solved it.

My concern is who gets to determine when a log can be deleted and when a log must stand.

There are some people, whom I will call puritans for lack of a better word that won't get me a warning from the moderators, who can't stand the fact that some people will use the 'Found It' log in ways that they (the puritans) find inappropriate. Whether this is because these puritans use the count of the number of 'Found It' logs as some kind of rating of geocachers or whether they simply believe that without a common definition of finding a cache the meaning of the 'Found It' log is degraded, the puritans can't fathom that some people may want to use this log in a slightly different way. The general attitude of the puritan has been "you must sign the physical log to log a 'Found It' and you must not be required to do any thing more than sign the log". Any other definition is anathema to the puritan.

Many other people view the 'Found It' log differently. They see the 'Found It' log as an agreement between the finder and the cache owner. The cache owner decides which logs can stay and which to delete. Some cache owners invite people to log 'Found It' on their cache from the comfort of your armchair, or invite people to log "Attended" on an event for each temporary cache they find at the event. Some will say "I'm not going to check the physical log so if you say you found the cache I'll take you at your word". Many people (even some semi-puritans) will accept a log that says "Couldn't sign the physical log because it was too wet" or "I was so excited at finding the cache that I forgot to sign the log". Just as some cache owners are willing to accept some logs that puritans wouldn't, there are cache owners who expect a little more than just signing the log. Cache owners delete logs because of spoilers or because the logger wrote something derogatory about the cache. Hopefully, these cache owners would allow the logger to relog with out a spoiler or without the offensive comment. Some cache owners of physically or mentally challenging caches wish to ensure that everyone who logs a 'Found It' on their cache actually completed the physical or mental challenge they setup. Some cache owners want to make sure that people looking for their cache are obeying local laws and park rules, or at least they don't go revealing that they broke laws when going after this cache. And prior to last Friday, some cache owners wanted to have people fulfill additional requirements in order to post a 'Found It' log.

Personally, I enjoyed the fact that a 'Found It' had so many different meanings and wasn't entirely tied so some narrow definition that I don't fully agree with. I have my own personal guidelines for when I would log a 'Found It' just as I do for logging a 'DNF'. So I generally don't log a 'Found It' unless I've signed the log. But there have been occasions when the log was too wet and I didn't have any paper for a temporary log, when got to the cache to discover I had forgotten a pen, or where I've found a micro log that was too full to leave any legible mark. There is even at least one case I know of when I simply forgot to sign my name after writing a long entry in the physical log. I also don't log puzzles that I find with friend until after I have solved them myself. I've never had a log deleted, although I have been asked to remove spoilers and also to remove comments that the cache owner felt were inappropriate. Had a cache owner deleted my log because I didn't meet his requirements, I would have decided to either comply with the owner's requirements or simply put that cache on my ignore list. In my personal records I would know that I found the cache. Unlike the puritans, I do not need for the number of my 'Found It' logs to equal the number of caches I've found.

The change to guidelines is a concern for me in that it signals Groundspeak moving in the direction of accepting the puritan view of the 'Found It' log. I see this as turning geocaching from a fun lighthearted activity into some kind of official sanctioned contest. When people compare geocachers' find counts now I can smile because I know there is no meaning in the find count. But if the 'Found It' log is given an official meaning then it is harder to argue that the points mean nothing.

I'll admit the numbers were something I tracked closely at one time. Then with having found so many in our own area and having to do more driving between caches to find anything at that point, it drastically dropped off. At this point I really don't care if someone is 200 caches ahead of me or 2 behind. But I do play my own game with my own numbers. I hate multis, so I always want my Unknown/Mystery finds to be more than the number of multis I've found. I guess I'll have to track that manually now with a number of them being changed to traditional. Ugh. LOL!

And if there's a sign to find information on, there's a good chance some people are not reading and absorbing the information on the sign any way. Some skim and look for the information they need, even if they have to skim it 5 times as opposed to reading the entire thing.
That was a defect in the original cache concept as well. There will be no difference in the amount of info absorbed if they need to use the info to solve a puzzle or if they simply need to email it to the CO.
Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published.

Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.

Fine*. You obviously don't want help from anyone. Sorry I tried.

Take your ball and go home when things don't go the way you want. That's mature...

* A long time ago, a guy I used to work with would say "Fine" and walk away after hearing something he really disagreed with. You could tell he didn't really think it was fine. In fact, later he told me that "Fine" was his code word for "To heck with your dadgum self!" (...and that's being forum friendly...)

Take my "Fine" in that context.

I'd suggest that anything that removes freedom from cachers to be able to specify what is necessary to claim a find diminishes the game. Others can choose to ignore caches with ALRs, but to ban them seems heavy handed and detrimental. Another genus of cache diversity gets frog-marched to extinction.

THE FORUMS ARE CERTAINLY NOT THE PROPER PLACE FOR THE VOICE OF REASON TO REAR IT'S UGLY HEAD! SHA ME ON YOU!!

