update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

April 9, 2009

I've done "optional" rather than "required" because ALR caches were required to be listed as ? caches at the time & ? caches get less finds, even in this part of the country (sunshine is hauled in on coal trucks on the return trip, caches are few and goats are nervous)... "Optional" gets more "noncompliant" logs than compliant. Some of my fun as an owner comes from logs which meet my requests...is your smiley as a finder more important than my smile as an owner? I have plenty of caches which you can get your find fix on without any extra effort. Is it gonna kill you to do a bit extra or just skip those caches which ask for a bit more?

Exactly, some owners are tired of hiding caches that get the same TNLN TFTC logs that they get receive. These caches were invented to invite more interaction and participation, IMO. You can claim that they were the product of control freaks that want to see the finders jump through hoops to get the find, but many people just avoid caches that they don't like (i.e. caches that are more than a park & grab).

ALS caches will now exist, well, those that aren't archived, and now an unknown number will avoid the "suggestions" that are put on the page. These caches are made into traditionals which many of those who don't read the cache description will not even know anything that will be suggested. The owner gets tired of seeing a cache that they had previously seen active participation become another TNLN TFTC traditional. The suggestions either get dropped or the cache is just archived. A sad story. :blink:

I know I am overgeneralizing, but so many anti-ALR cache people have done the same thing over the course of this thread, so I don't feel so bad doing it. Besides, it doesn't sound that far-stretched.

ALS caches will get more finds, but less cacher participation. I would take one 100-word log over a hundred TNLN TFTC logs anyday.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Radman Forever

5.6k · April 9, 2009

... Extra requirements are for the experience.
They make caching fun, and offer a detour from the tiresome "lamp-skirt" hides

You make them optional, the population of ALR caches will dwindle. There won't be much of a reason to write them, because there won't be much of a reason for others to complete them. ...

How do you correlate this theory with the hula cache mentioned numerous times in this thread?
Time to put the "Hula Theory" to bed.

For the cache in question, there are 194 found it logs, but there are only a total of 100 images in the gallery. Of those pics, there are only 36 that depict someone Hula-ing (or at least standing in a way that wasn't obviously not hula-ing). A good number of those pictures were taken of the same groups of people.

You are trying to use this cache to disprove the idea that "there won't be much of a reason for others to complete" ALR caches? Just over 1 in 6 people (and that's being generous!) could be bothered to complete this fun ALS!

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

Hey! I was going to say that!

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

BTW, "dwindle" doesn't mean vanish, just less fun things to do.

3.7k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

9.4k · April 9, 2009

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

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

April 9, 2009

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

Tempting, but the FTF would take everything, leave a dirty golf ball and not even post a picture :blink:

Worst case scenario, pessimistic, but true. And I must say, most cachers in my area are great folks in person. Honest. I've met them & 'et with them. Even shared reasonable conversations in which none of them has uttered any phrase similar to TFTC TNLN SL...

15.3k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

April 9, 2009

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

Isn't 10 pictures in 50 logs 1 in 5?
"But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer."

Oddly enough, that's what I was taught. Anybody can hit a wrong answer now & again but knowing what you're doing increases your percentage of right answers.

My math agrees with Sax's but I don't see the relevance overall. 1 in 10 or 1 in 5, it still means that the majority did not comply with the request (given that the ratio is a bit lower due to multiple people per photo and that the owner is cool with "noncompliant" logs).

I put additional logging (choose your preferred r word) on my caches because it pleased me to have finders comply with my (choose your preferred r word). Why should my pleasure as a hider be trumped by your pleasure as a finder? Why shouldn't I get pissed and archive those caches because I figure that the finders who have complied with my (r word) "earned" the find but those who didn't didn't (there are people who have said here that they will now claim a find on caches which they previously wouldn't because of ALRs).

April 9, 2009

Hello Groundspeak.

I´m very sad above the new guidelines. Many caches with log permission will be archived in the next days.

Many T5 Caches need a log permission, because many cacher are don´t really reach the logbook, so the log permission is to take a phonto at the final cache. And now ... ? "One Cacher reach the final box and all the other cacher sign the book, too ???". Is this what groundpreak prefer ? I don´t think so ....

Please change this part in the new guidelines. Thanks for your support, great job.

German Geocacher

PANISA / Sascha Hänle

April 9, 2009

Can you give some examples of ALRs that were "pushing the envelope"?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14TNE

Well, this Cache really pushes the envelope. But it clearly doesn't cross the border as well.

For me, it is not an example for breaking any rules, nor requesting immoral, dangerous or unsolvable missions.

It's just doing, what we are out for caching for: giving fun combined with a bit of challenge.

So where the heck are the so called 'bad examples'?

Franz

Edited April 9, 2009 by massafranz

April 9, 2009

Dear Groundspeak,

I would also like you to get rid of the "pick up trash" requirement on a CITO. If I've shown up and signed the log, then I should be done and get my smiley. :blink: I think you are "pushing the envelope" if you expect me to have to pick up the trash non-cachers have left.

Thank you,

longerdog

April 9, 2009

He's referring to this post, and some subsequent mentions. I'm shocked - shocked I say - that you missed these amazing hula cache photos, which demonstrated that you can be silly and/or creative with a cache without requiring folks to do stuff, and that despite a task being optional, a surprising number of people will still do it.

...

From the looks of it, EpicGuy, Plasma Boy, rjb43nh, and luzian should check out this post, as well.

