Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

It's all about smiley economics. :huh: The increase of smiley value seems to be directly related to the decrease in overall game enjoyment.

Psychologicaly, a "find" should not "cost" anything, and should just reflect accurate communication about finding a cache, rather than attaching any additional meaning to it.

It would appear that the numbers folks would be getting more smileys this way, but since they are not worth as much now, it really doesn't matter. If they removed the find counts completely from profiles the smiley value would be zero (other than the value you put on your own enjoyment on the journey there) However that would induce mass geopanic, :laughing: and belies the fact that it is a game and competition in some way is inevitable.

 

Anything that is abused eventually gets taken away. Log deletion was an early freedom given

to cache owners, and ALRs were an abuse tolerated by the site until it grew into large proportions..

 

Suppose we create a country with very few laws or government. Any new laws, or increase in government services would only be instilled if there was a direct need for it. Invite people from all over the world to live there. What would happen? If there were eventually too many silly laws, and the government grew too big or out of control, would the same people that created it be able to fix it? Or would they want to force it out of control because they didnt know how to repair it?

 

There are 3 reasons why someone would use force. Because they want to, have to, or out of habit.

 

If they want to use force it means that they get some form of perverted enjoyment from it, or are trying to get even.

If someone has to use force it would be because they were not intelligent enough to inspire a different outcome.

If they are doing it out of habit it means that they are not intelligent enough, and have fallen asleep...

 

Well, back to the hookah, and then a short nap... :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

I own a five-star difficulty PUZZLE cache (with a five-star "joke" terrain) which has been acknowledged across the country as being one of very few which actually requires the finder to crochet a piece in order to reveal the coordinates. It has been used as an example in geocaching classes of one creative way cache developers write their puzzles.

Since this is a PUZZLE cache, is it still considered an ALR since I require people to send me a photo of their completed work? (Not, mind you, to post a photo on the page.)

 

When the cache was originally submitted, I did not have the requirement on the page. I changed it after a bout of numbers-sharing when someone participating in a Challenge wrote to me and accused me of "enabling" cheaters. At the time, I had no idea that particular Challenge was even occurring. I wrote to the Challenge owners to let them know that this cache should be screened out, but was told that they (the owners) did not have time (!) to check peoples' posted requirements.

 

I eventually asked them to simply disallow my cache from the challenges, but at this point, I had become aware of the numbers-sharing issue and wasn't happy about it. That was when I posted the photo requirement as a safeguard.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

I don't find it weak at all since it's evidenced by many threads asking about virts and such that pop up often. And, it's not my argument, but the stance from the PTB!

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, reading over the rest of the thread, I've answered my own question. In order to preserve the 5/5 rating of my crocheted coordinates for the folks who honestly did the work themselves (and those few cheaters whose logs I should have deleted but didn't), I will archive the original and then reissue it as a new cache with a lower rating. This will be dreadfully unfair to the people who actually do the work...a project which takes about a week, even for a fast crocheter...but I suppose if they want to share the numbers with their friends who will in turn share the numbers with their friends and so on, that's up to them. I've already archived one very difficult puzzle due to numbers-sharing, so here's another victory for those who can't be bothered to make the mental or physical effort involved.

 

As for photos to verify EC's...well, if your EC was written well in the first place, a photo shouldn't be required. Admittedly, I went to photo requirements on most (not all) of mine when there was an issue with a particular finder. That said, a good hand with Photoshop could get around the requirement fairly easily.

Share this post


Link to post

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

I started to respond to this post saying the fact that you don't think something is not geocaching is a weak reason to argue for its ban. Lots of people find various types of caches as not fitting their definition of geocaching. Micros, puzzles, scuba caches, library caches, caches in "lame" locations, etc. would all be banned if the requirement was that there was consensus on whether that style was a "geocache". This is why, inspite of eventually deciding that making most ALRs into ALSs is a good change to the guideline, I cringe at posts like the one I've quoted.

 

Geocaching.com has promoted a simplistic definition of a cache: a container with at a minimum a physical log book and the use of a GPS as an integral part of the search. But even this definition is not universal as EarthCaches are still listed. ALRs seem to fit this simplistic definition, there is no reason to say that addition requirements beyond signing the log makes something not a geocache.

 

The argument that some have made that there is a difference between requiring that you have to do something extra in order to sign the log and requiring something extra in order to log the find online, seems like a nit. But this is what has finally convinced me. In my fight against the forces of geocaching puritanism, I have long been of the opinion that the online Found It log is not geocaching. The online log is something you do to keep track of your finds, to share your experience with other cachers, and perhaps to thank the cache owner for enjoyment of finding his cache. Mistaking the find count for some measure of your geocaching success is just silliness. Given this attitude, I have never been bothered by ALRs. If a cache had a ALR I did not want to do, I would simply have not logged a 'Found It' log. Had I found the cache, I would either post a note or would just not log it at all. And so the people who argued the ALRs should be banned because the cache owner was forcing them to do something extra sound to me like a bunch of people whining over some silly inconsequential restriction. Either don't seek that cache or, if you find it, don't log it online (or post a note). But now that I've thought about it, the ALR is itself proclaim that writing an online log is part of geocaching. Until they allow you to post your log you haven't, in their opinion, finished the geocache. I posted earlier in this thread that the change has taken away from me the ability to protest the view that a smiley is worth something by logging a note that I found the cache and am nevertheless refusing to do the ALR. However, as most of the ALRs I've done I've been willing to do the ALR and have had fun doing it, I fear I may have encouraged some people to believe that the posting of the online 'Found It' log is part of geocaching. By making ALRs to be suggestions only, TPTB appear to be making the statement that online logging is part of the geocaching. This goes along with the recent change they made to the FAQ where they added online logging to the "Rules of Geocaching". However, I will chose to interpret the change as meaning that TPTB want to differentiate the online logging capability from the actual process of geocaching. By making rules about when one can use the 'Found It' logs, cache owners were making a statement that you hadn't done their cache until you met the requirements and entered a 'Found It' log that wasn't deleted. TPTB are simply stating that when you have found the cache and signed the physical you are done geocaching. You can now log a 'Found It' online for the purpose of keep track of your find, sharing your experiences with others, and thanking the the cache owner (perhaps even by complying with the logging request). TPTB continue to allow cache owners to use the physical log book as a confirmation that an online log is not bogus or counterfeit, but the guideline changes do not seem to be to require that cache owners to do this checking or prevent cache owners from deleting online logs for other valid reasons.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
....Imagine that you roll up on a 'front yard' cache. You make a quick find, but don't knock on the door to have a visit, even though the cache page invited you to do so. Are you rude?
Given the invite as opposed to the "if y'all find yourself in my front yard do stop in before you look for the cache" angle the rude kicks in on why you didn't knock. "Dat old wind bag ain't be worth me time". Yes. "Man, I'm late for work but can't resist the cache on the way..." maybe not. ...
What if I just don't like knocking on strangers' doors?
If knocking was required, I'd visit at 2am. Signed log, woke owner up as required. :laughing:
In my example, signing wasn't required. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
If you could present an existing, real-world example or two of an "out of hand" ALR, your claim might be more persuasive.