I have no problem with rules changing but notice should be given. The word should have been given that starting on x day such and such will not be allowed. That allows for any caches in the que or ready to go to be published. I attended an event this past weekend where the organizer had placed dozens of caches. They had marked them as puzzles so that attendees would be FTF. The reviewer notified the organizer at the last minute that the caches had to be changed. The organizer went to all the trouble to change them all so that they would be ready the next morning. For whatever reason the caches still haven't published (but then that is a whole different topic). I know it must be very disheartening to the organizers after all the work they put into placing and writing up cache pages for this event. The event was GREAT anyway but...

That statement really makes no difference since no caches were 'grandfathered'. If a cache was published 3 minutes before the announcement at 4:00pm PDT last Friday, at 1 minutes after 4, it still would not be allowed to have an ALR.

It sounds like there was some other issues with the caches if they were indeed really just Puzzles and not ALRs.

If that's not good enough and people feel they have to require such things to be done, then that indicates they are more interested in controlling people's behaviors than they are in placing caches for people to find.

It worries me that the possibility of having a cache type the teaches you a little something extra would make you think it is "forcing" people to do things. My idea, which you were quoting, certainly falls into the mission statement of the company we all play under every time we cache.

I suppose, god forbid that geocaching could have some additional rewards. Earthcaches be darned!

I really don't see how this has become "controlling people's behaviors", except in the cases of silly hats and sunglasses. Having a version of a geocache that has a physical cache, yet has an educational component--not unlike Earthcaches--would just be a new, fun, educational type of cache that has a box with goodies, too.

If I placed an approved Earthcache, yet stated that there was a physical cache at GZ, would anyone want to do the extra work for that Earthcache? Likely the answer would be "No". If the option to place a Virtual still existed-- there would not be a physical cache there...but lets pretend there was--it is likely that the "Wow" of that cache and whatever was "learned" or "confirmed" at that site would be disregarded because of the physical cache and its logbook trumping the confirmation via log or email.

What I am "suggesting" is that we could benefit from a cache type that combines the learning about your surroundings of Earthcaches or the location-based findings at a Virtual site with the fun of finding a box full of trinkets. If a new type existed (ALR?! Shriek!) that was well set out in the guidelines, placed the onus on the hider to provide supporting evidence that the requirements are location-based and possibly have educational value, and followed the Mission Statement of Groundspeak, there could be another interesting spin on this fun game.

Forgive me, I'm just trying to find a possible outcome other than outright loss of what started as a good hearted type of geocache. The fact that it lost its direction has more to do with the lack of specific guidelines that limited the craziness of what some have now become. It is a shame that the positive parts of some of those caches is being overlooked and people are crying foul because they feel controlled by ALRs. Shame they don't feel "controlled" by Wherigo, puzzles or Earthcaches.

Is it because Earthcaches don't have a box? That makes it ok to complete the cache without complaint?

Is it because not all of us own a Colorado, so we can't do them anyway? Does that raise any hairs?

I think Groundspeak has done a great job of developing the game through the years. Well supported development has given us fun cache types like Earthcaches and Wherigo. If the type us also developed carefully, an "ALR" cache could be a new way to combine the best parts of some, giving a unique educational or informational component, and a physical cache to enjoy in the end.

Just an idea, and food for thought. If you don't agree, so be it. If it did become a well-developed new cache type, you can ignore them like some do Earthcaches, puzzles or Wherigo.

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published.

Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.

I see you have only disabled your caches not removed them.

You also disabled your Earthcaches which are not affected by the new guidlines.

Note from your Meguma and the Man Earthcache:

April 4 by Plasma Boy (1580 found)

Disabled upon being informed by GC.com representative that my ALR are no longer valid.

No logs will be accepted.

EarthCaches, remaining virtuals and remaining webcam caches are not affected by this guideline change. They do not have a physical container. They will continue to require some form of verification.

So which GC.com representative said that an AlR on an Earthcache is no longer valid?

That sounds like you are wanting to punish everyone by removing viable caches just because you refuse to alter the others as others have tried to reason with you.

I find some of your ALRs cumbersome and would probably do your caches but skip the logging of them. I am happy visiting the site and you will never know if I did or not, but I am happy and that is what counts with ME.

I am not interested in numbers just visiting interesting sites.

Fine*. You obviously don't want help from anyone. Sorry I tried.

Take your ball and go home when things don't go the way you want. That's mature...

* A long time ago, a guy I used to work with would say "Fine" and walk away after hearing something he really disagreed with. You could tell he didn't really think it was fine. In fact, later he told me that "Fine" was his code word for "To heck with your dadgum self!" (...and that's being forum friendly...)

Take my "Fine" in that context.

See I guess it is all about perspective. I did not post on this forum to ask for your help in complying with a new guideline I do not agree with. I posted here to pose my opinion and see if any one agreed. A very few do, but most do not. I know it is a battle I can not win. I accepted that when I disabled my caches.

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published.

Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.

I see you have only disabled your caches not removed them.

You also disabled your Earthcaches which are not affected by the new guidlines.

Note from your Meguma and the Man Earthcache:

April 4 by Plasma Boy (1580 found)

Disabled upon being informed by GC.com representative that my ALR are no longer valid.

No logs will be accepted.

EarthCaches, remaining virtuals and remaining webcam caches are not affected by this guideline change. They do not have a physical container. They will continue to require some form of verification.

So which GC.com representative said that an AlR on an Earthcache is no longer valid?