I've looked at that cache and it's great to see that SOME people are having fun there. However as others mentioned it's only a small part of the people logging the cache - I don't find it a very surprising number. It's not important if it's 1 in 5 or in 6 or in 10 (I'd actually give it between 1 in 4 and 5 based on multiple people on one picture). It's still a LOW number compared to the total number of finds (4 in 5 would be nice). Which is ok in this case because the owner didn't make it a requirement - but that gives an idea of how few people will comply with an ALS. I assume it will even be much fever in "dense" caching areas, as ALS caches will show up as "Traditional", many people won't even read the description before going there. Which I think is ok for Trads, but that's why having ALR showing as "?" was good... at least it makes most people have a look at the description before going there (because the cache might not even be at that location). And it gives everybody the decision to do the ALR (and the cache) or leave it.

If there's a puzzle that I can't solve, or a T5 cache that requires climbing which I'm unable to do or decide not to do, I'm not complaining either or asking to get a smiley for that cache anyway. If there's an ALR that I'm unable to do or decide not to do, it's just the same. I don't see where a creative ALR is different to a creative puzzle, other than in one you have to do a requirement to get the coords and in the other you have to do a requirement to be allowed to log. Geocaching was always about doing something new: discovering new locations, trying/learning things I haven't done before etc. If it's not about that anymore, and just about collecting up a maximum number of plastic boxes in random locations, then why even bother to have puzzle caches? Couldn't we just have a button on each puzzle cache page to display the coords, in case we get bored with the puzzle?

And back to the famous hula cache... What do you think, how many of the ~150 people that DIDN'T try the hula would actually have had fun if they had tried it?

April 9, 2009

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

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

3.9k · April 9, 2009

I don't see where a creative ALR is different to a creative puzzle, other than in one you have to do a requirement to get the coords and in the other you have to do a requirement to be allowed to log.

Ah, but the "other than" bit is the whole point.

That's why your previous post about "Now what's to stop them getting rid of puzzles, multis, 5* terrain, and everything apart from lamppost hides" is close to a straw man argument. For that matter, since it's Groundspeak's site, they could equally well remove lamppost hides as well and sit there going "Bwahahahaha, we sure showed those Geocachers who's boss".

April 9, 2009

It's been clearly explained over and over that the reason for the change is that ALRs had become a serious problem for the reviewers. Given the critical importance of the reviewers to the game, I don't see why you feel so strongly the need to postulate another reason. See Occam's Razor.

Go back and take a look at the early posts in this thread. The guideline change wasn't made because a bunch of whiners were complaining that they didn't want to phoon. The change was made largely because the reviewers were having to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. Merely creating a new cache type wouldn't solve this. More likely, it would make it worse.

Sorry to say so but I find this a very shallow reason (or excuse). Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly value and appreciate the hard work our reviewers do, and respect any of their decisions whether or not to publish a cache. Sometimes I think there should be even more power with the reviewers and less in rules set in stone Guidelines.

But, what will these new guidelines change?

How many of the reviewed caches were actually ALR caches? 1%? 2%? more? less?
Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?
How much extra work will they get for complaints about some who keep deleting non-ALR-compliant logs (either because they didn't know about the new guidelines, or because they just refuse to accept them?). I'm sure this will go into lengthy discussions whether or not to archive a cache...
If it is really only because it "has become a serious problem for the reviewers to review these"... why does it apply for existing caches too? Why couldn't existing ALR caches be grandfathered? They don't need to be reviewed anymore. The guidelines could say that any cache published after 4/4/09 can't have ALR's. Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?

April 9, 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)

Actually, have encountered a WIG with a specific "have to do something after finding the cache in order to log it"...had to email the owner a phrase from the cartridge in order to log it online. And did so.

In that particular case, there is an ALR on a Wherigo cache but that doesn't describe Wherigo caches in general.

In those cases (if there's one, I'd imagine there's more), would the ALR component of the WIG be subject to the recent guidelines changes or would the exception for WIGs countermand that and the ALR be allowed to be enforced?

Don't want this question to get lost in the shuffle....

8.9k · April 9, 2009

I've done "optional" rather than "required" because ALR caches were required to be listed as ? caches at the time & ? caches get less finds, even in this part of the country (sunshine is hauled in on coal trucks on the return trip, caches are few and goats are nervous)... "Optional" gets more "noncompliant" logs than compliant. Some of my fun as an owner comes from logs which meet my requests...is your smiley as a finder more important than my smile as an owner? I have plenty of caches which you can get your find fix on without any extra effort. Is it gonna kill you to do a bit extra or just skip those caches which ask for a bit more?

Exactly, some owners are tired of hiding caches that get the same TNLN TFTC logs that they get receive. These caches were invented to invite more interaction and participation, IMO. You can claim that they were the product of control freaks that want to see the finders jump through hoops to get the find, but many people just avoid caches that they don't like (i.e. caches that are more than a park & grab).

Yep, you'll get more visitors who will hopefully enjoy the cache you placed. And, if you did a good job and actually hid a cache people WILL like, the odds are, you'll get a lot of logs with more than a few words in them...go figure!

ALS caches will now exist, well, those that aren't archived, and now an unknown number will avoid the "suggestions" that are put on the page. These caches are made into traditionals which many of those who don't read the cache description will not even know anything that will be suggested. The owner gets tired of seeing a cache that they had previously seen active participation become another TNLN TFTC traditional. The suggestions either get dropped or the cache is just archived. A sad story.

A simple solution for those who don't read the cachepage...put a sheet in with the logbook which has the SUGGESTION on it! Solves the problem of those not reading the description...a bit! Since you have no control over the next cacher (regardless how much you try to have), you can only do your part to get those who WANT to have fun, to actually HAVE fun (that is, if the cache you placed wasn't already fun and you feel the need to make people have more fun than simply the find). But I do like how you cling to the TNLN argument, it's your best one (and pretty much your only), so stick with it...it might eventually sway some!