Miss Jenn won't reveal some of the "absurd" ALR caches because she is not going to single out cachers that have or may have attempted to do these and embarrass them. You aren't privy to the behind the scene meetings that take place between HQ and the reviewers and they aren't going to embarrass the players in this game.

 

Thank you, Swamp-Thing.

 

Sorry, but I want to know Where this rule CAME FROM! What Absurd ALR caches are there out there. Heck, Even PMs with just the GC Code will do. I'll read and respond individually...

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I want to know Where this rule CAME FROM! What Absurd ALR caches are there out there. Heck, Even PMs with just the GC Code will do. I'll read and respond individually...

 

The Steaks

Here' a thread from about a month ago with some examples of ridiculous ALRs that did get published. The real issue however are the ones that didn't get published. Anyone who follows the forums already should know that there were already a few areas that were considered off limits before the change to the guideline was made. TPTB decided that you couldn't require that a person hide a new cache in order to log a 'Found It'. I also know of some caches that were retracted because they had an ALR that reserved the FTF for a particular person. I'm sure there were also discussion about forbidding Travel Bug Prison type ALRs (Don't take a bug unless you leave one). My guess is that there was a growing list of these and that TPTB decided instead of having to update the guidelines every few weeks to keep that list up to date that it was easier to just tell people that you couldn't use deletion of the 'Found It' log as an "enforcement" method anymore. Most of the "objectionable" ALRs were not so objectionable when worded as a request.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

There is no email involved in completing a Wherigo cache - the completion code is uploaded to the Wherigo website directly, not to the Wherigo cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post
I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

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

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

 

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

 

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

That's the beauty of Wherigo caches - you can't shortcut to the end like you can with some multicaches. If you don't complete the cartridge, you don't get the completion code regardless of whether you "accidentally" found the actual cache container. Maybe this is why Groundspeak has allowed Wherigo caches to have a code where it does not for other cache types.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Yeah... they were Grandfathered. How about we just create a NEW Geocache Category! We'll call it Additional Logging Requirements.

 

Here's even what I think the icon could look like...

alr.gif

 

Image is the standard Mystery cache icon, but with a RED ALR over the top of it.

 

I think it turned out good...

Share this post


Link to post

I own a five-star difficulty PUZZLE cache (with a five-star "joke" terrain) which has been acknowledged across the country as being one of very few which actually requires the finder to crochet a piece in order to reveal the coordinates. It has been used as an example in geocaching classes of one creative way cache developers write their puzzles.

Since this is a PUZZLE cache, is it still considered an ALR since I require people to send me a photo of their completed work? (Not, mind you, to post a photo on the page.)

 

When the cache was originally submitted, I did not have the requirement on the page. I changed it after a bout of numbers-sharing when someone participating in a Challenge wrote to me and accused me of "enabling" cheaters. At the time, I had no idea that particular Challenge was even occurring. I wrote to the Challenge owners to let them know that this cache should be screened out, but was told that they (the owners) did not have time (!) to check peoples' posted requirements.

 

I eventually asked them to simply disallow my cache from the challenges, but at this point, I had become aware of the numbers-sharing issue and wasn't happy about it. That was when I posted the photo requirement as a safeguard.

Regardless of the cache type, a requiring a photo is an ALR and no longer allowed. You may request a photo, but you cannot delete someone's log if they don't post it.

Share this post


Link to post

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

I started to respond to this post saying the fact that you don't think something is not geocaching is a weak reason to argue for its ban. Lots of people find various types of caches as not fitting their definition of geocaching. Micros, puzzles, scuba caches, library caches, caches in "lame" locations, etc. would all be banned if the requirement was that there was consensus on whether that style was a "geocache". This is why, inspite of eventually deciding that making most ALRs into ALSs is a good change to the guideline, I cringe at posts like the one I've quoted.

 

Geocaching.com has promoted a simplistic definition of a cache: a container with at a minimum a physical log book and the use of a GPS as an integral part of the search. But even this definition is not universal as EarthCaches are still listed. ALRs seem to fit this simplistic definition, there is no reason to say that addition requirements beyond signing the log makes something not a geocache.

<snip>

Yes, GEOCACHING is finding a container (using a GPSr) and signing the log.

 

There are other things you can do with a GPSr that aren't GEOCACHING:

Virtuals don't have a container, so it is a separate activity. They are now called Waymarks.

Benchmarks have never been geocaches. They are the same as virtuals, really, but the subject is a small brass disk - virtuals Waymarks have some variety to them.

 

There are some things they still allow on the geocaching website that aren't geocaches (WWFM comes to mind). If they keep going in this direction the site will become less and less cluttered with non-geocaching items. Earthcaches really should be on the Waymarking site. You couldn't have a view as a virtual, for example, and in many cases that's all Earthcaches are. ALR's are something that cluttered the site and it's about time they're gone

Share this post


Link to post
I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

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

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

 

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

 

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

That's the beauty of Wherigo caches - you can't shortcut to the end like you can with some multicaches. If you don't complete the cartridge, you don't get the completion code regardless of whether you "accidentally" found the actual cache container. Maybe this is why Groundspeak has allowed Wherigo caches to have a code where it does not for other cache types.

 

I will have to disagree wiht that...

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering. I see all the cache types where covered but the Letterbox hybrid. A true letterbox hybrid, doesn't have to have a GPS. I think a starting point but from there it's just clue's to find the next location. Most letterbox hybrid's, in fact all that I've done was just a traditional with a stamp. But the letterbox's I've done was done with clue's.

 

Just wondering if this affect's those at all.

Share this post


Link to post
If you could present an existing, real-world example or two of an "out of hand" ALR, your claim might be more persuasive.

Miss Jenn won't reveal some of the "absurd" ALR caches because she is not going to single out cachers that have or may have attempted to do these and embarrass them. You aren't privy to the behind the scene meetings that take place between HQ and the reviewers and they aren't going to embarrass the players in this game.

 

Thank you, Swamp-Thing.

 

Sorry, but I want to know Where this rule CAME FROM! What Absurd ALR caches are there out there. Heck, Even PMs with just the GC Code will do. I'll read and respond individually...

 

The Steaks

 

If you had bothered to read this thread from the beginning you would have read the comments by a couple of reviewers on this sunject. It has been said by me and others including the OP that details of bad ALR's that never made to being published would be revealed in the forums.

 

If YOU really need to know drive over to the Lily Pad have a nice visit with Miss Jenn sign the log on a cache (yes it is archived but the owner allows log finds) You may even get to meet the head frog his/herself.

 

I am not going to go back and find the relevant posts my self If you want to know you do the required reading (no it is not suggested!)