That sounds like you are wanting to punish everyone by removing viable caches just because you refuse to alter the others as others have tried to reason with you.

I find some of your ALRs cumbersome and would probably do your caches but skip the logging of them. I am happy visiting the site and you will never know if I did or not, but I am happy and that is what counts with ME.

I am not interested in numbers just visiting interesting sites.

I disabled everything because I will either stay in the cache owning business or I will get out of it and just collect caches. That is until the next guideline change comes along that makes it mandatory to hide caches.

Wow! I'm sitting here simply amazed at some of the arguments in this ALR ban debate. There are a lot that seem to indicate a total divorce from the general thinking of back when we started. This thinking was if you found the container and put your name in the logbook you could claim the find. It didn't matter how you found the cache. It could have been a stumble where one simply discovers the container accidentally--whether cacher or muggle. You could shortcut a multi or solve a puzzle differently than the owner intended. One could tag along with friends. About the only exception was outright and blatant cheating like wholesale distribution of final coordinates and even then the solution for some wasn't deleting logs but archiving caches.

Now, for many in this thread, that thinking is somehow twisted if not completely vacant. It's more important how you found the cache or what other thing you did besides actually finding the cache. They also feel that activity is so important they feel the need to deny the find until that activity is shown to been accomplished. That's less geocaching and more something else. (geophoons.com?)

I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but for those who feel that way I wouldn't feel too bad if they archived all of their caches, picked up their geotrash, and found a different hobby.

I suppose, god forbid that geocaching could have some additional rewards. Earthcaches be darned!

What is stopping you from giving people additional rewards? Certainly not this change to the guidelines.

I have a cache that offers a nice view of Pikes Peak. You don't have to even look in the direction of the famous mountain to find the cache, but the cache was placed to offer that view. Whether cachers want to look at it or not is up to them - nothing forced. Whether they appreciate the view or not is up to them - again, nothing forced. If they want to go learn more about why the mountain is named for Pike and not James, that's up to them as well. I may be interested in the history, but realize that not everyone will be and that offering it to them is as far as I can or should go. I can't force anyone to appreciate the same things I do.

The only difference between the 2 writeups is that my method is a puzzle, allowable under current guidelines.

Yes, it all comes down to the guidelines. I intend to comply with the guidelines. I will comply by removing my illegal caches from the hunt. I will not change them, because until this latest arbitrary rule change they were legally designed and approved. I did not cheat. I discussed the caches with the reviewer and they were allowed to be published.

Everyone should be happy, the guidelines will be complied with.

I see you have only disabled your caches not removed them.

You also disabled your Earthcaches which are not affected by the new guidlines.

Note from your Meguma and the Man Earthcache:

April 4 by Plasma Boy (1580 found)

Disabled upon being informed by GC.com representative that my ALR are no longer valid.

No logs will be accepted.

EarthCaches, remaining virtuals and remaining webcam caches are not affected by this guideline change. They do not have a physical container. They will continue to require some form of verification.

So which GC.com representative said that an AlR on an Earthcache is no longer valid?

That sounds like you are wanting to punish everyone by removing viable caches just because you refuse to alter the others as others have tried to reason with you.

I find some of your ALRs cumbersome and would probably do your caches but skip the logging of them. I am happy visiting the site and you will never know if I did or not, but I am happy and that is what counts with ME.

I am not interested in numbers just visiting interesting sites.

I disabled everything because I will either stay in the cache owning business or I will get out of it and just collect caches. That is until the next guideline change comes along that makes it mandatory to hide caches.

Then state the TRUTH on your cache page not

April 4 by Plasma Boy (1580 found)

Disabled upon being informed by GC.com representative that my ALR are no longer valid.

No logs will be accepted.

Which is what you stated and are trying to mislead people with on your Earthcache pages. Which are not affected by the rule change, just your attitude is.

On Another Note:

I asked this question a ways back, but suspect it got missed as the last post on a page:

While turning an ALR into a real, workable puzzle will solve some of the issues with this new guideline, there are still others that will be nonviable as an Unknown Cache.

Groundspeak's apparent solution is to convert these caches into Traditionals.

The solution is not to turn them into Traditionals, but if the ALR was the only reason they are a 'Mystery', removing the ALR changes the listing to reflect what they actually are.

Caches with an optional task retain the same type as they would without the optional task. If your cache was listed as "Mystery" solely because of the ALR, then, once you have changed the wording to remove the ALR altogether or change it into an optional simple task, please contact your reviewer to have the cache type changed to its "natural" value.

Since I've been here in the forums, any time someone suggests that they want to turn a Multi into a Traditional, or vice versa, someone (usually a reviewer, it seems) chimes in that the CO is better off archiving the cache and resubmitting it as the new cache type, so as not to change other cachers' history. Has this logic gone out the window?

It has. Why? Can you imagine the outcry that would happen if caches everywhere were suddenly archived because of their ALR? TPTB realize they'd have a whole lot more upset people if they did this the right way, so they're taking the dodge.

If Groundspeak wants to make this change, I think they need to bite the bullet and tell people to archive & re-list rather than try and take the easy way out.