I know I am overgeneralizing, but so many anti-ALR cache people have done the same thing over the course of this thread, so I don't feel so bad doing it. Besides, it doesn't sound that far-stretched.

Knowing is half the battle. The next step is changing!! OUCH, change happens in all aspects of life????

ALS caches will get more finds, but less cacher participation. I would take one 100-word log over a hundred TNLN TFTC logs anyday.

People say this and have ZERO proof as yet...can you back this assumption up? But, I do like the old stand-by TNLN argument brought up yet again...well done!

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

It's been clearly explained over and over that the reason for the change is that ALRs had become a serious problem for the reviewers. Given the critical importance of the reviewers to the game, I don't see why you feel so strongly the need to postulate another reason. See Occam's Razor.

Go back and take a look at the early posts in this thread. The guideline change wasn't made because a bunch of whiners were complaining that they didn't want to phoon. The change was made largely because the reviewers were having to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. Merely creating a new cache type wouldn't solve this. More likely, it would make it worse.

Sorry to say so but I find this a very shallow reason (or excuse). Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly value and appreciate the hard work our reviewers do, and respect any of their decisions whether or not to publish a cache. Sometimes I think there should be even more power with the reviewers and less in rules set in stone Guidelines.

But, what will these new guidelines change?

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

Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?

How much extra work will they get for complaints about some who keep deleting non-ALR-compliant logs (either because they didn't know about the new guidelines, or because they just refuse to accept them?). I'm sure this will go into lengthy discussions whether or not to archive a cache...

If it is really only because it "has become a serious problem for the reviewers to review these"... why does it apply for existing caches too? Why couldn't existing ALR caches be grandfathered? They don't need to be reviewed anymore. The guidelines could say that any cache published after 4/4/09 can't have ALR's. Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?

Since the discussion to make a change took a few months and a lot of thought, I'd guess the percentage you speak of is a bit higher...but also has no bearing at all. The quantity isn't so much the problem as the complaints over the ones refused, the hassles of getting complaints from those who had legit logs deleted etc.

They already HAD to figure out what was or wasn't a challenge cache, they just have LESS work now since they took a lot off their plates with the change. nNo matter how you wish to swing the whole thing to fit your little presentation, that is fact!

There will no longer be complaints about logs being deleted...are you reading the threads??

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

And, another question you could have answered had you been curious enough to actually read the threads (like many of us have)...since most of these ALR caches were actually simple traditionals with a requirement added on, they didn't really change. A multi is still a multi. The only thing that changes is people will actually have to call them what they are instead of pretend they're something else and putting your own artificial fun in as another hurdle so you can force your idea of fun on others!

But, if these answers don't please you, those and more are all right here in this thread...I request you read it (note it's not a requirement, that'd stop your fun of asking these questions)!

20.7k · April 9, 2009

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

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

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

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

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

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

I looked over the last 50 finds on that cache, and only ten had pictures posted. 1 in 10.
Isn't 10 pictures in 50 logs 1 in 5?

Jester also ignored that the pics contained more than one cacher and that someone had to actually take those pics.

Hello Groundspeak.

I´m very sad above the new guidelines. Many caches with log permission will be archived in the next days.

Many T5 Caches need a log permission, because many cacher are don´t really reach the logbook, so the log permission is to take a phonto at the final cache. And now ... ? "One Cacher reach the final box and all the other cacher sign the book, too ???". Is this what groundpreak prefer ? I don´t think so ....

You know, as a cache owner who is concerned about false logs, you could actually take an occasional glance at the logbook to see if everyone signed the book. Edited April 9, 2009 by sbell111

20.7k · April 9, 2009

It's been clearly explained over and over that the reason for the change is that ALRs had become a serious problem for the reviewers. Given the critical importance of the reviewers to the game, I don't see why you feel so strongly the need to postulate another reason. See Occam's Razor.

Go back and take a look at the early posts in this thread. The guideline change wasn't made because a bunch of whiners were complaining that they didn't want to phoon. The change was made largely because the reviewers were having to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. Merely creating a new cache type wouldn't solve this. More likely, it would make it worse.
Sorry to say so but I find this a very shallow reason (or excuse). Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly value and appreciate the hard work our reviewers do, and respect any of their decisions whether or not to publish a cache. Sometimes I think there should be even more power with the reviewers and less in rules set in stone Guidelines.

But, what will these new guidelines change?

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

Who knows? What I do know is that one or two percent of a honking lot of caches is a honking lot of caches.

2. Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?

Those two are quite different since Challenge caches have a requirement that is geocaching-related.

3. How much extra work will they get for complaints about some who keep deleting non-ALR-compliant logs (either because they didn't know about the new guidelines, or because they just refuse to accept them?). I'm sure this will go into lengthy discussions whether or not to archive a cache...

I'm sure that they are aware that there will be a period of time during which people will need to be educated about the change and non-complying caches will need to be altered or archived.

4. If it is really only because it "has become a serious problem for the reviewers to review these"... why does it apply for existing caches too? Why couldn't existing ALR caches be grandfathered? They don't need to be reviewed anymore. The guidelines could say that any cache published after 4/4/09 can't have ALR's.

I imagine that they weren't grandfathered for a couple of reasons. It minimizes the constant explaining as to why new ones are denied, even though other similar caches exist. It simplifies the mediation of denied logs. It blunts the impact of those ALRs that were over the line.

[bonus question] Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?

I still don't understand why people weren't up in arms a few years ago when ALRs were changed from traditionals to "?". If this wasn't an issue then, I don't buy it as an issue now. Edited April 9, 2009 by sbell111

April 9, 2009

I don't see where a creative ALR is different to a creative puzzle, other than in one you have to do a requirement to get the coords and in the other you have to do a requirement to be allowed to log.