Share this post


Link to post
I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

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

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

 

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

 

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

That's the beauty of Wherigo caches - you can't shortcut to the end like you can with some multicaches. If you don't complete the cartridge, you don't get the completion code regardless of whether you "accidentally" found the actual cache container. Maybe this is why Groundspeak has allowed Wherigo caches to have a code where it does not for other cache types.

 

I will have to disagree wiht that...

 

Th eoption to have a completion code on a Wherigo cache is to enable the cacher to "unlock" (mark cartridge as completed) on the cartridge page.

Share this post


Link to post
The problem in allowing *some* ALRs is that cache reviewers would have the additional work of deciding which ones fit the guidelines and which ones didn't. We all know how well that worked out with virtuals using the infamous "WOW!" factor.
Yeah... they were Grandfathered. How about we just create a NEW Geocache Category! We'll call it Additional Logging Requirements.
Two years ago, TPTB decided against creating a new type for ALR caches, and made them part of the existing Mystery/Puzzle type. Do you really expect them to create a new type for ALR caches now, just so they can grandfather existing ALR caches as Requirements, rather treating both old and new ALR caches as Requests?

Share this post


Link to post

I own a five-star difficulty PUZZLE cache (with a five-star "joke" terrain) which has been acknowledged across the country as being one of very few which actually requires the finder to crochet a piece in order to reveal the coordinates. It has been used as an example in geocaching classes of one creative way cache developers write their puzzles.

Since this is a PUZZLE cache, is it still considered an ALR since I require people to send me a photo of their completed work? (Not, mind you, to post a photo on the page.)

 

When the cache was originally submitted, I did not have the requirement on the page. I changed it after a bout of numbers-sharing when someone participating in a Challenge wrote to me and accused me of "enabling" cheaters. At the time, I had no idea that particular Challenge was even occurring. I wrote to the Challenge owners to let them know that this cache should be screened out, but was told that they (the owners) did not have time (!) to check peoples' posted requirements.

 

I eventually asked them to simply disallow my cache from the challenges, but at this point, I had become aware of the numbers-sharing issue and wasn't happy about it. That was when I posted the photo requirement as a safeguard.

Regardless of the cache type, a requiring a photo is an ALR and no longer allowed. You may request a photo, but you cannot delete someone's log if they don't post it.

 

I see another double standard surfacing, here.

 

Any cache owner has the right to delete logs he or she doesn't find suitable or appropriate, or sometimes just because they don't like the way you part your hair. I know. My caching partner and I recently ran afoul of a newbie cacher who deleted our logs because he felt we had altered one of his caches (we removed a pen which had compacted the decoy note in the bottom of the container). Isn't that almost the same thing as an additional logging requirement? "Must be friendly with the owner in order to log this cache."

 

It seems to me that GC should prevent deletions altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
I neglected to clarify a detail about Wherigo caches:

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

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

 

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

 

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

That's the beauty of Wherigo caches - you can't shortcut to the end like you can with some multicaches. If you don't complete the cartridge, you don't get the completion code regardless of whether you "accidentally" found the actual cache container. Maybe this is why Groundspeak has allowed Wherigo caches to have a code where it does not for other cache types.

 

Uh, it seems that not all of them are devoid of that requirement. So then should those that DO require an email be subject to the ALR guideline?

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering. I see all the cache types where covered but the Letterbox hybrid. A true letterbox hybrid, doesn't have to have a GPS. I think a starting point but from there it's just clue's to find the next location. Most letterbox hybrid's, in fact all that I've done was just a traditional with a stamp. But the letterbox's I've done was done with clue's.

 

Just wondering if this affect's those at all.

My understanding of a letterbox hybrid is this: It's a single container that can be found as a geocache (by coordinates and signing a logbook) or as a letterbox (by clues, and logged by stamping a book.) Others have described these caches as a combination cache using elements of both types of search, meaning you couldn't find it using only one method, but I don't think this was the original intent.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering. I see all the cache types where covered but the Letterbox hybrid. A true letterbox hybrid, doesn't have to have a GPS. I think a starting point but from there it's just clue's to find the next location. Most letterbox hybrid's, in fact all that I've done was just a traditional with a stamp. But the letterbox's I've done was done with clue's.

 

Just wondering if this affect's those at all.

My understanding of a letterbox hybrid is this: It's a single container that can be found as a geocache (by coordinates and signing a logbook) or as a letterbox (by clues, and logged by stamping a book.) Others have described these caches as a combination cache using elements of both types of search, meaning you couldn't find it using only one method, but I don't think this was the original intent.

This is not completely accurate. As I understand it, a letterbox cache can not be set up to allow a find using clues alone. You would need to use coords to get you to a starting point, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering. I see all the cache types where covered but the Letterbox hybrid. A true letterbox hybrid, doesn't have to have a GPS. I think a starting point but from there it's just clue's to find the next location. Most letterbox hybrid's, in fact all that I've done was just a traditional with a stamp. But the letterbox's I've done was done with clue's.

 

Just wondering if this affect's those at all.

My understanding of a letterbox hybrid is this: It's a single container that can be found as a geocache (by coordinates and signing a logbook) or as a letterbox (by clues, and logged by stamping a book.) Others have described these caches as a combination cache using elements of both types of search, meaning you couldn't find it using only one method, but I don't think this was the original intent.

Looking at the 5 letterbox hybrids I've found, I see that at least 3 of them are probably not letterboxes at all, just straightforward geocaches with a letterbox-type stamp and book in it. I don't think they're listed at any letterbox website. Looking at the 7 you have found, they look like the same thing. edit to add: Oh, I read your post more carefully and see that you said the same thing as I did, and in addition you've also found real letterboxes. My hat is off to you! You know more about the subject than I do!

Edited by hukilaulau

Share this post


Link to post

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

I started to respond to this post saying the fact that you don't think something is not geocaching is a weak reason to argue for its ban. Lots of people find various types of caches as not fitting their definition of geocaching. Micros, puzzles, scuba caches, library caches, caches in "lame" locations, etc. would all be banned if the requirement was that there was consensus on whether that style was a "geocache". This is why, inspite of eventually deciding that making most ALRs into ALSs is a good change to the guideline, I cringe at posts like the one I've quoted.

 

Geocaching.com has promoted a simplistic definition of a cache: a container with at a minimum a physical log book and the use of a GPS as an integral part of the search. But even this definition is not universal as EarthCaches are still listed. ALRs seem to fit this simplistic definition, there is no reason to say that addition requirements beyond signing the log makes something not a geocache.

<snip>

Yes, GEOCACHING is finding a container (using a GPSr) and signing the log.

 

There are other things you can do with a GPSr that aren't GEOCACHING:

Virtuals don't have a container, so it is a separate activity. They are now called Waymarks.

Benchmarks have never been geocaches. They are the same as virtuals, really, but the subject is a small brass disk - virtuals Waymarks have some variety to them.