The difference that I see between this and the changing the cache type examples that you mention, lies in the 'once you have changed the wording to remove the ALR altogether or change it into an optional simple task' part of statement by MissJenn. If that is all you are doing, then changing it to its real type will more accurately reflect a cacher's history, it will now show what they really found. If I shoot a wolf in sheeps clothing, it's still a wolf.

If the cache is actually changed, making the type truly different than it was, i.e. a Multi into a Traditional, or vice versa, I would think the appropraite thing to do would be to archive and resubmit and the previous finders histories are still correct, and future finders histories are correct.

I believe the intention of the TPTB is that we ought to trust our fellow cachers to find caches in the manner we as cache owner intended and not start out with requirements that indicate a lack of trust.

I think this is an important part of the intent of the change. I agree completely with your statement on this point. It's a game, and if trust can't be a part of it, then we all lose a lot.

It appears from the discussion here that an important reason for the change is that a few people were playing games which had nothing to do with geocaching. The vast majority of ALRs did relate to geocaching (even if not directly to the hunt), but some went way too far afield.

But I suspect the puritans have won this round.

I have not seen "puritans" supporting this change (or requesting it in the past). While I see some people relieved by the change, what strikes me most is that the change obviously wasn't initiated by the (tiny) group of cachers who post here. That leads me to believe that it was mainly the reviewers who were seeing the problems. This makes sense. For most of us, problem caches are a very small problem: we just ignore them. For the reviewers, problem caches can usurp a huge amount of their time, because the reviewers can't put them on an ignore list.

I only occasionally disagree with a reviewer's attitude or actions, and only once seriously (and in that case the reviewer backed off, at least in the particular situation). I have always respected their opinions and work, even on those occasions of disagreement. If ALRs are proving a serious problem for the reviewers, then I support action to deal with the problem, even if it removes something from the game.

And as you have pointed out many times, there are other venues available, such as the Waymarking Best Kept Secrets. That still isn't integrated into gc.com and won't be used much until it is, but it does show another way of sharing activities other than finding tupperware in the woods.

Edward

The change to guidelines is a concern for me in that it signals Groundspeak moving in the direction of accepting the puritan view of the 'Found It' log. I see this as turning geocaching from a fun lighthearted activity into some kind of official sanctioned contest. When people compare geocachers' find counts now I can smile because I know there is no meaning in the find count. But if the 'Found It' log is given an official meaning then it is harder to argue that the points mean nothing.

Not true. The getting started has always said find the cache, sign the log book and replace the cache. Then share your stories and photos online. I don't see the guideline changes affecting this at all. It does codify the signing the logbook, and it does say that they request a cache owner not delete a log because the photo of the finder wearing the silly wig was not posted. Other than not deleting logs because they did not comply with a ALR nothing has changed.

As for codifying signing the logbook, there has been a very active minority that enjoys virtual logging. I'm sure there have been issues that had to be dealt with because of this. At least now there is a solid footing for both GS and the CO on deleting those logs, and more importantly for GS to deal with the individual miscreants.

As for the Found it log being given official meaning, I don't think anything is different between April 3 and April 4.

Jim

Edited by jholly

Then state the TRUTH on your cache page not

April 4 by Plasma Boy (1580 found)

Disabled upon being informed by GC.com representative that my ALR are no longer valid.

No logs will be accepted.

Which is what you stated and are trying to mislead people with on your Earthcache pages. Which are not affected by the rule change, just your attitude is.

Sorry, was not meant to be misleading. Just copied and pasted the same text without thinking. I have corrected it.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

Wow! I'm sitting here simply amazed at some of the arguments in this ALR ban debate. There are a lot that seem to indicate a total divorce from the general thinking of back when we started. This thinking was if you found the container and put your name in the logbook you could claim the find. It didn't matter how you found the cache. It could have been a stumble where one simply discovers the container accidentally--whether cacher or muggle. You could shortcut a multi or solve a puzzle differently than the owner intended. One could tag along with friends. About the only exception was outright and blatant cheating like wholesale distribution of final coordinates and even then the solution for some wasn't deleting logs but archiving caches.

Your interpretation of history is different than mine. I remember people doing the stages and solving the puzzles instead of trying to bypass them. Finding a multi meant finding the stages. Probably depended on where you live I guess. I did say that there were special circumstances that were tolerated in my area, like accidentally finding the final stage and such. Tagging with friends and one person helping solved the puzzle or helping each other solve the puzzle or find the stages were always acceptable. It is not as strict as you think it was intended.

Why would someone delete a cache because someone cheated it? Seems a bit drastic.

Now, for many in this thread, that thinking is somehow twisted if not completely vacant. It's more important how you found the cache or what other thing you did besides actually finding the cache. They also feel that activity is so important they feel the need to deny the find until that activity is shown to been accomplished. That's less geocaching and more something else. (geophoons.com?)

No one said how you find the cache is more important than signing the log, it was just that signing the log wasn't the ONLY thing involved in non-traditional caches. Most people who signed the log as found will never get a bother from even the most strict cache owners. This discussion was about those who admit they bypassed what the owner set up to find the cache and/or cheated to find it. I would not e-mail people asking them if they cheated or not, this is just for those stupid enough to admit to cheating.

I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but for those who feel that way I wouldn't feel too bad if they archived all of their caches, picked up their geotrash, and found a different hobby.