Ah, but the "other than" bit is the whole point.

Yes that's the whole point. Some say there's a huge difference between the two requirements, others say it's not. Let's take the "wooden puzzle" example from somewhere further up this thread. Currently, it was an ALR to solve the puzzle and upload a picture with the log. Now, people suggest he could write some numbers on the same wooden puzzle, which, if you've solved it correctly, give you new coords where you actually sign the log. In both cases people can't just walk up and sign a log. Yes I see there's a difference, but I don't see why one shouldn't be allowed while the other is fine.

That's why your previous post about "Now what's to stop them getting rid of puzzles, multis, 5* terrain, and everything apart from lamppost hides" is close to a straw man argument.

That's not what this post was about, I wasn't saying this will happen. But I oppose arbitrary decisions to remove some type of caches, particularly if it's a type that brought some diversity into the overwhelming majority of "normal" Traditional caches in, let's say "not so interesting" locations.

For that matter, since it's Groundspeak's site, they could equally well remove lamppost hides as well and sit there going "Bwahahahaha, we sure showed those Geocachers who's boss".

[general rant alert]

Yes that's the problem, that's what they are doing now with ALRs and that's what they did with Virtuals some time ago. Thanks for putting it in these words, I couldn't have put it clearer. Of course it's their site, but if the community develops in some direction that doesn't fit into their view of the game, they just force it back into their line with new rules. Sometimes they seem to forget that they are merely the platform on which the game is propagated, and that the community actually runs the game (ie places caches, finds them etc.). If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

[/rant over]

2.8k · April 9, 2009

Hasn't this thread run its course yet?

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

7.2k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

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

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

Since a high number of people have already stated they simply ignore most blue ?, tis change should please people instead of irk them. More people will now visit your cache...PERIOD! IF your cache was well thought out and placed in a nice location, I'm willing to bet you'll get the logs, the participation and the visitation you desire...while cache finders can also have their fun without worrying some control crazed owner might not like the way they were sitting while they typed their log and then delete a legit find.

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

Hasn't this thread run its course yet?

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

Are you trying to require us to not have fun now??? :D

You're right though, some of these who are complaining have complained from the start and still won't accept that this isn't a big deal...accept that the only change is that they can no longer make people have fun at their whim! Of course, if it truly were fun, there'd be little concern if someone merely ASKED you to have fun, but that's not in the grasp of those complaining!

7.2k · April 9, 2009

If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

Don't be so certain that competition would make Groundspeak open up to direction they don't feel the hobby should grow. Other sites actually may well be more restrictive as to what they define as a geocache. I'm always tickled when I hear that the "super-competitive, Groundspeak-killer" geocaching site will allow everything under the Sun.

8.9k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

WHAAAT??? You mean give people a reason to write logs which the owners desire and not frce them to?? What a strange concept!!!

20.7k · April 9, 2009

That's why your previous post about "Now what's to stop them getting rid of puzzles, multis, 5* terrain, and everything apart from lamppost hides" is close to a straw man argument.
That's not what this post was about, I wasn't saying this will happen. But I oppose arbitrary decisions to remove some type of caches, particularly if it's a type that brought some diversity into the overwhelming majority of "normal" Traditional caches in, let's say "not so interesting" locations.

I don't think that 'arbitrary' means what you think it does.

You suggest that they made the guideline change on a whim, but that is simply not the case.

... Of course it's their site, but if the community develops in some direction that doesn't fit into their view of the game, they just force it back into their line with new rules.

You seem to forget that GC.com is part of a business. It is that business's responsibility to ensure that they keep going in a direction of their choosing. If they things start to go off in some other direction, they must make changes. Those changes may certainly not please everyone, but still they are necessary.

Sometimes they seem to forget that they are merely the platform on which the game is propagated, and that the community actually runs the game (ie places caches, finds them etc.). If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

Here's the thing. They don't have a monopoly. They don't have a quais-monopoly (whatever that is). They don't have a 'near' monopoly. They don't have a 'semi' monopoly.

The very fact that cachers have gotten geocided (or gotten banned) and stomped off to create competing sites proves that barriers to entry are not excessively large and that GC.com does not exert undue control over the market.

Certainly, they are the big player in the game. But this is due to the fact that they do it best and have worked hard at being the best, not because they are a monopoly.

Your comment that the competing sites are reasonable alternatives because they lack cache density ignores two things. The first is the simple fact that many of us remember a time when GC.com had much fewer listed caches than those competing sites currently have. The second is the fact that the reason that those sites haven't grown larger faster is because GC.com does it better.

April 9, 2009

They already HAD to figure out what was or wasn't a challenge cache, they just have LESS work now since they took a lot off their plates with the change. nNo matter how you wish to swing the whole thing to fit your little presentation, that is fact!

No mater how you wish to swing the whoe thing to fit your little presentation, people WILL start testing the borderline between allowed (challenge) and not allowed (ALR). Which I assume will come up to about the same amount of work for the reviewers. But then again I'm not a reviewer and I have no idea.

There will no longer be complaints about logs being deleted...are you reading the threads??

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation. So, what is going to happen if a (current) ALR cache owner still deletes logs? Complaints, maybe, until the cache is archived?

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

Aha. what seems to work well for Virtuals, Webcams etc. doesn't work here. Well as there would be a guideline about exactly these grandfathered caches, they could just give a default reply to point them to this guideline. And those who ask silly questions will eventually understand. Just as now they'll have to reply to silly questions about "not yet changed ALR's" over and over from months on end...

