jholly Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 This action of outlawing ALRs on the part of Groundspeak admins means that geocatching hates chinldren. And Kittens!!! whew! thank goodness, I have a CAT. Jim Quote Link to comment
+team moxiepup Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 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'm unsure what I'm going to do because I'm not sure if it will be as much fun. Simple as that. I really don't get why the anti ALR folks feel that they are being "forced" to do something. People have choices about what kind of caches they seek. If they don't didn't want to seek an ALR cache, they don't didn't have to. Consider comparing the hiding of a cache for people to find, to hosting a party. Sometimes the party is just a casual get together. There is no theme or purpose other than socializing. Sometimes a party can have an intent; perhaps to play charades, make crafts, have a wine-tasting... you name it. An ALR cache is like hosting a party with a specific intent. If the the party invitation is for a wine tasting, do you show up with beer and pizza, stroll over to the host's stereo to turn off the jazz so you can put on the game, just because you don't like wine and jazz? Wouldn't it had been more polite to simply either not attend that particular party, or if you felt you really needed to, at least behave accordingly? There will be other parties where beer and the game are just dandy! Just not for this party. The same concept could go for caches. There will always be traditional caches. Why not allow some with ALRs, especially if we can find reviewers who would be willing to specialize in these sort of caches, so those who don't want the headache don't have to deal with them, but those who like them can have them? Quote Link to comment
ertyu Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm confused by the changes. Whats the definition of a Challenge Cache? Is a Challenge Cache allowed to be a virtual or is it a physical cache subject to the Logging of All Physical Caches paragraph? Quote Link to comment
+massafranz Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 After 14 Pages of discussions and lame excuses, i'm even more sure that this change of the Guidelines is grown out of laziness and cronyism to the "haters of ALR's". No try to limitate it, no try to control it. Just simply 'forbid' it by making it optional. They wrote, that they are sorry about the 'some' caches with good ideas/reasons that will be affected. But i only know caches with very good ideas/reasons for the ALR. And no one of them is to hard to solve. Welcome to the world of dubious political decisions.... Franz Quote Link to comment
+mysts99 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 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. Nope, it was the ALR. One of the caches actually published too early and was taken off. Obviously that cache was ok but even that one has not be published again. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Whats the definition of a Challenge Cache?From the recently revised guidelines:Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.Older challenge caches required you to send proof that you had completed the challenge to the cache owner. The owner would then send you the final coordinates. Lately, the final coordinates are posted, but you are not allowed to log a find unless you have completed the challenge. So until the latest revision of the guidelines, challenge caches were just ALR caches, where the ALR specified that you needed to complete the specified challenge before logging a find. Is a Challenge Cache allowed to be a virtual or is it a physical cache subject to the Logging of All Physical Caches paragraph?No, a challenge cache is not allowed to be a virtual. It is a physical cache. And its "special logging requirements" are exempt from the ban on "additional logging requirements" in the Logging of All Physical Caches section. So if your logging requirement is sufficiently related to geocaching, then you may be able to create a challenge cache. Otherwise, the "requirement" will be an optional request. Quote Link to comment
+The Jester Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I've never thought of Challenge Caches as ALR's. And by the definition used here, they would be more like puzzles: Puzzle Cache - do something before finding cache; ALR Cache - do something after finding cache to online log. One "qualifies" you for the the cache, the other "qualifies" you for the online log. Quote Link to comment
ertyu Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Older challenge caches required you to send proof that you had completed the challenge to the cache owner. The owner would then send you the final coordinates. Lately, the final coordinates are posted, but you are not allowed to log a find unless you have completed the challenge. So until the latest revision of the guidelines, challenge caches were just ALR caches, where the ALR specified that you needed to complete the specified challenge before logging a find. What happens to these "modern" challenge caches? They are using banned ALR, even if they are converted to obscured co-ordinates, someone could still make the find using the once posted co-ordinates. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an email to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be. Further to that, having to obtain the co-ords from the owner in that method seems to be frowned upon. No, a challenge cache is not allowed to be a virtual. It is a physical cache. And its "special logging requirements" are exempt from the ban on "additional logging requirements" in the Logging of All Physical Caches section. So if your logging requirement is sufficiently related to geocaching, then you may be able to create a challenge cache. Otherwise, the "requirement" will be an optional request. I don't see any exemption for "special logging requirements". I don't think the guidelines really define what a challenge cache is all that well. I think this is especially important as it affects existing caches. If an existing cache is using logging requirements of some sort and it is deemed not to be a "challenge cache", then those requirements become optional and the cache owner can't enforce them. If on the other hand it becomes a "challenge cache" then they remain as requirements. Since "Challenge Cache" isn't a cache type, how is one to tell if the requirements are required or not? Who deems the cache to be a "Challenge Cache" and how is it indicated? There is a big messy grey spot here. Personally I don't forsee myself ignoring any current requirements, but this change needs to be more clear and straightforward. Quote Link to comment