It's not very nice villianizing those who disagree with you and tell them that you feel that they should archive their caches and move on. I don't believe that those who disagree with me should move on, nor would I ask them to. Different opinions means diversity, which is what I love about this hobby!

... If I shoot a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's still a wolf. ...

Must you always bring up those danged sheep?

Oops, that was off-topic. Back to the official mayhem....

I have been watching this thread spiral into thirteen pages and over 600 posts, and I feel that it is time to step in here and proffer a few solemn observations in an effort to quench some of the hyperbole:

This action of outlawing ALRs on the part of Groundspeak admins means that geocatching hates chinldren.

Next, I must compare this recent harsh and unreasonable action to the acts of Hitler and his Nazi party during World War Two. All I can say is that Hitler would have approved mightily of the outlawing of ALRs, because he loved to deprive people of their freedoms and their rights.

Finally, I must note somberly, if a bit morosely and with some degree of morbidity, the following:

• the proliferation of lame urban micros was the first sign of the Beginning of the End of Days.
• the proliferation of numbers caching was the second sign of the same.
• the recent action by Groundspeak admins in outlawing ALRs is the third and final sign of the Beginning of the End of Days.
• in light of the facts iterated in the above three billeted items, it is only a matter of time before we shall witness the Six Horsemen of the Apocalypse thundering out of the western skies, and then we will know that we have only a few days left.

Sad. Very sad. But it is simply true that Satan has hated ALRs from the start, and that he clearly targeted ALRs as one of his worst enemies, and that he used underhanded means (a lifetime supply of Chemical X for Signal the Frog, among other things) to get Groundspeak admins to outlaw ALRs. Satan is now sitting in Hades, gloating and preening himself gleefully, for he knows that he has won this battle.

I have been watching this thread spiral into thirteen pages and over 600 posts, and I feel that it is time to step in here and proffer a few solemn observations in an effort to quench some of the hyperbole:

This action of outlawing ALRs on the part of Groundspeak admins means that geocatching hates chinldren.

Next, I must compare this recent harsh and unreasonable action to the acts of Hitler and his Nazi party during World War Two. All I can say is that Hitler would have approved mightily of the outlawing of ALRs, because he loved to deprive people of their freedoms and their rights.

Finally, I must note somberly, if a bit morosely and with some degree of morbidity, the following:

• the proliferation of lame urban micros was the first sign of the Beginning of the End of Days.
• the proliferation of numbers caching was the second sign of the same.
• the recent action by Groundspeak admins in outlawing ALRs is the third and final sign of the Beginning of the End of Days.
• in light of the facts iterated in the above three billeted items, it is only a matter of time before we shall witness the Six Horsemen of the Apocalypse thundering out of the western skies, and then we will know that we have only a few days left.

Sad. Very sad. But it is simply true that Satan has hated ALRs from the start, and that he clearly targeted ALRs as one of his worst enemies, and that he used underhanded means (a lifetime supply of Chemical X for Signal the Frog, among other things) to get Groundspeak admins to outlaw ALRs. Satan is now sitting in Hades, gloating and preening himself gleefully, for he knows that he has won this battle.

8.5

It is an unwritten rule, because there used to be something called "respect for the cache and its owner". I hide caches for the finders, but I also expect them to respect my cache and whatever stuff I have worked on to set it up. Some owner's don't care, but some do! The good thing to do is to act like EVERYBODY cares that you are respecting the owner, the cache, the rules, the unwritten rules, and the spirit of the game!

Interesting. Try as I might, I just can't see things from your perspective.

I have one particular puzzle where some of the first finders didn't find it the way I expected. One totally missed one of the first clues and had to get me to explain it after the fact. The second only found half the coordinates and using some deduction and the "walk the line" method found it.

On another puzzle series, one user used a spreadsheet to solve a puzzle which was designed to be done using physical paper and tools found inside one of the caches.

In none of those cases would I ever consider deleting a log because they didn't find it "my way". In fact, I admired their ingenuity for doing things I hadn't considered. They found the cache in a way that was fun for them.

Maybe that is why I am in the "good riddance ALR" camp. I hide caches for the enjoyment of the seekers, not to fulfill my desire to be a control freak and force people to find things my way. If someone is fine with being given the coordinates to a puzzle then I am happy. I might think they missed out on the best part of the experience but, in the end, they enjoyed their find.

I think Groundspeak is on the right track with this move. It takes the game back to basics -- sign the log, log your Find online.

Think of the flow of a cache hunt like this:

|gate_A| seeker reads cache page |gate_B| seeker hunts for cache |gate_C| seeker finds cache |gate_D| seeker signs physical log |gate_E| seeker logs find on-line

Assuming a seeker has at least a free account, you have control over the following gates:

B: Special equipment required? Challenge to complete?

C: Puzzle to solve? Camouflage to overcome?

You don’t have control over these:

D: Seeker forgot pencil/pen?

E: **previous location of additional logging requirement**

You still control your cache and TBTB now have a little more control over what is logged to the pages on their listing service. There’s a hand-off point after the seeker finds the ammo can that you stuck in the woods. For all intents and purposes, after they find that container they have “geocached”. What happens afterward is just going to a website and clicking keys. Sure you might type out a great story about your caching adventure, but the real adventure is over. You’re just sending data to a database.