The only thing that changes is people will actually have to call them what they are instead of pretend they're something else

Nobody pretended they were something else - they were ALR caches, there just wasn't a specific cache type for that, so the GS guidelines said they have to be classed as "Unknown/Puzzle". Which I think is fine because generally seeing a "?" cache means I have to read the description first to know what it actually is.

and putting your own artificial fun in as another hurdle so you can force your idea of fun on others!

You call that artificial fun and forcing your idea of fun on others, but not a 5* climbing cache? Hey, nobody was ever forced to do ALR caches.

20.7k · April 9, 2009

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

Aha. what seems to work well for Virtuals, Webcams etc. doesn't work here. ...

As much as I like my virtual cache, grandfathering virts didn't actually 'work well' in this respect. Even though virts have not been listed for years, people still try to create new ones and they still create threads asking how to list their awesome new virt.

8.9k · April 9, 2009

They already HAD to figure out what was or wasn't a challenge cache, they just have LESS work now since they took a lot off their plates with the change. nNo matter how you wish to swing the whole thing to fit your little presentation, that is fact!

No mater how you wish to swing the whoe thing to fit your little presentation, people WILL start testing the borderline between allowed (challenge) and not allowed (ALR). Which I assume will come up to about the same amount of work for the reviewers. But then again I'm not a reviewer and I have no idea.

There will no longer be complaints about logs being deleted...are you reading the threads??

Sorry too long to read every post. I've read as much as possible of it, but unfortunately caching and reading forums is not (yet) my main occupation. So, what is going to happen if a (current) ALR cache owner still deletes logs? Complaints, maybe, until the cache is archived?

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

Aha. what seems to work well for Virtuals, Webcams etc. doesn't work here. Well as there would be a guideline about exactly these grandfathered caches, they could just give a default reply to point them to this guideline. And those who ask silly questions will eventually understand. Just as now they'll have to reply to silly questions about "not yet changed ALR's" over and over from months on end...

The only thing that changes is people will actually have to call them what they are instead of pretend they're something else

Nobody pretended they were something else - they were ALR caches, there just wasn't a specific cache type for that, so the GS guidelines said they have to be classed as "Unknown/Puzzle". Which I think is fine because generally seeing a "?" cache means I have to read the description first to know what it actually is.

and putting your own artificial fun in as another hurdle so you can force your idea of fun on others!

You call that artificial fun and forcing your idea of fun on others, but not a 5* climbing cache? Hey, nobody was ever forced to do ALR caches.

I'll stop answering your questions then, since you have no time to read my answers anyway!!

8.9k · April 9, 2009

Been answered (the why not grandfather comment)...mainly because reviewers would then have to worry about answering to those who want to ask silly questions like "but why is that one allowed and not mine (that one being a grandfathered)" over and over for months on end!

Aha. what seems to work well for Virtuals, Webcams etc. doesn't work here. ...

As much as I like my virtual cache, grandfathering virts didn't actually 'work well' in this respect. Even though virts have not been listed for years, people still try to create new ones and they still create threads asking how to list their awesome new virt.

A voice of reason??? WOW!!! THANKS sbell, good to know some are still open to reason! I mean, you can explain it to them until they just turn blue in the face from thinking about their next complaint (before the last was even addressed it seems)...but you can't force them to listen to reason!

April 9, 2009

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

More people finding the cache does not automatically mean more participation. I should know, because I used to have an ALS cache that is one of the oldest caches in Mid Michigan.

Back in the Old Shack used to have a frog that was located on a building near the cache on my family's property. I invited people to take a picture with the frog. Over the course of two years, eight people out out ninety-nine did the suggestion, in the early years of geocaching where the numbers game was a smaller part of the geocaching experience. After two years, the frog got run over by a lawnmower and I decided not to replace it.

The best part of that cache's six year history was those two years of people participating with the frog, but the participation wasn't much. I never did something like it again, because the participation was so low I didn't feel it was worth it.

But I did want to do a cache that took people on an adventure, and I knew that a puzzle would require people to complete the challenge. So I hid a puzzle/multi that required people to ultimately find the caches and take them on a journey.

Here's a couple logs:

With the snow finally gone, today was the day to tackle this multi. We got a fairly late start and found the first stage at noon. DD-ette spotted it while I was looking on the wrong side of the road. The first ? had us stumped, but we used phone a brother, who came through with the correct answer. Even with 4 wheel drive we took the long way around to arrive at the 2nd stage site. This ? also stumped us, so we used phone a geo-friend option #2. They also came through with the correct answer. We were on a roll. Stage 3 proved to be extremely difficult for me to retrieve, so DD-ette had to do the honors. The cell phone is getting a workout now, as it was used again here. Stage 4 was found "out of place", but at least we were able to figure out/guess the right answer. We also guessed right on the last ?, but somehow went to the wrong spot, and that container was a bugger to retrieve. The last stage took the longest to find, and when we did it was "out of place" too. Arrived at the final to find about 2 dozen turkeys guarding the site. Sat and watched them for awhile before heading out to uncover the well hidden container at 2:00. T-Golf Tees L-Sig Card, Spiderman, Kleenex and a Diabetes TB. Had lots of fun with this today and our new cachemobile got a great workout. Well done, Radman.