 

There are some things they still allow on the geocaching website that aren't geocaches (WWFM comes to mind). If they keep going in this direction the site will become less and less cluttered with non-geocaching items. Earthcaches really should be on the Waymarking site. You couldn't have a view as a virtual, for example, and in many cases that's all Earthcaches are. ALR's are something that cluttered the site and it's about time they're gone

 

"Earthcaches really should be on the Waymarking site............ and in many cases that's all Earthcaches are. ALR's are something that cluttered the site and it's about time they're gone"

 

The bit about Earthcaches is easy to say. Are you speaking from experience? Just how many have you done? ECs sure beat lame LPMs and and other goofy caches that are taking over the game. Some of us want to find/see something other than another unimaginative guardrail!

Virtuals went in order to sell Waymarking. Wherigos came to sell GPSrs!

P.S. I don't care about ALRs one way or another. It just seemed a bit draconian as to the way it was handled! Remember......the grandfathering option?????

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering. I see all the cache types where covered but the Letterbox hybrid. A true letterbox hybrid, doesn't have to have a GPS. I think a starting point but from there it's just clue's to find the next location. Most letterbox hybrid's, in fact all that I've done was just a traditional with a stamp. But the letterbox's I've done was done with clue's.

 

Just wondering if this affect's those at all.

My understanding of a letterbox hybrid is this: It's a single container that can be found as a geocache (by coordinates and signing a logbook) or as a letterbox (by clues, and logged by stamping a book.) Others have described these caches as a combination cache using elements of both types of search, meaning you couldn't find it using only one method, but I don't think this was the original intent.

Looking at the 5 letterbox hybrids I've found, I see that at least 3 of them are probably not letterboxes at all, just straightforward geocaches with a letterbox-type stamp and book in it. I don't think they're listed at any letterbox website. Looking at the 7 you have found, they look like the same thing. edit to add: Oh, I read your post more carefully and see that you said the same thing as I did, and in addition you've also found real letterboxes. My hat is off to you! You know more about the subject than I do!

 

Thanks for checking it out and answering my question!!! :laughing: Yeah the one's I've found listed here if I remember them all right where just a traditional with a stamp. I've only done a couple of letterbox's, on a letterbox site. Just thought I'd try it out, and I picked some ruff one's or I just didn't do so well. I'm not really good with the clue's. Did have a fun time with them though. I've also found one letterbox by accident. But never could find any kind of write up for it on any site. It had never been found. I wrote a nice note, and what the weather and visit to the park was. The only reason I know it was a letterbox was the log said "Snow Fall's Letterbox" and it had a hand carved stamp.

 

Thank's again and thanks sbell111 for posting what you know of them. I was just wondering and am not really fimilar with that cache type, and just wondered if this might affect those as well.

Share this post


Link to post

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

I started to respond to this post saying the fact that you don't think something is not geocaching is a weak reason to argue for its ban. Lots of people find various types of caches as not fitting their definition of geocaching. Micros, puzzles, scuba caches, library caches, caches in "lame" locations, etc. would all be banned if the requirement was that there was consensus on whether that style was a "geocache". This is why, inspite of eventually deciding that making most ALRs into ALSs is a good change to the guideline, I cringe at posts like the one I've quoted.

 

Geocaching.com has promoted a simplistic definition of a cache: a container with at a minimum a physical log book and the use of a GPS as an integral part of the search. But even this definition is not universal as EarthCaches are still listed. ALRs seem to fit this simplistic definition, there is no reason to say that addition requirements beyond signing the log makes something not a geocache.

<snip>

Yes, GEOCACHING is finding a container (using a GPSr) and signing the log.

 

There are other things you can do with a GPSr that aren't GEOCACHING:

Virtuals don't have a container, so it is a separate activity. They are now called Waymarks.

Benchmarks have never been geocaches. They are the same as virtuals, really, but the subject is a small brass disk - virtuals Waymarks have some variety to them.

 

There are some things they still allow on the geocaching website that aren't geocaches (WWFM comes to mind). If they keep going in this direction the site will become less and less cluttered with non-geocaching items. Earthcaches really should be on the Waymarking site. You couldn't have a view as a virtual, for example, and in many cases that's all Earthcaches are. ALR's are something that cluttered the site and it's about time they're gone

 

"Earthcaches really should be on the Waymarking site............ and in many cases that's all Earthcaches are. ALR's are something that cluttered the site and it's about time they're gone"

 

The bit about Earthcaches is easy to say. Are you speaking from experience? Just how many have you done? ECs sure beat lame LPMs and and other goofy caches that are taking over the game. Some of us want to find/see something other than another unimaginative guardrail!

Virtuals went in order to sell Waymarking. Wherigos came to sell GPSrs!

P.S. I don't care about ALRs one way or another. It just seemed a bit draconian as to the way it was handled! Remember......the grandfathering option?????

I've only logged one Earthcache - just enough to get the icon - but I've looked at many. There is no container, so that makes them virtual but in a special category - an educational/geological category of virtuals, but still virtual. They would fit much better in Waymarking categories.

 

Yes, many caches take you somewhere special and these days many more don't. That is a side point to geocaching though - finding a hidden container using your GPSr - and shouldn't be used as the basis of why something should or shouldn't be on this website.

Share this post


Link to post

The recent changes to the cache listing requirements focus around the ALR or Additional Logging Requirement. I've been thinking about these changes, wondering what would be the reason. Here are the three in particular I have thought about:

 

# Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

# Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

# Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

 

What would the possible reason be to make these changes…?

 

Then it hit me…

 

MONEY!

 

The new guidelines are NOT for the benefit of the game, but for the benefit of the company, Groundspeak.

 

The only logical explanation for the changes is as follows:

 

A cache consists of a container, some coordinates, and a listing description.

 

Additional logging Requirements or ALR’s are a frustrating point to someone ONLY if they found the cache without knowing they needed to do something beyond the find as requested by the cache OWNER. The only way you would not know that is if you did NOT READ the cache listing description.

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

 

The new technology and software that Groundspeak has become involved with has made it possible to download to your unit the Cache coordinates to find the cache container, but they have ignored the third part of the cache, the LISTING! Resulting in Blackberry and Colorado users unable to know if an ALR is required or not. One can easily make the jump that these users were getting very frustrated by found caches that had ALR’s being deleted by owners.

 

Unfortunately, the result is a decision that is made not with the Sport’s best interest in mind, but the pocketbook of Groundspeak and their partners.

 

This game is built upon the community of cachers, why not ask them for alternatives to banning a type of cache?

 

Here are some alternatives:

Create a new icon for ALR caches

Write the software for these in-the-field download units to include the description

Develop an icon or difficulty rating that can tip people off to the requirements of the cache

 

While I respect Groundspeak’s right to remain a viable company, I deny them the right to pose a decision as for the good of the game, when the reasons are just a little less lofty.

 

So how can we as the community of cachers and the TRUE owners of the sport, rewrite the guidelines that Groundspeak, Navicache, and others must live by, to remind them that the Owners of the caches are still the players? Any Suggestions?