Was anybody ever upset when a seeker found an ALR cache and only signed the physical log…?

The circular logic being used in the thread is making me nauseous.

I understand that the thread needs to be seen to get the word out about the guideline change, but I think the discussion has run its course multiple times.

I make a motion to lock this sucker down.

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters.
The problem is not that all ALRs are bad, or that your specific ALRs are bad. The problem is that ALRs are being abused, and that the volunteer reviewers don't want to deal with the abusive ALRs, or with the fallout from denying the abusive ALRs.

This isn't the first time Groundspeak has encountered this kind of problem. Their decision about ALRs was certainly informed by their past experiences with virtual caches, locationless caches, webcam caches, and other cache types that are now grandfathered or prohibited.

Also, I don't think it's a matter of Groundspeak siding with the number hunters. The number hunters may be siding with Groundspeak on this, but Groundspeak seems to have very different reasons for this decision.

Godwin's law has been invoked. Can we shut this train wreck down now?

It's not very nice villianizing those who disagree with you and tell them that you feel that they should archive their caches and move on. I don't believe that those who disagree with me should move on, nor would I ask them to. Different opinions means diversity, which is what I love about this hobby!

Well, if you're out with friends playing frisbee and the joker responsible for bringing the frisbee brings a football instead, are you still playing frisbee or something else? I want to play frisbee, so that joker can take his ball and go home. I'll go find a frisbee to play with.

Wow! I'm sitting here simply amazed at some of the arguments in this ALR ban debate. There are a lot that seem to indicate a total divorce from the general thinking of back when we started. This thinking was if you found the container and put your name in the logbook you could claim the find. It didn't matter how you found the cache. It could have been a stumble where one simply discovers the container accidentally--whether cacher or muggle. You could shortcut a multi or solve a puzzle differently than the owner intended. One could tag along with friends. About the only exception was outright and blatant cheating like wholesale distribution of final coordinates and even then the solution for some wasn't deleting logs but archiving caches.

Now, for many in this thread, that thinking is somehow twisted if not completely vacant. It's more important how you found the cache or what other thing you did besides actually finding the cache. They also feel that activity is so important they feel the need to deny the find until that activity is shown to been accomplished. That's less geocaching and more something else. (geophoons.com?)

I dunno. Maybe it's just me, but for those who feel that way I wouldn't feel too bad if they archived all of their caches, picked up their geotrash, and found a different hobby.

I guess I am pretty much along these lines...

I have one ALR in place at this time...er...I had one ALR in place

I plan on reworking it to be a good old fashioned traditional...

You find the container and place your name on the log book...it is a find...at least that is how I view it...

-So, you find my cache by accident...go ahead and claim a find...

-So, you found a way to "shortcut"...go ahead and claim a find...

-So, your buddy solved the puzzle and you were along for the ride...go ahead and claim the find...

-So, you figured out where the multi ends by pure intuition...go ahead and claim find...

-So, you sign the log as part of a team/group name...go ahead and claim the find (I would appreciate it if you included who the team was in the log...but it is not required...)

Note: I only mention the "team" part since I frequently cache with friends and have been known to use a group name when we all find the cache...I make it a point to include who was part of the team/group in each of my logs...

All in all...ALR is such a minor thing...

WELL IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE DROPED THE INTAKE HOSE OF THE SUMP PUMP INTO THE FUN BARREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't like them don't look for them!

ALRs give the hider and the finder numerous was to add fun to the experience.

Oh well I guess we can always put 35mm cans under lamp post skirts!

I suppose soon to be listed it will have to be an "ammo can with a 1 mile hike" Not less than a mile not more than a mile. Oh and the log book will have to be a rite in the rain note pad measuring BLA X BLA and no pages missing. And don't forget the orange 5 foot bike flag that must be secured securly to the ammo can! BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

WHY WAS THIS DONE? There is no reason to remove the ALRs other than to help the #s people! I have never ran into an ALR cache that projected a negative image of caching. I guess I would like an explanation. Is that too much to ask?

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

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

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

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

.

Well said...Thank you

You don’t have control over these:

D: Seeker forgot pencil/pen?

E: **previous location of additional logging requirement**

So if the seeker forgot pencil/pen can I delete his log?

I suspect that puritans will say I can because the seeker can't prove his log is not bogus and because TPTB have now spoken by saying that you can log the cache online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

I just tried it however and found that I can still log a cache online even if I haven't signed the physical log.

If TPTB are going to enforce their guidelines they need to have some way to ensure that Found It logs are only made when the physical has been signed as well as ensuring that when the physical log has been signed that logs can't be deleted. It would be even better if the could enforce a Found it log to be entered if the physical log is signed because then I wouldn't have to go around scratching out the names in the physical logs of geoachers who aren't logging all their finds online.

The narrow minded puritans are incapable of understanding the silliness of worrying about the 'Found It' log being correct. They wish to impose a specific definition of found and then condemn any use of the 'Found It' log that they don't agree with.