Had real high hopes of this being an easy and fairly quick cache. Alas, it was not meant to be. The last time we were in the area we were close to stage one so we stopped to see what would be needed even though we didn't have the time to pursue it further. Today Teacher wanted to stay home so I figured it would be a good time to tackle this one. I could find the stages, give her a call, and she could look up the answers so that I could head to the next stage pronto. I had the answer to the first question already but had to stop back to get the coordinates to go with the answer. It was an easy task to refind the first stage. I confidently punched in the numbers and headed out. Got to GZ and start looking around. Only took a few minutes of looking to find what I was searching for. I opened it up and was surprised to find that I had picked the wrong answer. Did a quick check and figured out that I had entered the wrong set of coordinates. Sooo, I entered the right numbers and headed back out on the trail. Got to the 'right' GZ and quickly spotted the stage piece. I got on the phone and read off the question to the Teacher and she told me which one to pick. Nice system we had going here! Headed out for the next stage and started looking around. Found the place that matched up with the clue perfectly, but could not find the stage piece. I decided to go try the other option and see what was there. Easily found the right area and the clue made it easy to find the right place to look. Retrieving it took a bit to do though. I opened it up and there was the next question. Hmmm, Teacher got that one wrong, well lets try again. I call her up and read off the next question. She said which one was the right answer so I entered the numbers and headed on down the trail. No problem finding the right roads. I walked right up and found the stage piece. Opened it up and saw,,,,,, "Sorry, you picked the wrong cache". It was a 50/50 bet to get it right so now I knew where I needed to be. Back out on the trail I go. Got to the right place and again quickly found the stage piece with a new question to be answered. I called the Teacher up and read off the new question. She gave a quick and sure sounding answer so I loaded in the new coordinates and took off. A quick search turned up the next game piece. I opened it up and saw,,,,, You probably guessed it, I was at the wrong place again. I entered the right numbers and hit the trail again. This was taking a lot longer than what I had expected and by now it was getting dark. I got to the correct place, grabbed a flashlight and quickly found the right stage piece. I took a look at the question and figured it would be a waste of time to ask the Teacher about this one, especially when she hadn't gotten one right yet. [probably did that on purpose]. About this time a hunter came out of the woods and was packing up his gear to head home. I had no idea what the answer was so I figured I might as well see if he could help. Explained what I was doing and showed him the question sheet. He said he was not sure but thought it was *************. Well, his guess would be better than mine so I thanked him and punched in the next set of numbers. By now it is totally dark so I was glad to see that the next area was not to far away. I headed down the 2 track and noticed some head lights back behind me, but just figured it was a hunter on his way out. I got to within about 50' of where I wanted to be and pulled off to the side of the trail. The vehicle that was behind me pulled up along side and then stoped. That was when I noticed the light bar across the top. It was the Law Enforcement Officers out on patrol. They asked if I had gotten one and I answered that I wasn't hunting. Probably looked a bit fishy because I was wearing an orange vest to be out in the woods today. Continued in part 2 [view this log] October 14, 2006 by FarmBoy&theTeacher (2035 found) Part 2 I gave them a quick explanation of Geocaching and said that there was a stage within about 50'. They had never heard of it but one of them said they wanted to see if we could find it. [maybe to see if the crazy guy running around in the woods at night was telling the truth???] We all got out and started looking around. I tried to give a quick explanation of what a multi cache is and what we were searching for. It only took a few minutes to spot it. I opened it up and read the all to familiar phrase, "Sorry, you picked the wrong cache". I asked them if they wanted to try and find the right game piece. They said they did, so I set the GPS to the next stop and handed it to them saying I would follow. They easily found the right trails to get where the GPS said we needed to be. We all got out and started looking around. By now I had lost track of what stage I was on and thought we were looking for the final. I explained what the cache container would probably be and how they are usually hidden. We looked around for a little bit and I was almost starting to get nervous about them thinking that I really was another nut case running loose when the stage piece was spotted. Turned out the next stage was the final. I entered in the last set of coordinates, handed the GPS back to them and they lead the way to the next search area. Got to the spot and they pointed the search light out into the woods to help illuminate things. We headed a short distance out into the woods and started looking. With the clue I didn't figure it would take very long and wanted them to be the ones to make the find. We did a quick look and found the spot that matched the clue perfectly. We gave the area a good looking over but there was no cache. I then read the cache page on the PDA to find that the container was not chosen. Not a good thing. I was out here in the woods, in the dark, with the LEOs and see we might be looking for anything from a simple ammo can on down to a nano. We kept looking around and expanding the search area but the GPS kept pointing back to the same place. I have never wanted to find a cache as bad as what I wanted to find this one. Both, so they could see what a geocache was, and to prove that I wasn't another crazy running loose. We searched for a while longer and it came down to not knowing where to look next. They must have figured I was only a danger to myself and not to society because they decided it was time for them to head out. When they pulled away and the search light was no longer illuminating the area it got quiet and very dark quickly. Nothing better to spur the imagination than the thought that Radman may be out there somewhere, lurking, waiting. I continued to look around, basically where we had already looked several times before, and decided it was time to get more light. I headed back to the Jeep and grabbed a couple more flashlights. This time I took a different path to get to where the GPS pointed to and when I got close started looking around. Hey, here is another spot that matches the clue. Did a quick check and sure enough, there is the cache. A little to late for the Officers to see but soon enough so that I can get out of here. We had been very close and if it had been daylight it would have been an easy find. I signed the log and dropped in a sig card. Now that the cache was found and logged it was time to make tracks out of here. I got back to the Jeep and set the autorouting for home. What an adventure!!! Getting all of the answers wrong, meeting up with the LEOs, caching in the dark in Radmans Woods, finding the cache, and living to tell about it.

All because I had requirements and people enjoyed the hunt. If there was a rule that said this cache's challenge had to be optional, I would've archived the cache so fast, your head would be spinning.

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

April 9, 2009

2. Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?

Those two are quite different since Challenge caches have a requirement that is geocaching-related.

Yeah but now they have to deide what is geocaching-related. For example a multi can have questions at different locations. Now somebody could come up with an Challenge multi that requires to take pictures at all stages of a multi (eg. a Train station, Police station etc...). Would that be geocaching related? Simple yes/no or possible debate?