 

That Fedora Guy

Share this post


Link to post

The recent changes to the cache listing requirements focus around the ALR or Additional Logging Requirement. I've been thinking about these changes, wondering what would be the reason. Here are the three in particular I have thought about:

 

# Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

# Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

# Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

 

What would the possible reason be to make these changes…?

 

Then it hit me…

 

MONEY!

 

The new guidelines are NOT for the benefit of the game, but for the benefit of the company, Groundspeak.

 

The only logical explanation for the changes is as follows:

 

A cache consists of a container, some coordinates, and a listing description.

 

Additional logging Requirements or ALR’s are a frustrating point to someone ONLY if they found the cache without knowing they needed to do something beyond the find as requested by the cache OWNER. The only way you would not know that is if you did NOT READ the cache listing description.

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

 

The new technology and software that Groundspeak has become involved with has made it possible to download to your unit the Cache coordinates to find the cache container, but they have ignored the third part of the cache, the LISTING! Resulting in Blackberry and Colorado users unable to know if an ALR is required or not. One can easily make the jump that these users were getting very frustrated by found caches that had ALR’s being deleted by owners.

 

Unfortunately, the result is a decision that is made not with the Sport’s best interest in mind, but the pocketbook of Groundspeak and their partners.

 

This game is built upon the community of cachers, why not ask them for alternatives to banning a type of cache?

 

Here are some alternatives:

Create a new icon for ALR caches

Write the software for these in-the-field download units to include the description

Develop an icon or difficulty rating that can tip people off to the requirements of the cache

 

While I respect Groundspeak’s right to remain a viable company, I deny them the right to pose a decision as for the good of the game, when the reasons are just a little less lofty.

 

So how can we as the community of cachers and the TRUE owners of the sport, rewrite the guidelines that Groundspeak, Navicache, and others must live by, to remind them that the Owners of the caches are still the players? Any Suggestions?

 

That Fedora Guy

 

You do know that the DeLorme, new Garmins and maybe even a couple other units do get the listing?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Ok... This is getting far too PC. To each his own game, Groundspeak owns the idea of Geocaching, but we all own the game together. If you don't want variety in our caches, then you as Groundspeak put out all the caches we seek, and we'll play your game your way. What I foresee is Geocaching.com going too far and people start turning to a replacement website for the caching fix. It's too easy for a rival website to start and overtake Geocaching.com. These caches are our caches. If you don't want to fulfill an additional requirement, than don't go and find it. If it's something dangerous or against the law or just wrong, then report it to Groundspeak and it will get removed. A picture as a logging requirement is the same thing as signing the log. It proves you were there. It would be different if it was 1995 and digital cameras weren't in every home, but it's not and they are. Let us play our game, our way. Don't dictate how YOU think the game should be played or we'll go play it with someone else. Many more changes like this and I won't be renewing my Premium Membership next year, and when the money walks the changes are made. Waldo

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

 

<snip>

 

As Colorado user I have to chime in here. When I enter the GPX file into my Colorado, the listing is all there. I can read about the cache before the hunt.

Share this post


Link to post

... Any Suggestions?

 

That Fedora Guy

Yes. Lift that hat over your eyes. :) All of the GPS you mentioned can display the cache listing.

 

Just found a cache 2 hours ago on my BlackBerry Curve, read the listing, found it, logged it using Geocache Navigator.

 

And, anyone can create a free account to read about and find geocaches... it COSTS Groundspeak a lot of money to allow this game to be free.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

 

<snip>

 

As Colorado user I have to chime in here. When I enter the GPX file into my Colorado, the listing is all there. I can read about the cache before the hunt.

 

Correction taken... but don't get hung up on that point...

 

the argument is still valid - As a trimble geocache navigator user, I know that the listing is not shared...

 

So what other argument for the cache change is there?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Ok... This is getting far too PC. To each his own game, Groundspeak owns the idea of Geocaching, but we all own the game together. If you don't want variety in our caches, then you as Groundspeak put out all the caches we seek, and we'll play your game your way. What I foresee is Geocaching.com going too far and people start turning to a replacement website for the caching fix. It's too easy for a rival website to start and overtake Geocaching.com. These caches are our caches. If you don't want to fulfill an additional requirement, than don't go and find it. If it's something dangerous or against the law or just wrong, then report it to Groundspeak and it will get removed. A picture as a logging requirement is the same thing as signing the log. It proves you were there. It would be different if it was 1995 and digital cameras weren't in every home, but it's not and they are. Let us play our game, our way. Don't dictate how YOU think the game should be played or we'll go play it with someone else. Many more changes like this and I won't be renewing my Premium Membership next year, and when the money walks the changes are made. Waldo

 

:):)

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

 

<snip>

 

As Colorado user I have to chime in here. When I enter the GPX file into my Colorado, the listing is all there. I can read about the cache before the hunt.

 

Correction taken... but don't get hung up on that point...

 

the argument is still valid - As a trimble geocache navigator user, I know that the listing is not shared...

 

So what other argument for the cache change is there?

 

If you'd bother to read the thread, you'd get the answer you want. I would like to help here, but since it's been answered soooo many ties, maybe you'll go look and find it? Your money theory is a new one though, but not quite as far out there as some others! :)

Share this post


Link to post

... Any Suggestions?

 

That Fedora Guy

Yes. Lift that hat over your eyes. :) All of the GPS you mentioned can display the cache listing.

 

Just found a cache 2 hours ago on my BlackBerry Curve, read the listing, found it, logged it using Geocache Navigator.

 

And, anyone can create a free account to read about and find geocaches... it COSTS Groundspeak a lot of money to allow this game to be free.

 

the point is that there are ALWAYS alternatives to the decisions made... And in this case, the removal of ALR's is not the right decision for the right reasons.

 

Create an ALR icon and move on... or reuire all ALR's to be mystery caches, but don't require that all ALR's be removed or changed...

 

That is a misuse of power on loan from the owners of the caches.

 

As for spending money, they also make money... So be careful how quick you defend...

Share this post


Link to post

Let us play our game, our way. Don't dictate how YOU think the game should be played or we'll go play it with someone else. Many more changes like this and I won't be renewing my Premium Membership next year, and when the money walks the changes are made. Waldo

 

By all means geocache any way you want to, Groundspeak doesn't dictate how the game is played.

 

They do control what gets posted on their website. We (well, some of us) pay them to do that.

 

See the difference? Simple, really. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Ok... This is getting far too PC. To each his own game, Groundspeak owns the idea of Geocaching, but we all own the game together. If you don't want variety in our caches, then you as Groundspeak put out all the caches we seek, and we'll play your game your way. What I foresee is Geocaching.com going too far and people start turning to a replacement website for the caching fix. It's too easy for a rival website to start and overtake Geocaching.com. These caches are our caches. If you don't want to fulfill an additional requirement, than don't go and find it. If it's something dangerous or against the law or just wrong, then report it to Groundspeak and it will get removed. A picture as a logging requirement is the same thing as signing the log. It proves you were there. It would be different if it was 1995 and digital cameras weren't in every home, but it's not and they are. Let us play our game, our way. Don't dictate how YOU think the game should be played or we'll go play it with someone else. Many more changes like this and I won't be renewing my Premium Membership next year, and when the money walks the changes are made. Waldo

 

:):)

 

ALRs were never my thing, but the attitude of laughing at somebody else's opinion as if it's worthless borders on personal attack. Having read the posts throughout the week, I fear the "good riddance" tone of some (not all) of those on this thread fails to communicate the new guideline's intention to improve caching. Unfortunately, the tones/attitudes (perhaps moreso than the guideline) come across as a slap in the face to ALR cache owners who genuinely believe they were being creative, not just being obsessive about controlling cachers. Waldo's view may be shared by many more cachers than TPTB realize and that could impact the bottom line, though I doubt most will cancel membership.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an ALR icon and move on... or reuire all ALR's to be mystery caches, but don't require that all ALR's be removed or changed...

In fact that is just what was done about a year ago in the previous change. ALRs were required to be listed as mystery caches. So the reason for this change was not because people who were caching paperless were finding ALR caches and getting there logs deleted because they hadn't read the cache page before hunting the cache. If this were the case there would be the same argument made for puzzle caches, since they paperless cachers would be going to the bogus coordinates and not finding anything.

 

The reason for the change does have something to do with the previous change however. Prior to that change there was no official recognition of ALRs. The majority of cachers who asked for finders to do additional tasks treated this as optional, regardless of how it was worded on the cache page. Only a few hiders would actually be so mean as to delete the log of someone who had found their cache. The change to recognize ALRs and the right of cache owners to delete logs got a lot more people placing ALR caches and a lot more who actually deleted logs for not complying. There seemed to be people placing ALR caches solely to be able to delete logs. They posted ALRs that were difficult to comply with and often where they could arbitrarily say that a finder didn't meet the exact letter of the requirement. In addition they were testing just how far you could go in your requirement. There were several whole classes of requirements that Groundspeak told the reviewers not to publish. In addition, they likely told the reviewer to use judgment and not to publish any ALRs they thought went to far. The publishing of ALRs became more and more like the publishing of virtual caches before they were grandfathered. Perhaps the big difference is that Groundspeak never updated the ALR guidelines to include a "Wow" requirement for ALRs like they had for virtuals. Perhaps that would have stopped people from placing unacceptable ALRs. But the reviewers, based on their experience with virtual caches, probably argued that it would not work. The result was to try to undo the damage caused by the previous change and get back to a system where ALRs were added to make a cache more interesting or memorable and not as an excuse to delete logs.

 

With regard to the decision not to grandfather existing ALRs, the issue is that there was nothing to grandfather. All ALR caches can remain with their additional logging requirements. The change is that finders are told they may log a 'Found It' log whether or not they perform the requirement and cache owners are told they can no longer enforce their requirement by deleting 'Found It' logs. Since many of the these caches would have been traditionals before the previous guideline change, cache owners are requested to contact reviewers to have there caches changed back to traditional (or whatever their natural type would be). Even here, there is no deadline for doing this and I suspect that many caches will remain unchanged for a long time.

 

TPTB made a mistake with the previous change to the guidelines regarding ALRs. They cannot return to the status quo ante. The new guideline is an attempt to get as close as they can to the state we were in before the guidelines required ALRs to be listed as mystery caches.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
we removed a pen which had compacted the decoy note in the bottom of the container

I guess the relevant question is; what did you leave in trade for the pen you took?

 

Uh, it seems that not all of them are devoid of that requirement. So then should those that DO require an email be subject to the ALR guideline?

I've never heard of a Wherigo that required an E-mail to the owner. Seems kinda redundant to me.

But I'm biased that way. If my name's in a logbook, I think having to send an E-mail to an owner of any cache is a PITA.

If you create a cache that's appealing enough to satisfy my personal aesthetics, I'll be E-mailing you anyway, giving you extra kudos.

If you create a cache that's on the high end of the lame quotient scale, I won't.

 

The bit about Earthcaches is easy to say. ECs sure beat lame LPMs and and other goofy caches that are taking over the game.

Unless I misread what the jazzy blue dude was saying, the observation about earth caches was not a dig on their quality. I think everybody knows that there are some really kewl sites, revealed to the masses, through the creation of an earth cache. I would even go so far as to guess that earth caches, since they go through a more rigorous approval process than any other, probably have a much higher ratio of kewl/lame. However, statistics indicate that there are probably some sites that many would find somewhat less than amazing. As with any other type cache, quality vs. lameness is all in the eye of the beholder. I believe what he was implying is that an earth cache, regardless of how neat the location, has no physical container, and as such, is not a cache. At least, that's this ol' fat cripples opinion.

 

So, what geocachers are not reading descriptions?

 

TRIMBLE Blackberry and Garmin Colorado users!

I've got a Colorado 400I (and an Oregon 300), and I can read the cache pages on both of them. That's kinda why I got them.

I got tired of my PDA dying in the field. Other units I considered to accomplish this task were:

 

Magellan eXplorist (decided against having to deal with that company's crappy customer service)

Garmin Nuvi 500 (looses too much accuracy under tree cover)

Delorme PN-40

Iphone (not rugged enough for me)

 

The Colorado & Oregon got the nod because, as well as showing all the cache page stuff, I can also play Wherigo cartridges.

 

Another option I explored was loading cache pages into my 60CSx as POIs, so I could include cache page stuff, but I'm not bright enough to figure out how to do it.

 

What I foresee is Geocaching.com going too far and people start turning to a replacement website for the caching fix.

This is what's known as the, "I'll take my ball and go home" response.

BTW, that's not a critique, just an observation.

There have been competing cache listing services out there dang near since day one. One of those even allows most, if not all of the stuff frowned upon by Groundspeak. Yet, Groundspeak still takes the lion's share of the market. Why is that? Because people tend to vote with their wallets and their feet, and Groundspeak offers a far superior service as a listing site than the competition ever did.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, you guys posting these last comments...READ THE THREAD! :) :) :huh::)

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

just a idea off the top of my head.....

 

for those of you who want to have ALR's and other caches that Groundspeak does not allow, why not make your own site.

 

correct me if i am wrong, but Groundspeak does not own the word "geocaching" so you could infact start your own geocaching site.

 

personally i love the idea of webcam caches and sending a pic back of something. I was going to make a cache where you had to send an e-mail to an address listed inside the first cache and you would be automatically mailed the next coordinates, cause i think that would be fun for those of us who have cell phones and PDAs

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Ok... This is getting far too PC. To each his own game, Groundspeak owns the idea of Geocaching, but we all own the game together. If you don't want variety in our caches, then you as Groundspeak put out all the caches we seek, and we'll play your game your way. What I foresee is Geocaching.com going too far and people start turning to a replacement website for the caching fix. It's too easy for a rival website to start and overtake Geocaching.com. These caches are our caches. If you don't want to fulfill an additional requirement, than don't go and find it. If it's something dangerous or against the law or just wrong, then report it to Groundspeak and it will get removed. A picture as a logging requirement is the same thing as signing the log. It proves you were there. It would be different if it was 1995 and digital cameras weren't in every home, but it's not and they are. Let us play our game, our way. Don't dictate how YOU think the game should be played or we'll go play it with someone else. Many more changes like this and I won't be renewing my Premium Membership next year, and when the money walks the changes are made. Waldo

 

:):)

 

ALRs were never my thing, but the attitude of laughing at somebody else's opinion as if it's worthless borders on personal attack. Having read the posts throughout the week, I fear the "good riddance" tone of some (not all) of those on this thread fails to communicate the new guideline's intention to improve caching. Unfortunately, the tones/attitudes (perhaps moreso than the guideline) come across as a slap in the face to ALR cache owners who genuinely believe they were being creative, not just being obsessive about controlling cachers. Waldo's view may be shared by many more cachers than TPTB realize and that could impact the bottom line, though I doubt most will cancel membership.

 

Yep, and I'd not have laughed at all, HAD THE POSTER READ THE THREAD!!!!!! I'm not laughing at this person's OPINION, I'm laughing at the whole post since ALL the questions in it are answered several times over right in front of them. Some wish to be spoon-fed the answers...this is a JOKE to me and I will laugh, sorry if this hurts anyone who takes it personally (first rule of the big pond, NEVER take anything personally)! You want to know what comes across as a slap in the face to me?? When someone feels the need to opine without bothering to READ THE THREAD!!! I think this is even more rude than my laughing guy!!

 

Had poor Waldo read the thread, he would see some DO share his opinion...and also saw the answers...go figure!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this has a very simple, but complex answer. This used to be a free market, seller (Cache owner) providing what buyer (cache finder) wanted. When the buyer didn't want what the seller had, he didn't buy. He walked past the fruit (geocaching) stand and the seller's fruit all spoiled (no one logged his cache) causing the seller to change how he sold his fruit, but now you have people addicted to the fruit so the seller can sell it anyway he wants, rotten, moldy, mind altering fruit (pictures, lengthy logs, hoops and whistles) and the addicted buyer will still eat it and then complain to the government (ground speak) that the seller had rotten apples and they knew they had rotten apples, but they still bought them, and please oh please GS can you save me from the evil seller who wishes to do me harm, so you have GS (Government Sensors) dictating what the seller can sell to the buyer and how he can sell it, to protect the buyer from a bad apple or two, but stopping the sale of a funkadelic apple, that may have been the addicted buyers favorite apple of all time. I wouldn't expect someone from the all liberal Michigan to understand the free market and why it's important, so I broke it down all fruit style for you.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this has a very simple, but complex answer. This used to be a free market, seller (Cache owner) providing what buyer (cache finder) wanted. When the buyer didn't want what the seller had, he didn't buy. He walked past the fruit (geocaching) stand and the seller's fruit all spoiled (no one logged his cache) causing the seller to change how he sold his fruit, but now you have people addicted to the fruit so the seller can sell it anyway he wants, rotten, moldy, mind altering fruit (pictures, lengthy logs, hoops and whistles) and the addicted buyer will still eat it and then complain to the government (ground speak) that the seller had rotten apples and they knew they had rotten apples, but they still bought them, and please oh please GS can you save me from the evil seller who wishes to do me harm, so you have GS (Government Sensors) dictating what the seller can sell to the buyer and how he can sell it, to protect the buyer from a bad apple or two, but stopping the sale of a funkadelic apple, that may have been the addicted buyers favorite apple of all time. I wouldn't expect someone from the all liberal Michigan to understand the free market and why it's important, so I broke it down all fruit style for you.

pretty good summation!

:)

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this has a very simple, but complex answer. This used to be a free market, seller (Cache owner) providing what buyer (cache finder) wanted. When the buyer didn't want what the seller had, he didn't buy. He walked past the fruit (geocaching) stand and the seller's fruit all spoiled (no one logged his cache) causing the seller to change how he sold his fruit, but now you have people addicted to the fruit so the seller can sell it anyway he wants, rotten, moldy, mind altering fruit (pictures, lengthy logs, hoops and whistles) and the addicted buyer will still eat it and then complain to the government (ground speak) that the seller had rotten apples and they knew they had rotten apples, but they still bought them, and please oh please GS can you save me from the evil seller who wishes to do me harm, so you have GS (Government Sensors) dictating what the seller can sell to the buyer and how he can sell it, to protect the buyer from a bad apple or two, but stopping the sale of a funkadelic apple, that may have been the addicted buyers favorite apple of all time. I wouldn't expect someone from the all liberal Michigan to understand the free market and why it's important, so I broke it down all fruit style for you.

 

Now, THAT'S either the funniest joke I've ever read, or this poster is seriously deluded! Maybe the joke poster could try making that fit the real situation??

 

Let's try it like this:

 

Cacher decides he needs a good laugh, so he makes the cachers jump hurdles to enjoy his cache. Some cachers are fine with this and will do this, some aren't and ignore it. Some complain to GS that this is abusing the system, some are happy to bend to the will of the controlling owner. Now, the reviewers who HAVE to see these caches (read as CANNOT ignore them) have grown tired of having to publish these controlling owners' (reportedly) silly requirements on the caches and they get together for 4 months and have a nice talk about it and how best to solve the problem. Noting that not everyone will be pleased, but change is needed, the PTB decide to nip the problem in the bud and not allow any new or any old since that was tried before and was waaaay to confusing for most (got the "but this cache was allowed" complaints over and over and). Some who aren't controlling owners see this as OK and try our best to alleve the paranoia of some who see this as GS being controlling (crazy, isn't it???), answer the same simple questions OVER and OVER...but we are then seen as champions for the change (yeah, we're championing a change that needs no championing...OK) and then sent phishing emails from some posters who can't even fathom the reason for the change nor be bothered to read the thread! Instead of trying to think the whole thing through, be open-minded and listen to reason, they'd rather act injured, demand action and opine without a clue of what has already been covered...go figure!

 

In short, if you don't like the change, why not go and do something about it besides spit into the ocean (what I have suggested posting complaints in here iequals to). Since OBVIOUSLY the word of a few mods, reviewers and MANY cachers isn't enough, how about sending messages to TPTB and not to me...ok??

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Waldo...at least this Michigan liberal has the courtesy to actually read the thread before jumping in. But, since you either can't or won't, I will help you out this one time...can you read the last post at least? Or am I requiring too much of you in this...

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

There is a difference -- in the ALR situation you actually FOUND the cache, you just failed to comply with a control freak owner.

 

This thread has been fun. We've gone from complaining that creativity is being removed from the game, to saying that ALRs are the solution to TNLNSL log entries, to saying who knows what else over the next four pages I haven't read yet.

 

Bottom line is this: The only thing that has changed is that cache owners cannot delete the Found logs from people who actually found the cache. Hardly seems Earth-shaking to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this has a very simple, but complex answer. This used to be a free market, seller (Cache owner) providing what buyer (cache finder) wanted. When the buyer didn't want what the seller had, he didn't buy. He walked past the fruit (geocaching) stand and the seller's fruit all spoiled (no one logged his cache) causing the seller to change how he sold his fruit, but now you have people addicted to the fruit so the seller can sell it anyway he wants, rotten, moldy, mind altering fruit (pictures, lengthy logs, hoops and whistles) and the addicted buyer will still eat it and then complain to the government (ground speak) that the seller had rotten apples and they knew they had rotten apples, but they still bought them, and please oh please GS can you save me from the evil seller who wishes to do me harm, so you have GS (Government Sensors) dictating what the seller can sell to the buyer and how he can sell it, to protect the buyer from a bad apple or two, but stopping the sale of a funkadelic apple, that may have been the addicted buyers favorite apple of all time. I wouldn't expect someone from the all liberal Michigan to understand the free market and why it's important, so I broke it down all fruit style for you.

 

Now, THAT'S either the funniest joke I've ever read, or this poster is seriously deluded! Maybe the joke poster could try making that fit the real situation??

 

Let's try it like this:

 

Cacher decides he needs a good laugh, so he makes the cachers jump hurdles to enjoy his cache. Some cachers are fine with this and will do this, some aren't and ignore it. Some complain to GS that this is abusing the system, some are happy to bend to the will of the controlling owner. Now, the reviewers who HAVE to see these caches (read as CANNOT ignore them) have grown tired of having to publish these controlling owners' (reportedly) silly requirements on the caches and they get together for 4 months and have a nice talk about it and how best to solve the problem. Noting that not everyone will be pleased, but change is needed, the PTB decide to nip the problem in the bud and not allow any new or any old since that was tried before and was waaaay to confusing for most (got the "but this cache was allowed" complaints over and over and). Some who aren't controlling owners see this as OK and try our best to alleve the paranoia of some who see this as GS being controlling (crazy, isn't it???), answer the same simple questions OVER and OVER...but we are then seen as champions for the change (yeah, we're championing a change that needs no championing...OK) and then sent phishing emails from some posters who can't even fathom the reason for the change nor be bothered to read the thread! Instead of trying to think the whole thing through, be open-minded and listen to reason, they'd rather act injured, demand action and opine without a clue of what has already been covered...go figure!

 

In short, if you don't like the change, why not go and do something about it besides spit into the ocean (what I have suggested posting complaints in here iequals to). Since OBVIOUSLY the word of a few mods, reviewers and MANY cachers isn't enough, how about sending messages to TPTB and not to me...ok??

 

But that's the point, I am the seller and in a free market I can make anyone who wants to find my cache do whatever I want. It's your choice to buy the fruit (find the cache) Nothing needs to be regulated. You can simply not participate. But that means you have a cache on your first page that will forever not be found and that is where the problem lies because people have this addiction and can't take an unfound cache. If there was no regulation at all, then the reviewers wouldn't have to work hard at all. That's what liberals don't understand about this country, is once it starts you can never go back. To fix a problem the only answer is more control and more tinkering. Just leave it alone, make sure it's not illegal or dangerous and contains no vulgar language. That's all that NEEDS to be done. The seller who is being overly regulated and doesn't want to sell his fruit under these regulations, will find an alternative way to sell his fruit, either on the black market (playing games with GS) or in another country (Possible new site which will fracture the Geocaching community) and nobody wants that, so GS just needs to lay off and let it be. Waldo

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this has a very simple, but complex answer. This used to be a free market, seller (Cache owner) providing what buyer (cache finder) wanted. When the buyer didn't want what the seller had, he didn't buy. He walked past the fruit (geocaching) stand and the seller's fruit all spoiled (no one logged his cache) causing the seller to change how he sold his fruit, but now you have people addicted to the fruit so the seller can sell it anyway he wants, rotten, moldy, mind altering fruit (pictures, lengthy logs, hoops and whistles) and the addicted buyer will still eat it and then complain to the government (ground speak) that the seller had rotten apples and they knew they had rotten apples, but they still bought them, and please oh please GS can you save me from the evil seller who wishes to do me harm, so you have GS (Government Sensors) dictating what the seller can sell to the buyer and how he can sell it, to protect the buyer from a bad apple or two, but stopping the sale of a funkadelic apple, that may have been the addicted buyers favorite apple of all time. I wouldn't expect someone from the all liberal Michigan to understand the free market and why it's important, so I broke it down all fruit style for you.

Ah but if only placement of caches were a free market. Perhaps some hiders place caches with intention that other cachers will enjoy them. And perhaps if they get few people finding there cache they will decide that people aren't enjoying their cache and will either change it to be more enjoyable or will archive. But I would contend that many people do not really care how many people find their cache. They place a cache that they would enjoy themselves and hope that others will enjoy it. They don't count the number of thank you logs they get and in many instances they never get any complaints since people general ignore the cache they don't want to find. But what has also happened is that there is a small number of hiders who for some reason don't care at all whether others will enjoy their cache. Perhaps some of these hiders get some kick from seeing a lot of DNF logs or perhaps (in the case of ALRs) they get a kick out of writing a requirement where they can delete logs because no one is going to actually do the requirement to the letter. In addition TPTB determined there were some things they didn't was cachers to require in an ALR, because they felt the Geoaching would be better off if these task were voluntary. For example, TPTB would not publish an ALR to hide a new cache in order to log this one or and ALR that reserved FTF for a particular person. In the OP, Miss Jenn apologize that the new guidelines mean that some cool ideas would be lost. The guideline was put in place because (to use your free market analogy) there were a few AIGs and Lehman Brothers out there making bad ALRs and ruining the market.

Share this post


Link to post

YES!!! Anarchy is the answer, THANKS Waldo!!

 

What the hey, agendas are now OK, who cares if it's Taliban loving (or hating), devil worshipping (or hating) or whatever, giddyap! While we're at it, why NOT let caches be buried or placed right in front of the local bank or post office or government building or school, remove the shackles!!! Why should we care if the National Parks want our caches or not, place them anyways! Some parks have rules fro caches? REMOVE THE SHACKLES!!!! Hey, why even have reviewers at all, everything goes...REMOVE THE SHACKLES!!!!

 

Hiders can now put drugs and sharp objects and hey, even weapons in their caches, no rules, no worries!! Hiders can now require finders to do their every whim since hey, it's all about the hiders and not the finders! Booby-trapping the caches will be OK now, I want to have physical proof you visited my cache, and a pool of blood will do nicely! While we're at it, maybe GS should pay the hiders for their services, I mean GS can't possibly survive without us placers...right?

 

Sound outlandish?? Maybe exxagerated a bit, but think about it.

 

As for the liberals statement...you don't know me at all, so keep your labels to yourself, OK? I believe the guidelines are against this....ohhhh those darned guidelines always restricting someone's ights!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23

×
×
  • Create New...