My suggestion is to provide two parallel logging sites. At puritan_caching.com cache owners will be required to verify physical log books and delete online Found It logs that don't have a corresponding entry in the physical log. At cache_owners_rights.com, cache owners can decide which logs to permit. The can accept log where people forgot pencils or even armchair logs. But they can also delete logs because they contain spelling errors or because they finder won't do some ALR. Finders who log on cache_owner_rights.com would accept that their log may be arbitrarily deleted. Let everyone chose which site they want to log on. I suspect many will initially select the puritan site because then would know exactly what the requirements are for logging find and know that if they meet these requirements their log will not be deleted. However I believe that eventually many will find the people at cache owner rights are having more fun and worrying less about the numbers.

Edited by tozainamboku

Godwin's law has been invoked. Can we shut this train wreck down now?

I must say that even though I am very disappointed that ALL ALRs were effectively disabled, carte blanche, and though I would love to see at least some ALRs re-instated under a separate ALR category, I am floored by, and extremely disappointed by, a number of the pro-ALR arguments offered by some of the pro-ALR posters in this thread and the related thread -- many of these folks who have been complaining show a serious disconnect from reality and display a serious sense of self-entitlement as well. Quite amazing!

After this thread was brought to my attention on another board I stopped by to check it out and now I have only one question.

Has all the posting in the world ever changed the mind of TPTB?

My concern with the change is not that Groundspeak feels the game would be better of if Additional Logging Requirements became Additional Logging Suggestions, but rather the wording of the instruction for logging a physical cache. It can be read as a change in Groundspeak policy to now favor the logger whose Found It log was deleted instead of the cache owner.
If TPTB are going to enforce their guidelines they need to have some way to ensure that Found It logs are only made when the physical has been signed as well as ensuring that when the physical log has been signed that logs can't be deleted.

Having participated in the drafting of the new guideline wording, please let me assure you that the first sentence of the section, to which you are referring in this (and a couple of your previous posts in this forum)

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

are not indicative of any change of policy towards cache logging by Groundspeak, whatsoever. They are simply there to clarify that, following the removal of ALRs, there is now no other requirement beyond signing the log to be able to say, online, "Yes, I found this cache".

That sentence contributes a degree of redundancy to the language of the new "Logging of All Physical Caches" section of the guidelines. The inclusion of this redundancy was a deliberate choice during the drafting stage of the new guideline paragraph.

When writing words that you hope will be clearly understood by one million people (yikes!), you have a choice: either state things very precisely and elegantly, or use lots of redundancy. The former method creates words that appeal to the aesthetic sense of those who can appreciate it (classy people, like you and me); the latter reduces the number of people who fail to get to the basic message, but may cause the lovers of elegance to read other motives into some of the thudding prose. On balance, given the choice between a few people reading too much into the redundant wording and reacting in the forums, versus tens of thousands of people not understanding the idea because they don't read every word in detail and e-mailing or calling for support as a result, I think that the former is probably the more economical choice.

Now, having established the case for redundancy, I'll reiterate : the wording of the new "Logging of All Physical Caches" section of the guidelines does not indicate any new Groundspeak policy towards physical logging, online logging, log deletion, or anything else, apart from the specific change to the publication of caches with ALRs. There really is nothing to see here. Whatever mechanisms there may be to "punish" (brrrr...) people who don't comply, are the same as the ones which were there last week in cases where the CO deleted a log because the finder's name had too many consonants in it.

Edited by riviouveur
I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters.

Are we back to that tired old deliberate misconception that this change has even the slightest thing to do with the numbers hunters? Had you been paying attention to what was posted, rather than simply spouting your vitriolic rant, you would've realized that theory was squashed quite some time ago. Yeah, I know, your mind's made up. We shouldn't confuse you with facts.

Now a cache owner can REQUEST anything and it will fly?

My guess is, so long as the request doesn't violate the other guidelines or the terms of service, it'll be allowed on the cache page.

Certainly the company may set whatever priorities it likes, but the evidence suggests that GC.com has placed a premium on maximizing immediate profits rather than building a high quality brand.

What evidence suggests that? From my vantage, I'm seeing the exact opposite. Compare the top three cache listing services: Navicaching, Terracaching and Geocaching. Which one, (according to consumers), provides the highest overall quality? My guess would be the listing service with, (just guessing here), roughly 80% of the market? If the other listing services provided a better product, we'd be having this debate on their forum, not here. Their business model demonstrates quite clearly that they are in this for long term growth, knowing that such growth will lead to maximized profit margins.

And why is it that cache owners have virtually no say in how cache placement is governed?

To date, I've only met about a gazillion cachers. So far, I haven't met any who would believe such an overly dramatic, pouty bit of silliness. Virtually no say? Please. You can do better.

These are reasonable questions, but given the way this forum operates, intelligent discussion of these points is not likely to follow.

Discussion typically takes two sides to be successful. If one side starts with a wildly over-dramatic bit of rhetoric, (like your's), then switches to not listening to even the most reasonable counterpoint to their silliness, (as you did), there can be no true discussion. I'd love to sit down over a pint with you and discuss this issue at length, but at this point, I think you are too emotionally invested in the topic to see reason.

I have to say, I've only looked at one of your caches (GC1C6Q2), but it seems to me that you could easily make your ALRs into real puzzles.

That would require compromise. There's no drama in compromise.

We were in the very process of putting together our very first ALR cache when this all happened. The supplies have been bought, a location scouted out, and the ammo can is half way painted to go with our theme. We're not sure what we are going to do at this point.