I imagine that they weren't grandfathered for a couple of reasons. (1) It minimizes the constant explaining as to why new ones are denied, even though other similar caches exist. (2) It simplifies the mediation of denied logs. (3) It blunts the impact of those ALRs that were over the line.

(1) How about Virutals then?

(2) Sure? We'll have to see that first...

(3) I'm still looking for an ALR that was over the line, just to understand where "the line" is (or was). Can you give me a good example?

[bonus question] Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?
I still don't understand why people weren't up in arms a few years ago when ALRs were changed from traditionals to "?". If this wasn't an issue then, I don't buy it as an issue now.

Sorry I wasn't around long enough... If I were here back then, I sure would have made an issue out of it

But hey, maybe it was because then, no "cache type" (ie ALRs) was dismissed, just changed into "?" category to make sure people actually look at the requirements before going for the cache?

Edited April 9, 2009 by luzian

April 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

April 9, 2009

Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

2. Now reviewers had to arbitrate what type of task was or wasn't appropriate for an ALR. In future they have to arbitrate what type of task is or isn't appropriate for a Challenge cache. Will it change much?

Those two are quite different since Challenge caches have a requirement that is geocaching-related.

Yeah but now they have to deide what is geocaching-related. For example a multi can have questions at different locations. Now somebody could come up with an Challenge multi that requires to take pictures at all stages of a multi (eg. a Train station, Police station etc...). Would that be geocaching related? Simple yes/no or possible debate?

I imagine that they weren't grandfathered for a couple of reasons. (1) It minimizes the constant explaining as to why new ones are denied, even though other similar caches exist. (2) It simplifies the mediation of denied logs. (3) It blunts the impact of those ALRs that were over the line.

(1) How about Virutals then?

(2) Sure? We'll have to see that first...

(3) I'm still looking for an ALR that was over the line, just to understand where "the line" is (or was). Can you give me a good example?

[bonus question] Why change the type of existing ALR caches from "?" to Traditional, and mess up existing challenges, people working on tasks, stats etc.?
I still don't understand why people weren't up in arms a few years ago when ALRs were changed from traditionals to "?". If this wasn't an issue then, I don't buy it as an issue now.

Sorry I wasn't around long enough... If I were here back then, I sure would have made an issue out of it

But hey, maybe it was because then, no "cache type" (ie ALRs) was dismissed, just changed into "?" category to make sure people actually look at the requirements before going for the cache?

I love posts like this that are chock full of assumptions and contradictions to their own argument...NICE!!!

April 9, 2009

Since a high number of people have already stated they simply ignore most blue ?, tis change should please people instead of irk them. More people will now visit your cache...PERIOD!

Is more finds always better? I don't mind anybody who ignores my Puzzle or Multi caches because they don't like Puzzle or Multi caches. Why should it be different with ALRs? I don't actually own an ALR cache, but I think it's very sad to see them pass away. I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away?

IF your cache was well thought out and placed in a nice location, I'm willing to bet you'll get the logs, the participation and the visitation you desire...while cache finders can also have their fun without worrying some control crazed owner might not like the way they were sitting while they typed their log and then delete a legit find.

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

And back to the famous hula cache... What do you think, how many of the ~150 people that DIDN'T try the hula would actually have had fun if they had tried it?

I know I said I'd not respond to your comments, but let's take this one further...how many of those same people would have had fun even if the choice was taken out and they were FORCED to "have fun"?? And, of those who didn't do the request, do you think they could have been forced to enjoy something they already didn't want to do? Imagine the request were a requirement, how many of those who didn't do the dance would have even bothered to make the find at all?? Would having a few visitors be more fun for the cache owner than having a lot, some of which even posting funny pics and writing long stories of their experience...because they wanted to??

Sorry, I'm sure those who actually stop from their complaining and think for a sec will see this is a win/win!! BUT, these people might be REQUIRED to stop, breath and relax long enough for their minds to engage!

8.9k · April 9, 2009

Since a high number of people have already stated they simply ignore most blue ?, tis change should please people instead of irk them. More people will now visit your cache...PERIOD!

Is more finds always better? I don't mind anybody who ignores my Puzzle or Multi caches because they don't like Puzzle or Multi caches. Why should it be different with ALRs? [b]I don't actually own an ALR cache, but I think it's very sad to see them pass away. [/b] I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away?

IF your cache was well thought out and placed in a nice location, I'm willing to bet you'll get the logs, the participation and the visitation you desire...while cache finders can also have their fun without worrying some control crazed owner might not like the way they were sitting while they typed their log and then delete a legit find.

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

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

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

Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done!

Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others??

And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing!

Edited April 9, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

April 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 9, 2009

"Optional" gets more "noncompliant" logs than compliant. Some of my fun as an owner comes from logs which meet my requests...is your smiley as a finder more important than my smile as an owner? ...
Please think about the following question and answer honestly.

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

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

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 9, 2009

Since a high number of people have already stated they simply ignore most blue ?, tis change should please people instead of irk them. More people will now visit your cache...PERIOD!

Is more finds always better? I don't mind anybody who ignores my Puzzle or Multi caches because they don't like Puzzle or Multi caches. Why should it be different with ALRs? [b]I don't actually own an ALR cache, but I think it's very sad to see them pass away. [/b] I have done some ALR's (and ignored others that I don't like), and I have taken joy and pride in succeeding in some difficult requirements, just as I might take joy and pride in doing a T5* cache. Now, if others are allowed to do the same cache without doing the "difficult" part (climbing, ALR), wouldn't it take part of the fun of that cache away?