+Cache O'Plenty Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I vote to bring back ALRs as their own category. And, while you are at it, create the "Challenge" category. Then, do something about the "Unknown" category - separate/rename it as it really is. Right now, it's a catchall. Thus, Traditionals would be "use provided coordinates and find the cache". Challenge caches require you to do something BEFORE you get the coordinates. ALRs require you to do something extra to log the cache. We have an ALR here that requires that you must find the cache only on your birthday. Even if two people are together when they find it, only the one with the birthday may log the find. BTW - anyone that is concerned about their numbers changing because former ALRs are now going to be Traditionals need to remember that they were getting credit (or whatever) for Puzzle caches when, in reality, all they did was put on silly glasses. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 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'm unsure what I'm going to do because I'm not sure if it will be as much fun. Simple as that. I really don't get why the anti ALR folks feel that they are being "forced" to do something. People have choices about what kind of caches they seek. If they don't didn't want to seek an ALR cache, they don't didn't have to. Consider comparing the hiding of a cache for people to find, to hosting a party. Sometimes the party is just a casual get together. There is no theme or purpose other than socializing. Sometimes a party can have an intent; perhaps to play charades, make crafts, have a wine-tasting... you name it. An ALR cache is like hosting a party with a specific intent. If the the party invitation is for a wine tasting, do you show up with beer and pizza, stroll over to the host's stereo to turn off the jazz so you can put on the game, just because you don't like wine and jazz? Wouldn't it had been more polite to simply either not attend that particular party, or if you felt you really needed to, at least behave accordingly? There will be other parties where beer and the game are just dandy! Just not for this party. The same concept could go for caches. There will always be traditional caches. Why not allow some with ALRs, especially if we can find reviewers who would be willing to specialize in these sort of caches, so those who don't want the headache don't have to deal with them, but those who like them can have them? As the owner of several ALRS caches I can tell that it is no fun deleting someone's log. The one time I tried to do it was when a high numbers cacher did not follow my trading rule on one of my caches. She change her log to make up a story about leaving a trade and saying the cacher she was with then took her item out of the cache. I knew this was a lie but it now at least kept the theme of the cache so I let this stay. In a way it was fun to see what a high numbers cacher would do to keep her found it log, but it was also difficult for me to put a friend through that. I decided I certainly wouldn't want to do that to a stranger so since then I've not enforced my ALRs. Some caches say the task is optional and some still read like it is required but if anyone finds these caches and doesn't do the ALR doesn't have to worry about getting a log deleted. I am much more pleased when I get a log that does the request and the logger seems to be having fun than I would be to force anyone to do something that is not fun for them. I once went to a pirate themed party. Everyone was supposed to dress a pirate. I just showed up dress normally (for a party). No one made that big of a deal and the host certainly didn't ask me to leave. After 14 Pages of discussions and lame excuses, i'm even more sure that this change of the Guidelines is grown out of laziness and cronyism to the "haters of ALR's". No try to limitate it, no try to control it. Just simply 'forbid' it by making it optional. They wrote, that they are sorry about the 'some' caches with good ideas/reasons that will be affected. But i only know caches with very good ideas/reasons for the ALR. And no one of them is to hard to solve. Welcome to the world of dubious political decisions.... Actually we have evidence that TPTB did try to limit or control runaway ALRs before making this change. First they made the change to list ALR caches as mystery caches. This was supposed to mean that people wouldn't hunt ALR caches without first reading the page so they could say they didn't know about the ALR till after they found the cache. If people are claiming that they were still finding ALR caches which they didn't know about till after they found it, there ought to be a lot of DNF logs on puzzle caches where these same people went to the bogus coordinates to look for a puzzle. Hey, if ALRs were still allowed I'd hide one that says you can log it if you also post a DNF on a puzzle where you went to the bogus coordinates because you didn't read the cache page. Do you think that might qualify as a challenge cache? Even it making ALRs mystery caches prevented people from finding them with out knowing about the ALR, it didn't stop cache owners from posting ALRs that Groundspeak and the reviewer felt were unacceptable. We know from reading it in the forums that you could not require someone to hide a cache as an ALR. We also found out (in my case because I get notification mystery caches) of caches that were published and then retracted when the reviewer who published them realized that the ALR was resevering FTF for a particular person. Groundspeak's attitude was deleting logs of someone who found the caches before the person the ALR says the FTF was reservered for was not acceptable. I suspect the reviewer has a substantial list of unacceptable ALRs. This meant it took longer to publish and ALR cache as they compared the ALR to the list of what wasn't allowed. It also meant spending time with each cache owner whose cache wasn't published to explain what wasn't allowed and perhaps discuss how to make the cache OK. In most case the solution was to make the ALR optional. Now of course TPTB never published the list of inappropriate ALRs. One reason is that the list was always growing as cachers would come up with ideas that reviewers hadn't seen yet. It seem almost like there was an arms race between cachers to come up with the most onerous ALRs. Trying to write a description of what was an acceptable ALR and what was overboard proved too difficult. The experience of the Wow requirement that used to exist for virtual caches had taught the reviewers and Groundspeak a lesson that sometimes the solution to a problem is worse than the original problem. All (or at least almost all) of the guidelines restrict some caches that even Groundspeak admits were cool and creative. That is because other people were hiding caches that caused a problem with land managers or took too much effort to review. In order to write guidelines that are easy to read and where you don't need a law degree to understand, they are kept simple and short. And they cut with an ax instead of a scalpel. In this case the change was pretty simple. You could continue to submit caches with additional logging requirements. The only change is that you can no longer enforce the requirement by deleting Found It logs of people who do not do it. Without the enforcement, ALRs that are onerous and don't add to anyone's fun will simply be ignored. ALRs that are simple and are fun will still be met because people have fun doing them (like the hula cache that has been given as an example). Quote Link to comment
+oldnavy59 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted. I suck at puzzles but I wouldnt rejoice them going the same way ALR caches have been watered down. how many people would solve the puzzle if it was optional? how many puzzle cache hiders would keep pushing the envelope with their puzzles if cachers DIDNT HAVE to solve them? Groundspeak missed the call on this one Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted. I'm puzzled. How would the behavior you describe be hypocritical? Hypocrisy would be somebody who publicly supported ALR caches going out and logging one without performing the requested action. Is that what you meant? Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 how many people would solve the puzzle if it was optional?FWIW, once I used a partial puzzle solution to brute-force the cache location, and then used the coordinates of the cache location to solve the rest of the puzzle. And I solve plenty of puzzles that don't have a geocaches associated with them. So, yeah... I solve "optional" puzzles. how many puzzle cache hiders would keep pushing the envelope with their puzzles if cachers DIDNT HAVE to solve them?One of my favorite puzzle caches has been found at least three different ways. Some of us figured out the clues on the cache page. Others brute-forced the puzzle solution by throwing CPU cycles at it. Others brute-forced the cache location without solving the puzzle at all. There is an elegance to the puzzle that only those who figure out the clues can appreciate. But the logs of those who found the cache differently do not detract from what the cache owner created, or from the experience of those of us who figured out the clues. Quote Link to comment
+the pooks Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know that this is very far down this discussion, but we have very few ALR's in our part of this world, so am not familiar with the types of ALR's that led to the descision to make them optional only. Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? Quote Link to comment
+eigengott Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE Okay. I think this is at least the second time I've seen this one posted as an extreme example of an ALR. I don't know how extreme it actually is because there are quite a few found it logs from people who seemed to enjoy it. It appears none of them were killed or injured or emotionally scarred by the experience, but aside from that, how about a few "extreme" examples in English? I'm beginning to think the "over-the-top" argument is more of a red herring than a widespread problem. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE Okay. I think this is at least the second time I've seen this one posted as an extreme example of an ALR. I don't know how extreme it actually is because there are quite a few found it logs from people who seemed to enjoy it. It appears none of them were killed or injured or emotionally scarred by the experience, but aside from that, how about a few "extreme" examples in English? I'm beginning to think the "over-the-top" argument is more of a red herring than a widespread problem. Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. Quote Link to comment
+Sioneva Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE Okay. I think this is at least the second time I've seen this one posted as an extreme example of an ALR. I don't know how extreme it actually is because there are quite a few found it logs from people who seemed to enjoy it. It appears none of them were killed or injured or emotionally scarred by the experience, but aside from that, how about a few "extreme" examples in English? I'm beginning to think the "over-the-top" argument is more of a red herring than a widespread problem. Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. I don't think the reviewers are going to answer that question with specific examples. And they shouldn't. This whole thing is not about pointing fingers at cachers with extreme ALRs. I have a lot of respect for reviewers, my local area reviewer is a good friend of mine. I know they didn't make this decision on a whim. I still disagree with it. I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, but I believe that they did what they thought best. I hope that the decision is reconsidered and a better compromise is reached. And that's my last word on the subject! This is a threadicide! Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. I don't think the reviewers are going to answer that question with specific examples. And they shouldn't. This whole thing is not about pointing fingers at cachers with extreme ALRs. I have a lot of respect for reviewers, my local area reviewer is a good friend of mine. I know they didn't make this decision on a whim. I still disagree with it. I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, but I believe that they did what they thought best. I hope that the decision is reconsidered and a better compromise is reached. And that's my last word on the subject! This is a threadicide! I never said the reviewer need give names, just examples. And I am sure that my comment was taken as I meant it...or I hope so. Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. Why would I want to ask my reviewer? I want examples of published ALRs that are over-the-top. One facet of the argument against ALRs is that they were getting out of hand. I haven't seen much evidence of that. If they weren't being published because they were too gross, or too vindictive, or too [insert your own descriptive narrative here], I doubt that they will begin allowing them now just because they are only suggestions. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. Why would I want to ask my reviewer? I want examples of published ALRs that are over-the-top. One facet of the argument against ALRs is that they were getting out of hand. I haven't seen much evidence of that. If they weren't being published because they were too gross, or too vindictive, or too [insert your own descriptive narrative here], I doubt that they will begin allowing them now just because they are only suggestions. Who do you suppose has to see all those ALR's which have been reportedly getting more and more out of hand? Who do you think made many of the complaints (or allegedly as it may be)? Quote Link to comment
+oldnavy59 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted. I'm puzzled. How would the behavior you describe be hypocritical? Hypocrisy would be somebody who publicly supported ALR caches going out and logging one without performing the requested action. Is that what you meant? I think if you didnt do this cache because of the ALR and now that its optional you l find it to get the smiley Quote Link to comment
+usyoopers Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE I would just put that one on my ignore list, if however it floats someone else's boat...go for it! Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 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. ...That wouldn't solve the very problem that caused ALRs to be banned. 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'm unsure what I'm going to do because I'm not sure if it will be as much fun. Simple as that. ...Not as much fun for who? The cache seekers who think your ALR is a hoot will have just as much fun with it whether it is mandated or optional. The only way that it would be less fun for cache owners is if the individual derives his fun out of the fact that people must follow his whims. I wonder how many hypocrites will go out and log ALR caches, just because they can and not have their logs deleted.I'm puzzled. How would the behavior you describe be hypocritical? Hypocrisy would be somebody who publicly supported ALR caches going out and logging one without performing the requested action. Is that what you meant?I think if you didnt do this cache because of the ALR and now that its optional you l find it to get the smileyIf you choose not to do an optional task that you don't find to be fun, you are not being hypocritical. Quote Link to comment
+Scooter Bill Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Here's an idea for a new ALS cache called Disclaimer. The ALS "suggests" that the cache finder agree to the terms and conditions in the geocaching.com disclaimer. This notation is included on all cache pages: Please note: To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE This point of this cache seem to be "How far are you willing to go to get a smiley". Those that are willing to post all those pictures to get a smile are deemed by this cache owner to be an "Ilikethefunandamreadytodo(almost)everythingCacher". Seems that enough people are willing to do this. Prior to last Friday, those cachers who wanted to say "Idon'tthinkasmileyisworththatmuchthatIamwillingtodo(almost)everthingtogetit" could actually register this opinion, either by ignoring the cache altogether or by finding the cache and posting a note instead of a find. I wouldn't be surprised if someone would have posted 11 Photoshopped photos to make a point of how much fun they though this was. In fact a brief look at the logs shows some creativity in getting some of the pictures needed to log the cache. The ban on ALRs make caches like this somewhat mute. No longer can we see what some people will do to get a smiley. This cache might be saved since it could still be "anyone can log this cache but if you post the pictures you are an "Ilikethefunandamreadytodo(almost)everythingCacher". The people who miss out are those who want to make the point that they aren't willing to do almost anything for a smiley. Instead of being able to ridicule the people who are posting embarassing pictures of themselves, if you log this cache with out do the suggestion you leave yourself open to be ridiculed for putting the smiley ahead of a bit of fun. The people who still do the ALR can now say they only did that because they had fun doing it and not because they would do anything for the smiley. Shame on anyone who now logs an ALS cache without doing the suggested activity, you are the new smiley whores. I've come to the conclusion that what really upsets me about this change is that it does seem to make a statement that the ability of people to log a find in order to get a smiley is important. I am sorely tempted to stop logging all of my finds online as the only way left to ridicule the masses of people who seem to feel their find count means something. The problem is that like everyone else I like to keep track of caches I've found. I even like to look at where my numbers are compared to others. I just like to keep it in perspective that the number isn't that important. The important thing is to have fun. Even if there was an ALR that I would not do to get a smiley, I could have fun with it. I could look and see who were the people who did do it and tease them at events about the fact that they would do anything for a smiley. I could try to find a clever way to circumvent the requirement that would amuse the hider enough to let my log stand. I could post a note with a description of how much fun I had finding the cache (even if I didn't) and I didn't need the smiley so I didn't do the ALR. So this change has taken away my fun. If there is now an ALR I don't think is fun, I have to ignore it or risk being labeled as a numbers whore. Thanks for taking away the fun. Edited April 8, 2009 by tozainamboku Quote Link to comment
+Plasma Boy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know this is a done deal and I am dealing with it in my own way. Having said that, I have made a lot of friends from around the world, because of my ALRs. If my caches were the suggested traditionals, I would not know these fellow cachers. When the cacher sends me an email with the answers, I verify that they are correct or I correct them and some have continued to email back and forth. If you read the comments in the logs of my caches, most of them are positive and praising. I have not received one bad response to any of my 4 ALR related caches. No one has ever complained to me directly or through a GC rep. I was informed of my need to change after I brought up my position in a local forum. I would really like to see the stats on the complaints received about ALRs. As most of you know, happy people do not contact to praise things. Disgruntled people always contact to complain about things. I do not know if it is a valid method for deciding if guidelines need to be changed. Did GC follow up on complains, by reading logs of offending caches or did they just revise the rule because of a small vocal negative section of the members? Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I know this is a done deal and I am dealing with it in my own way. Having said that, I have made a lot of friends from around the world, because of my ALRs. If my caches were the suggested traditionals, I would not know these fellow cachers. When the cacher sends me an email with the answers, I verify that they are correct or I correct them and some have continued to email back and forth. If you read the comments in the logs of my caches, most of them are positive and praising. I have not received one bad response to any of my 4 ALR related caches. No one has ever complained to me directly or through a GC rep. I was informed of my need to change after I brought up my position in a local forum. I would really like to see the stats on the complaints received about ALRs. As most of you know, happy people do not contact to praise things. Disgruntled people always contact to complain about things. I do not know if it is a valid method for deciding if guidelines need to be changed. Did GC follow up on complains, by reading logs of offending caches or did they just revise the rule because of a small vocal negative section of the members? I disagree. Obviously, the people who found and logged your cache wanted to do it or they'd not have bothered. Even if it were only a suggestion, most of those logging your cache would have followed along, they did it as a requirement, didn't they? So, you'd have still "met" these people, you'd likely still be friends with the sme people! However, you now have a chance to make even MORE friends due to the removal of the requirement. More people are likely to check out your cache (and not simply ignore), more people have potential to do the suggestion!! win/win And please, stop using the "small vocal negative section". Unless you can't read, you're purposely misleading people with this statement! Edited April 8, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Quote Link to comment
+Plasma Boy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 However, you now have a chance to make even MORE friends due to the removal of the requirement. More people are likely to check out your cache (and not simply ignore), more people have potential to do the suggestion!! win/win Not true. If they no longer are required to email me answers then the back and forth conversation never happens. Do you send an email to all of the people who complete your caches? Cachers contact me and sometimes we become friends. I have met a few people from around the world who I would not have met except for them completing the ALR. Quote Link to comment
Swamp-Thing Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. Why would I want to ask my reviewer? I want examples of published ALRs that are over-the-top. One facet of the argument against ALRs is that they were getting out of hand. I haven't seen much evidence of that. If they weren't being published because they were too gross, or too vindictive, or too [insert your own descriptive narrative here], I doubt that they will begin allowing them now just because they are only suggestions. Maybe you haven't been listening too well. It isn't the PUBLISHED ALR caches that are out of hand but the ones THAT WEREN'T PUBLISHED OR CAN'T BE PUBLISHED. The local reviewers won't reveal them because that would reveal who the cacher may have been as was backed up by Miss Jenn's comment about this already. Quote Link to comment
+Plasma Boy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 And please, stop using the "small vocal negative section". Unless you can't read, you're purposely misleading people with this statement! How about I stop using it when you or a GC rep publishes the stats. Out of the 3/4 of a million cachers, how many complained about ALRs? Should be easy enough to figure out with the honking big database GC has. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 However, you now have a chance to make even MORE friends due to the removal of the requirement. More people are likely to check out your cache (and not simply ignore), more people have potential to do the suggestion!! win/win Not true. If they no longer are required to email me answers then the back and forth conversation never happens. Do you send an email to all of the people who complete your caches? Cachers contact me and sometimes we become friends. I have met a few people from around the world who I would not have met except for them completing the ALR. But now that you have shut down your caches you will never know. You might have been surprised how many emails you got on the suggestion. No I don't generally email people who do my caches, but then I don't have the suggestion they email me. Jim Quote Link to comment
+hukilaulau Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 And please, stop using the "small vocal negative section". Unless you can't read, you're purposely misleading people with this statement! How about I stop using it when you or a GC rep publishes the stats. Out of the 3/4 of a million cachers, how many complained about ALRs? Should be easy enough to figure out with the honking big database GC has. What number would satisfy you? Tell me a number you want and I'll post it. ridiculous? Exactly! GC has no need to "prove" anything to your satisfaction. but while we're talking numbers, I'll speculate that it's a "small vocal negative section" that is opposed to the change, since MOST of the people who are in agreement don't have any reason to say so, it's done. (Me? It's a cold rainy day and I don't have anything better to do!) Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you should ask your reviewer. Seems the reviewers are a main reason for the change since they have to deal with the ALR caches on a more and more regular basis. Why would I want to ask my reviewer? I want examples of published ALRs that are over-the-top. One facet of the argument against ALRs is that they were getting out of hand. I haven't seen much evidence of that. If they weren't being published because they were too gross, or too vindictive, or too [insert your own descriptive narrative here], I doubt that they will begin allowing them now just because they are only suggestions. Maybe you haven't been listening too well. It isn't the PUBLISHED ALR caches that are out of hand but the ones THAT WEREN'T PUBLISHED OR CAN'T BE PUBLISHED. The local reviewers won't reveal them because that would reveal who the cacher may have been as was backed up by Miss Jenn's comment about this already. Maybe you haven't been bothering to read posts all the way through but my point was that there will still be judgment calls made as to whether the REQUEST is suitable for listing so what did the ban accomplish exactly? Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you haven't been bothering to read posts all the way through but my point was that there will still be judgment calls made as to whether the REQUEST is suitable for listing so what did the ban accomplish exactly? Well there may be a judgment call on the request, but there will no longer be a judgment call on a deleted log because the REQUIREMENT or REQUEST did not meet the likings of the cache owner. I might point out that the judgment call is much easier now. If is only a suggestion, what is lost if the suggestion is dropped? It also removes the ALRS from the mystery category and moves them to the traditional category. Quote Link to comment
+Plasma Boy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 What number would satisfy you? Tell me a number you want and I'll post it. ridiculous? Exactly! GC has no need to "prove" anything to your satisfaction. but while we're talking numbers, I'll speculate that it's a "small vocal negative section" that is opposed to the change, since MOST of the people who are in agreement don't have any reason to say so, it's done. (Me? It's a cold rainy day and I don't have anything better to do!) If you are in the position, I would like to know as I stated earlier, how many of the 3/4 of a million cachers complained about ALRs? Was it 50%, 80%, 0.08%? How many? That is the number I would like to see. I understand me knowing the number will not make a difference or change the guidelines back, but I would like to know how many complainers or constructive criticizers, if that sounds better, it takes to change a GC guideline. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 And please, stop using the "small vocal negative section". Unless you can't read, you're purposely misleading people with this statement! How about I stop using it when you or a GC rep publishes the stats. Out of the 3/4 of a million cachers, how many complained about ALRs? Should be easy enough to figure out with the honking big database GC has. You know what, I only complain when it's more than a slight inconvenience, so maybe some people never complain, maybe some complain all the time (know what I mean....). How exactly would checking the database help? Besides, the point that you either purposely ignore or can't understand is that the REVIEWERS are a BIG portion of those complaining. Not only this, but as I understand it, it wasn't a snap decision and there were many examples given of the ALRs (alt logging ridiculousness) which brought the change, some of which have been given, some of which I have seen! Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) What number would satisfy you? Tell me a number you want and I'll post it. ridiculous? Exactly! GC has no need to "prove" anything to your satisfaction. but while we're talking numbers, I'll speculate that it's a "small vocal negative section" that is opposed to the change, since MOST of the people who are in agreement don't have any reason to say so, it's done. (Me? It's a cold rainy day and I don't have anything better to do!) If you are in the position, I would like to know as I stated earlier, how many of the 3/4 of a million cachers complained about ALRs? Was it 50%, 80%, 0.08%? How many? That is the number I would like to see. I understand me knowing the number will not make a difference or change the guidelines back, but I would like to know how many complainers or constructive criticizers, if that sounds better, it takes to change a GC guideline. Figure it as best as any of us can, out of all the posts in these 3 or 4 threads the posters vocal about being against this change are in the minority. Now, even if the amount of cachers who visit the forums is a mere %, wouldn't the % still give you a good idea of how the majority will view this?? Maybe?? A little? Besides, it's a MOOT POINT!!!! The REVIEWERS were the ones doing the MOST COMPLAINING!!!!! Edited April 8, 2009 by Rockin Roddy Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you haven't been bothering to read posts all the way through but my point was that there will still be judgment calls made as to whether the REQUEST is suitable for listing so what did the ban accomplish exactly? Well there may be a judgment call on the request, but there will no longer be a judgment call on a deleted log because the REQUIREMENT or REQUEST did not meet the likings of the cache owner. I might point out that the judgment call is much easier now. If is only a suggestion, what is lost if the suggestion is dropped? It also removes the ALRS from the mystery category and moves them to the traditional category. Yes, I am aware of the impact of the changes. I was just wondering how much the burden on the reviewers will actually change? The animal carcass argument was brought out again. It's sort of Godwin's law for discussing the banning of cache types. I understand a reviewer quit over it. Am I to understand that I could now get that cache published if I made it a request instead of a requirement? If so then I fail to see the difference. Some people would still post animal carcass pictures to my cache page. The only obvious difference is that those who find the request distasteful can get a precious smiley without posting a picture. That makes me wonder why anyone would want a smiley from a cache that they find distasteful? Quote Link to comment
+whistler & co. Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? Quote Link to comment
+riviouveur Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I was just wondering how much the burden on the reviewers will actually change? Substantially. We will no longer have to check the ALS any better than any other wording in the description. If it suggests that you might like to compose a full four-movement symphony in the honour of the cache placer and post a link to the MP3 of the première with your log, we will no longer feel morally obliged to decide whether this is a reasonable restriction to impose on the seeker. Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? No and no. A well-done Wherigo cartrige is like a guided, multi-stage mystery-virtual, and a well-done Wherigo cache combines that with a physical cache. Since a logging requirement for a Wherigo cartridge is typically the upload of a completion code, it's reasonable that this requirement should extend to a Wherigo cache find. If you're referring to the fact that to find the Wherigo cache or complete te cartridge you have to solve some puzzles, then that's just the same as a Mystery cache or a challenging multi. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe you haven't been bothering to read posts all the way through but my point was that there will still be judgment calls made as to whether the REQUEST is suitable for listing so what did the ban accomplish exactly? Well there may be a judgment call on the request, but there will no longer be a judgment call on a deleted log because the REQUIREMENT or REQUEST did not meet the likings of the cache owner. I might point out that the judgment call is much easier now. If is only a suggestion, what is lost if the suggestion is dropped? It also removes the ALRS from the mystery category and moves them to the traditional category. Is nobody paying attention. Cachers were submitting ALRs asking cachers to do things that TPTB didn't find appropriate as something you could ask someone to do in order to get a smiley. Now some people are of the opinion that asking cachers to do anything more than sign the physical log book is in appropriate. This is not the approach that TPTB took. Instead simply, enjoyable tasks and task that related to geocaching were appropriate. But some task were deemed excessive. For example you couldn't require someone to hide a cache in order to log your cache. You couldn't reserve FTF for a particular cachers. There are probably more cases but these are the ones I knew about. Now in both of these cases what you could do is suggest that someone hide a cache or suggest that you wait until a particular person found the cache. In fact, TPTB and the reviewer probably saw that most ALRs could be made into suggestion. In most case, the ALR had no purpose other than to see just what you could ask that people would do to get a smiley. While I personally enjoyed these ALRs for the reason I gave in a previous post, my guess it that TPTB didn't feel that was appropriate either. Ask for a simple fun task that most people would enjoy doing was fine, trying to see just how far someone might go to get that smiley was not. Now, it is true that TPTB did not try to update the guidelines to explain this point. The reviewers were simple told to start enforcing this interpretation. So they no doubt were getting lots of caches submitted that violated the unpublished guidelines. The reviewers had the sorry task of having to explain why they couldn't publish an ALR cache or why they were asking for the cache owner to change the requirement into a suggestion. My guess is that Grounspeak and the reviewers spent a great deal of time trying to write clear requirements for what ALRs were allow and what weren't. A few weeks ago I posted that guidelines be updated to say that you couldn't require someone to hide a cache since that what was happening in practice. A review reply, in what I though at the time was somewhat brusque, that Groundspeak updates the guidelines only once or twice a year and that I would probably see this in the next revision. I can surmise now that I posted my request while TPTB and the reviewers were working hard on how to deal with the types of ALRs that they wanted to limit. Based on Miss Jenn's comment in the OP, it seems clear that reluctantly they came to the conclusion that it was impossible to write a guideline that would be easily understood and that reviewers could implement without fear of being accused of inconsistency. Instead, since most ALRs could still work as suggestions they would make the change that they did. They did however, make an exception for ALRs that implement challenge caches. The new guideline provide some definition of what qualifies a challenge cache. It may be possible that someone here can come up with definitions of other types of ALRs that TPTB and the reviewers may find acceptable and perhaps could get the guidelines changed to allow these. Specifying what is acceptable may be easier than specifying what is not. Remember however you would have to indicate some reason that this would not work as a suggestion and therefore needs to be a requirement. Quote Link to comment
+3doxies Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? They are identified as being unaffected by the latest change. But have had that same thought regarding those WIGs that have a physical container...a signature on the log, by the prevailing logic, should be all that's necessary to "validate" the find, shouldn't it? The purported necessity to have additional validation (a la earthcaches) would not seem to be necessary - thus, falling into the ALR quagmire. Then again, they do seem to have a "special" standing... Edited April 8, 2009 by 3doxies Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I was just wondering how much the burden on the reviewers will actually change? Substantially. We will no longer have to check the ALS any better than any other wording in the description. If it suggests that you might like to compose a full four-movement symphony in the honour of the cache placer and post a link to the MP3 of the première with your log, we will no longer feel morally obliged to decide whether this is a reasonable restriction to impose on the seeker. Fair enough. It will remove some burden in some of cases. I'm glad it will help. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If you are in the position, I would like to know as I stated earlier, how many of the 3/4 of a million cachers complained about ALRs? Was it 50%, 80%, 0.08%? How many? That is the number I would like to see. I understand me knowing the number will not make a difference or change the guidelines back, but I would like to know how many complainers or constructive criticizers, if that sounds better, it takes to change a GC guideline. Let's ignore the fact that the volume of times Joe Cacher complained about ALRs wasn't the stated reason that the guidelines were changed and concentrate on your request. Given that you and I and everyone else is fully aware that the data that you are requesting is not going to be released, what are you going to do? Should we add you to the 'Geocide Here!!!' thread if your demand isn't answered?The animal carcass argument was brought out again. It's sort of Godwin's law for discussing the banning of cache types. I understand a reviewer quit over it. Am I to understand that I could now get that cache published if I made it a request instead of a requirement? If so then I fail to see the difference. Some people would still post animal carcass pictures to my cache page. The only obvious difference is that those who find the request distasteful can get a precious smiley without posting a picture. That makes me wonder why anyone would want a smiley from a cache that they find distasteful? I think that your question touches on the very reason for the guideline change. You see, it is not these caches that is found to be 'distasteful'. People like that hidden box so much that they gleefully search it out and jot their name in the logbook. It is the silly extra requirement that some people may find 'distasteful'. As the new guideline makes clear, the log in the box is the thing, not the phoonishness. Quote Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? They are identified as being unaffected by the latest change. But have had that same thought regarding those WIGs that have a physical container...a signature on the log, by the prevailing logic, should be all that's necessary to "validate" the find, shouldn't it? The purported necessity to have additional validation (a la earthcaches) would not seem to be necessary - thus, falling into the ALR quagmire. I'm not sure I follow, so help me out here. I've only done two Wherigo caches thus far. In both cases, the cartridge crashed before revealing the unlock code. All that did was prevent me from unlocking the cartridge on Wherigo.com -- my signature in the logbook of the physical cache was proof enough for the owners to allow me to log it on geocaching.com. The "code word" validation of a Wherigo really has nothing to do with the geocaching website so I'm not sure why they would fall in with this ALR change. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR) Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Aren't Wherigo "caches" just big, huge, time-consuming ALR caches in disguise? Are they affected (sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have the patience to read every post in this thread) by this new guideline in any way? No, you're confusing "having to do something to find the cache" (any multi, puzzle, or Wherigo) with "having to do something after finding the cache in order to log it online" (any ALR) 'Not all ALR caches required you to do something after signing the log. Personally, I don't believe that was their reason for banning them. But the similarities between ALR caches and other non-traditional caches (i.e. having to do something other than signing the cache) has me feeling that others might be on the chopping block someday. Just my line of thinking and no one else's. Doesn't mean it is going to happen or not also. Quote Link to comment
+Plasma Boy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Let's ignore the fact that the volume of times Joe Cacher complained about ALRs wasn't the stated reason that the guidelines were changed and concentrate on your request. Given that you and I and everyone else is fully aware that the data that you are requesting is not going to be released, what are you going to do? Should we add you to the 'Geocide Here!!!' thread if your demand isn't answered? Why would I want to quit? I have some good cache buddies. I have a new guideline to follow. I will have more time on my hands, because I will not need to maintain caches. If caches are reestablished on my old sites, I can log them and push up my numbers. I no longer need to try and think up thought provoking caches. I won't be inviting friends and people I meet on the trails to join, mostly because I will not be talking about geocaching that much. What's to talk about? Go to a web site, get some coords, follow the directions and sign a piece of paper, log online. Rack up the numbers. They should hire me in PR. I'll just collect numbers. Find a cache, sign the log. Perfect. I had no expectation that my views would change the new guideline. But, that does not stop me from saying that I do not like it. I have said so and have justified my opinion. Many do not agree. Good on ya. When the next edict is bought down from TPTB, that I do not agree with I will comment on that as well. I invite you to do the same. For or against. Quote Link to comment
Radman Forever Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) edit: double post Edited April 8, 2009 by Radman Forever Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.