You're unsure what you're going to do, because you now can ask someone to perform a task, instead of forcing them to do it?

I must say that even though I am very disappointed that ALL ALRs were effectively disabled, carte blanche, and though I would love to see at least some ALRs re-instated under a separate ALR category,

Just to clarify, they haven't ALL been disabled. Challenge caches are retained.

Can I have your EarthCaches? I hate to see them go away.

Seriously, EarthCaches are exempt from the changes (See the original post).

My two Earth caches are very special to me. I have not decided what I will do with them. One was created to honour a very good friend of mine. The other is a place where we teach our students.

And ... forgive me, but aren't your other caches just a cool even if someone doesn't have to prove to you they read the sign? Your cache pages are interesting, and made me curious about what was there. The average cacher will be curious enough to read the sign once they get that close anyway. Those people will enjoy the cache and benefit from it.

The problem is the signs and monuments only contain the cliff notes of the history of my caches. The additional material that I supply contains the whole story. I would like some assurance that the logger has appreciated the effort i put into the cache. The way I can be assured that this happens is for the seeker to email me some answers. I have had a number of people who have not appreciated my effort by supplying me with wrong answers that show that they have not bothered to look at the links. I understand there are people who complain about ALRs and this new rule is GC's way of dealing with that complaint. This is my way of showing my displeasure with both the complainers and GC's new rule.

I do not feel that my ALRs are too much to ask. GC disagrees with me and sides with number hunters. I have decided to disagree with GC and the only way to do that is to remove my caches from play.

Here's that "You can lead a horse to water" thing again. You may be interested in the history but it doesn't mean everyone else will be. By requiring people to appreciate it as much as you do, you are pushing an agenda, which is against the guidelines.

That's a bit strongly worded, Team GPSaxophone, but you do make a good point.

Some people (Including me, at certain stages of my lifetime) are almost allergic to feeling like they are being manipulated into doing something they don't want to do. There have been times when someone told me I "had" to do something, and my reflexive reaction was to say "Oh no I DO NOT" even if it was a thing I would otherwise want to do. I know, I know ~ That's pathetic, but it true. . Even now, I am more likely to do a thing if I feel like I want to do it.

Plasma Boy, I do understand how you feel. I wonder how much of the lack of correct responses is due to what you see as lack of interest, and how much might to due to other circumstances? I can think of many other explanations. If you teach, you likely have seen some of these problems with children. Why do you think geocachers are much different, really, from students? Consider:

Some people don't know how to communicate their interest.

Some people just aren't very interested, thought they'll give it a try.

Some people just aren't very good readers, (yes, even adults). They try and still get it wrong.

Some people read the questions wrong and think they are answering the question, when they aren't even close.

And some are like my husband. He comes across something cool while caching and will come home and do hours of research on it, just out of curiosity. He'll tell me all about it and he remembers it 'forever' ~ several months later I'll hear him tell other people about it, as excitedly as if he had discovered it all by himself.

Personally I feel taking the chance of getting an occasional finder like my husband outweighs the risk of having ten disinterested cachers skip the cache because they can't be bothered to do the research. And it's certainly worth giving the less-gifted researchers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their logs.

I'd advise you to try having the caches stay the way they are, other than changing the requirement to request~ You might discover you'll get both more finders and more interested and enthusiastic finders. If not, you always can archive or revamp them later.

Whatever you do, don't archive the EarthCaches over this. They really are not classed in this action, so there is no need. If you do decide to archive them, do consider adopting them to another cacher. If no one local wants them, I'll take them, if you would just promise to be my local eyes if a problem is reported or help me find someone else who will do that. Really, I hate to see good EarthCaches go away.

This action of outlawing ALRs on the part of Groundspeak admins means that geocatching hates chinldren.

And Kittens!!!

This just isn't that big of a deal to me.

The way I see it, it's not my site and I don't write the guidelines.

I want to use the site so I generally play by the guidelines (I don't log all my caches) and I'll keep using it to find interesting places to go and for often needed diversions.

If I want a site that has different guidelines I can go join one or start my own.

The only thing I would like out of this whole thing is for cache owners to be given a bit of notice when the guidelines are going to be changed.

Call me stupid but the solution to this debate would be create a new category of caches that requires an ALR. Find them if you want, don’t find them if you don’t want to. For crying out loud, as an example, in my small state of CT we are approaching 4000 caches. There s a better chance of paying off the national debt before I’d find them all!

The icon could be a Frog jumping through a hoop or something similar. I’m sure when Geocaching began there was only one type of cache. Go to posted coords, find cache. Then someone came up with the idea, go to posted coords, find container with another set of coords, go to that, find another and so on. Thus the multi was born. Then someone came up with the idea, figure out this cipher and it will reveal the coords to the cache. Thus the puzzle cache was born. So why not a new category? Why deprive the hiders and finders of these type of caches, whether it be dressing up like a pirate or emailing a code word to verify a find. (And I don’t buy the argument about requesting vs. forcing as the ALR is a feature of the cache itself.) The only restrictions would be not requiring the finders to do anything illegal or immoral. That should be obvious to the reviewers during the approval process.

Join the conversation

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.