IF your cache was well thought out and placed in a nice location, I'm willing to bet you'll get the logs, the participation and the visitation you desire...while cache finders can also have their fun without worrying some control crazed owner might not like the way they were sitting while they typed their log and then delete a legit find.

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

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

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

Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done!

Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others??

And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing!

This didn't affect any of my caches, but I have the opinion that geocaching needs to expand, not contracted (or more regulated if you disagree with "contracted). That doesn't mean my opinion is any less.

I had a cache that had requirements, but I did not force anybody to do anything. Don't like the cache, don't do the cache. No one is forcing their fun on anybody when they have the right to ignore the cache. Stinks for this stuff to be repeated, but some on both sides can't get all the points listed.

8.9k · April 9, 2009

Sorry, too much to do to get ready for the LHD III to sit here and amuse myself with tis thread...I'll leave that for tonight!! Unless someone requires I stay and have fun, then I'll just ignore this thread!

April 9, 2009

If they didn't have a quasi monopoly and there were reasonable alternative sites, GS would maybe listen more to what the community wants. And of course it's not GS's fault that there are no reasonble alternative sites (by reasonable I mean similar cache density) - but GS is using their monopoly position to enforce their rules in something that is basically a global community game.

Don't be so certain that competition would make Groundspeak open up to direction they don't feel the hobby should grow. Other sites actually may well be more restrictive as to what they define as a geocache. I'm always tickled when I hear that the "super-competitive, Groundspeak-killer" geocaching site will allow everything under the Sun.

I didn't say I'm certain. I said "GS would maybe listen more" if there were other big sites around.

I don't think that 'arbitrary' means what you think it does.

I do think it does. We may disagree on my statement containing that word though.

You seem to forget that GC.com is part of a business. It is that business's responsibility to ensure that they keep going in a direction of their choosing. If they things start to go off in some other direction, they must make changes.

Yes it's part of a business, but a business that mainly functions through the community which it's guiding. Note that I say guiding, not ruling.

Here's the thing. They don't have a monopoly. They don't have a quais-monopoly (whatever that is). They don't have a 'near' monopoly. They don't have a 'semi' monopoly.

The very fact that cachers have gotten geocided (or gotten banned) and stomped off to create competing sites proves that barriers to entry are not excessively large and that GC.com does not exert undue control over the market.

Certainly, they are the big player in the game. But this is due to the fact that they do it best and have worked hard at being the best, not because they are a monopoly.

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

But hey, don't forget that I wrapped this part in [rant warning] tags.. this is not to be taken too serious and certainly not my central point. Which is, that the current Guidelines change is a loss of diversity in my favourite hobby.

April 9, 2009

I'll stop answering your questions then, since you have no time to read my answers anyway!! :back

Right, now you can ignore entire posts based on that, if you don't have any answers. Hey, I'm reading all your answers to my questions.. just said I didn't have time to read through all ~40 pages of other questions and answers BEFORE that yet.

I love posts like this that are chock full of assumptions and contradictions to their own argument...NICE!!!

I love posters who contradict themselves in their own next post...NICE!!!

I know I said I'd not respond to your comments, but let's take this one further...

Ah, next one. Let me take the liberty of not feeling required to answer this one.

Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done!

Oh, third one. Hey, no need to go into defensive mode here, buddy. I'm not spewing, and I'm allowed to have an oppinion on something that DOES affect me as much as it does you. I do like ALR caches and you don't. You posted this as a reply to my post, so why shouldn't I reply again?

Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others??

You still get that part wrong. Nobody is forced to do ANY cache, whether ALR or Puzzle or Multi or Trad. And requiring someone to do an ALR is not much different from requiring someone to solve a puzzle.

And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing!

Yes I did read your post. Please try to calm down before your next one. Breathing helps.

Edited April 9, 2009 by luzian

5.6k · April 9, 2009

...

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

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

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

...

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

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

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

A few more while the boy gets ready to go.

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

8.9k · April 9, 2009

I'll stop answering your questions then, since you have no time to read my answers anyway!! :back

Right, now you can ignore entire posts based on that, if you don't have any answers. Hey, I'm reading all your answers to my questions.. just said I didn't have time to read through all ~40 pages of other questions and answers BEFORE that yet.

I love posts like this that are chock full of assumptions and contradictions to their own argument...NICE!!!

I love posters who contradict themselves in their own next post...NICE!!!

I know I said I'd not respond to your comments, but let's take this one further...

Ah, next one. Let me take the liberty of not feeling required to answer this one.

Let me get this straight, this doesn't affect you, but you feel the need to spew??? Well done!

Oh, third one. Hey, no need to go into defensive mode here, buddy. I'm not spewing, and I'm allowed to have an oppinion on something that DOES affect me as much as it does you. I do like ALR caches and you don't. You posted this as a reply to my post, so why shouldn't I reply again?

Why do you feel you need to MAKE someone try something?? Do you think they aren't smart enough to figure out what they consider fun? Do you think your fun HAS to be forced on others??

You still get that part wrong. Nobody is forced to do ANY cache, whether ALR or Puzzle or Multi or Trad. And requiring someone to do an ALR is not much different from requiring someone to solve a puzzle.

And, did you even read my post???? I know, you're far to busy with other things...right?? I see your problem, you spew without thought...cool!! Of course, reading the words written for you might help you, but plug on, it is amusing!

Yes I did read your post. Please try to calm down before your next one. Breathing helps.

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

You do have an opinion, I never saw the OP require you to not. But, why not stop and think before adding more spew? Certainly not required of you, that'd stop your fun of spewing! I also see how you can't read numbers nor count...or was your misleading page count for effect?? Maybe to get out of having to actually read something so you know more about what your talking about??

Now, on I go to hide fun caches without restrictive requirements!!

Edited April 9, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment