Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

Oh, one other thing.

I've seen a number of posts that seem to state that ALR's are "Not in keeping with the original intent of the sport". Well, using that logic, we have to get rid of the following types of caches.

1 Multi's Hey, the original was just one stage

2. Events. Sorry, not a container in the woods!

3. Puzzles, Sorry, the original idea is plug in the coords and go find the cache

4. Earthcaches & Virtuals, whoops, no container!

 

It was never about logic. The logic doesn't flow like you have pointed out.

It was never about right and wrong. If it were you would put a real cache placed in good faith and the complaints agasint it on the scales of justice and see which had more weight.

 

It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

A few ALR owners (and defenders) whining vs. A dozen times as many finders whining about ALR's.

 

Something I used to teach my kids. I'd buy them some candy. They would enjoy it all smiles. Then they would demand another one and whine and cry when they didn't get it. I'd tell them. "Look, you have now made me regret that I even bought you the first one because now I'm actually worse off for having done it.". As they grew up they 'got it'. When they were whiney little kids they didn't.

 

My muse is ecletic. If it demands an ALR that's what I'm placing. This site can make it's own choices but I'm not limiting my cache placing to the box that the whiney finders would impose on me with their wails of caching dispair. Do they think I place caches for their spoiled adult selves? If they never found one of my caches I'd be happier for their lack of effort. I place caches for the other finders.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges can be such a problem.

I'm not sure how to put this, but it just seems as though you're piggy-backing other folks' work. If I want to go find caches at cover bridges, well, I'd go find those caches. Then there's all of the rules with which one has to comply.

 

Yeah, you're right, there's always that ignore button that I'd be using.

 

Two things would have made me think differently: you having completed the challenge yourself and the challenge cache was at one of the covered bridges instead of where it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, one other thing.

I've seen a number of posts that seem to state that ALR's are "Not in keeping with the original intent of the sport". Well, using that logic, we have to get rid of the following types of caches.

1 Multi's Hey, the original was just one stage

2. Events. Sorry, not a container in the woods!

3. Puzzles, Sorry, the original idea is plug in the coords and go find the cache

4. Earthcaches & Virtuals, whoops, no container!

 

If you really want to go all the way back, then there's no logging online at all. Geocaching and Groundspeak didn't even exist.

 

It was about finding things in the real world. Everything on your list fits, even puzzles where you have to figure out what the coordinates are to plug into your GPS. The goal was to go find something; could be a container, a group of people, or even just a spot.

 

Later the standard for claiming a find was getting your signature in the logbook. Even if a cache did have a puzzle in front of it you were golden if you tagged along or found the cache by accident. Many threads have been written about these circumstances and I'm thinking that this very issue is still about control: "They didn't find it like I intended for them to find it." So what? You're going to start escorting folks on the hunt so they do exactly like you want?

 

Heck, caches hidden behind puzzles are a lot less controlling than ALRs in the sense that if you didn't do some arbitrary action besides signing the logbook then the log is deleted. Most folks didn't care how you solved a puzzle or that you simply tagged along.

 

The intent is using a GPS to find something in the real world. The "Found It" log-type is to show others you did, in fact, find that thing in the real world. I don't see how doing a silly dance or writing a poem has anything to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post

There is always that "Ignore Listing" option.

 

One or two clicks is all it would've taken.

This has been my approach for most ALRs in my area (central Ohio). Now that they are ALSs, I may just go after them and even follow the suggestions. I just didn't like being forced to do silly things.

 

--Larry

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love it if I could just take a pass on any finder who won't have fun on my cache. Since I don't have that option I'd be perfectly happy if they at least let me have my fun placing. Right down to ALR's.

You can - list it somewhere else. Oh wait, caches listed elsewhere don't get visited nearly as often as those here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

I think it'd be more accurate to say, "It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining from the site", assuming of course that the volunteer reviewers would qualify as being part and parcel of what most would consider as "the site". As I understand the issue, this was done to make the reviewer's jobs easier, not to satisfy the whims of whiners. If satisfying whiners was Groundspeak's primary function, LPCs would've went away years ago.

 

I just didn't like being forced to do silly things.

I see that as being central to the complaints both for and against the new guideline. Some cache owners feel the need to force others to submit to their will, whilst other owners are just happy folks are finding their caches. Those in the first group are oft subjected to disappointment, as the world fails to fit their prescribed mold. Those in the latter group are happier more often, because of their inner tolerance and acceptance.

Share this post


Link to post
It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

I think it'd be more accurate to say, "It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining from the site", assuming of course that the volunteer reviewers would qualify as being part and parcel of what most would consider as "the site". As I understand the issue, this was done to make the reviewer's jobs easier, not to satisfy the whims of whiners. If satisfying whiners was Groundspeak's primary function, LPCs would've went away years ago.

I don't agree with your characterization. In contrast to, say, keeping track of 37 different land manager regulations, it was always easy to review an ALR cache -- just slap a form letter on it, just like I do for caches too close to railroad tracks. It was the whining in response to that which made my volunteer life less fun. Ditto to listening to people complaining to me about their log being deleted because their picture wasn't exactly right, and asking me to mediate.

 

The increasing volume of oddball ALR caches, and the whining which accompanied their review and publication, was beginning to approach the reviewer misery index reached by virtual caches in 2003.

 

Remember... you all were seeing just the ALR's in the form in which they were published.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges can be such a problem.

I'm not sure how to put this, but it just seems as though you're piggy-backing other folks' work. If I want to go find caches at cover bridges, well, I'd go find those caches. Then there's all of the rules with which one has to comply.

 

Yeah, you're right, there's always that ignore button that I'd be using.

 

Two things would have made me think differently: you having completed the challenge yourself and the challenge cache was at one of the covered bridges instead of where it is.

 

If there was an available covered bridge in my area, don't you think I would make it part of the challenge?

I really wanted to, but that just wasn't possible.

And I would definitely like to complete my own challenge, but gee whillickers, I sure haven't never heard of a challenge cache like it.

The cache is what I have made it and anyone can either enjoy visiting these sites they ordinarily may not have gone to without the challenge or they can ignore it.

 

The cache was made for fun, for those would actually enjoy completing it and not for some one who has nothing better to do than complain about the requirements or where the cache is placed.

Share this post


Link to post
It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

I think it'd be more accurate to say, "It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining from the site", assuming of course that the volunteer reviewers would qualify as being part and parcel of what most would consider as "the site". As I understand the issue, this was done to make the reviewer's jobs easier, not to satisfy the whims of whiners. If satisfying whiners was Groundspeak's primary function, LPCs would've went away years ago.

I don't agree with your characterization. In contrast to, say, keeping track of 37 different land manager regulations, it was always easy to review an ALR cache -- just slap a form letter on it, just like I do for caches too close to railroad tracks. It was the whining in response to that which made my volunteer life less fun. Ditto to listening to people complaining to me about their log being deleted because their picture wasn't exactly right, and asking me to mediate.

 

The increasing volume of oddball ALR caches, and the whining which accompanied their review and publication, was beginning to approach the reviewer misery index reached by virtual caches in 2003.

 

Remember... you all were seeing just the ALR's in the form in which they were published.

Keystone, thank you for this insight, and I also thank Rivoveur for his earlier insights into the growing hassles of handling ALRS. I am kinda spoiled, because we live in Western MD, and in this region, we have (at least in the caches which have reached publication status) seen very little in the way of overly-weird or annoying or overly-demanding ALR caches, and we have also seen none of the agenda-type and hate-type ALRs that some of the other reviewers have mentioned. In fact, the ALRs in this region (and I am including nearby parts of PA, WV and VA) seem to have been very reasonable and rather well-received. However, it appears that this has not been the case in many other parts of the USA as well as in many other parts of the world, and so I can see why the category was finally largely terminated.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team

Share this post


Link to post
I don't agree with your characterization.

Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm not sure that both our examples can't stand on their own, as individually accurate.

All the complaints reviewers received from BillyBobNosePicker and his non-ALR-compliant, log deleted cohorts surely made your lives miserable.

It seems that the level of misery reached by the reviewers was the catalyst for the change. This misery likely was expressed in some form, (complaints/grumbling/whining/etc), to Groundspeak, and those complaints eventually had an impact on TPTB. The whining by the BBNP crowd was the catalyst for your misery, rather than the final cause for the change.

Maybe it's just semantics?

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going to play "post dissection." I am very happy with my one single post to this thread. It captures what I wanted to say. :D

Share this post


Link to post
I don't agree with your characterization.

Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm not sure that both our examples can't stand on their own, as individually accurate.

All the complaints reviewers received from BillyBobNosePicker and his non-ALR-compliant, log deleted cohorts surely made your lives miserable.

 

Maybe it's just semantics?

 

I just looked BBNP up, and got "The user selected has invalidated his or her account." What!!! Is this the smellings of a Cover-up? Either way, Hmmm.....

 

I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how my cache requiring you to find 25 caches hidden on, at or near Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges can be such a problem.

Not only does it highlight the Covered Bridges, but it also brings more attention to their existence and the fact that many are in bad need of restoration, even the ones that aren't hightlighted by a geocache, all of which I've tracked down and located using other websites.

Many are enjoying the challenge and even going beyond the requirements to find and see many of the other covered bridges.

 

Also, there are more and more cachers who really like the higher terrain caches, so I created a challenge for that.

 

I don't get it, this is only a game and ALR's only bring an additional bit of fun and challenge to the game.

If you aren't willing or physically able to get to a cache, solve the puzzle or complete certain requirements and sign the log, then why worry about it?

 

You need to list it as a Puzzle, hide a physical cache at the posted coordinates, and add the word Challenge into the name. I.E. a "Ohio's Historic Covered Bridges Challenge Cache". Have each person make a Bookmark list with their 25 that count toward the challenge, and go from there. I see no issue there.

 

Of course, the BOX has gotten smaller, but we just have to become more 'creative'.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post
I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

 

I'm confused. You don't agree with the change but you posted this found it log to a harmless little ALR that you could comply with from your keyboard while you logged it? It would appear from your actions that you are whole-heartedly in favor of the change.

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post
I don't agree with your characterization.

Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm not sure that both our examples can't stand on their own, as individually accurate.

All the complaints reviewers received from BillyBobNosePicker and his non-ALR-compliant, log deleted cohorts surely made your lives miserable.

 

Maybe it's just semantics?

 

I just looked BBNP up, and got "The user selected has invalidated his or her account." What!!! Is this the smellings of a Cover-up? Either way, Hmmm.....

 

I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

 

WARNING: Sarcastic post coming up, if you're easily offended, please avert eyes!

 

Wait for it.....coming up....NOW: :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
I don't agree with your characterization.

Thank you for the clarification. However, I'm not sure that both our examples can't stand on their own, as individually accurate.

All the complaints reviewers received from BillyBobNosePicker and his non-ALR-compliant, log deleted cohorts surely made your lives miserable.

 

Maybe it's just semantics?

 

I just looked BBNP up, and got "The user selected has invalidated his or her account." What!!! Is this the smellings of a Cover-up? Either way, Hmmm.....

 

I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

 

Who the heck ever told you Groundspeak was a democracy?

Share this post


Link to post

Imperialist? I thought this was a socialist plot.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

 

I just looked BBNP up, and got "The user selected has invalidated his or her account." What!!! Is this the smellings of a Cover-up? Either way, Hmmm.....

 

I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

 

The best way I have seen has been mentioned a few times...start your own site and rule the roost your way! You can then allow ALRs, you can bring back virts, you can ask for votes for everything at any time! It may seem you're the only one visiting your site for awhile, but if people truly are as mad as some suggest, you shouldn't be alone too long! Your chance to see how simple it is to please everyone! :D

Share this post


Link to post
The cache was made for fun, for those would actually enjoy completing it and not for some one who has nothing better to do than complain about the requirements or where the cache is placed.

You mean it's not for those who have better things to do--like find the 26th covered bridge.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going to play "post dissection." I am very happy with my one single post to this thread. It captures what I wanted to say. :P

 

I was pretty happy with the posts that have already been made by the reviewers and moderators. I think you guys have already pretty much summed things up.

 

Like I said way back in the sub-1000 posts era of this thread, when dinosaurs roamed the earth- it's time to either accept the change and move on or not accept the change and move on.

 

Or option #3: start an on-line petition and post to your myspace/facebook/twitter account about the "rampant imperialism" of a how a hobby-based company runs its business. Heck, throw a tea party. That will really get their goat. They'll be so goat-depleted that they will have to import those nasty genetically-altered, irradiated goats from Europe.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going to play "post dissection." I am very happy with my one single post to this thread. It captures what I wanted to say. :D

 

I was pretty happy with the posts that have already been made by the reviewers and moderators. I think you guys have already pretty much summed things up.

 

Like I said way back in the sub-1000 posts era of this thread, when dinosaurs roamed the earth- it's time to either accept the change and move on or not accept the change and move on.

 

Or option #3: start an on-line petition and post to your myspace/facebook/twitter account about the "rampant imperialism" of a how a hobby-based company runs its business. Heck, throw a tea party. That will really get their goat. They'll be so goat-depleted that they will have to import those nasty genetically-altered, irradiated goats from Europe.

Whatever you do, don't remind him that he's actually made seven posts to this thread. That would be 'post dissection' and he doesn't want to play that. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love it if I could just take a pass on any finder who won't have fun on my cache. Since I don't have that option I'd be perfectly happy if they at least let me have my fun placing. Right down to ALR's.

You can - list it somewhere else. Oh wait, caches listed elsewhere don't get visited nearly as often as those here. :P

100% true in my experience. I've listed some good caches elsewhere. One stop shopping and/or numbers keeps most folks here. Still, some of my better caches are elsewhere rapidly accuring their 3rd find in the past 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post

...I don't agree with your characterization. In contrast to, say, keeping track of 37 different land manager regulations, it was always easy to review an ALR cache -- just slap a form letter on it, just like I do for ...

The increasing volume of oddball ALR caches, and the whining which accompanied their review and publication, was beginning to approach the reviewer misery index reached by virtual caches in 2003.

 

Remember... you all were seeing just the ALR's in the form in which they were published.

 

My appologies. I didn't reallize that there were unquantified listing rules for ALR caches that were easy to use a form to deny and which then generated angst. MY ALR reviewer experinece was easy. It was the finders who made them less fun to own than a root canal (dental assistants alwasy seem to be cute and that at least takes the edge off a visit).

Share this post


Link to post

...I see that as being central to the complaints both for and against the new guideline. Some cache owners feel the need to force others to submit to their will, whilst other owners are just happy folks are finding their caches. Those in the first group are oft subjected to disappointment, as the world fails to fit their prescribed mold. Those in the latter group are happier more often, because of their inner tolerance and acceptance.

 

I like this. Let me reverse it.

 

Some cache finders feel the need to force others to submit to their will, whilst other finders are just happy folks are putting out their caches. Those in the first group are oft subjected to disappointment, as the world fails to fit their prescribed mold. Those in the latter group are happier more often, because of their inner tolerance and acceptance.

 

It works in reverse as well. So clearly the issue is something else.

Where does the force come in.

"If you will list it you will comply" Check

"If you find this wou will comply" Check.

Looks like "Force" applies either way with the change.

 

Perhaps that leaves freedom?

"You can hunt any cache you want on this site and avoid any one you want for any reason you want some have certain requiremens you may have to contend with"

This doesn't change with or without the ALR ban.

"You can no longer place ALR caches, you will allow logs that fit this new prescription for logging"

There you go. The difference.

Share this post


Link to post
I just looked BBNP up, and got "The user selected has invalidated his or her account." What!!! Is this the smellings of a Cover-up?

BBNP was abducted by a horde of rabid, feral hamsters as he was approaching Groundspeak Headquarters, in search of the cache there.

Signal felt it would be a PR nightmare if folks learned about his demise, and nuked his account.

You can read all about it in The National Inquirer :D

 

I like this. Let me reverse it.

If you like it, why reverse it? :D

 

Where does the force come in.

"If you will list it you will comply" Check

"If you find this wou will comply" Check.

Looks like "Force" applies either way with the change.

 

Your first example is a demonstration of the company imposing its will upon a cache hider. This has been going on since day one.

Your second example is a demonstration of a cache hider imposing his will upon the seekers through an ALR.

Neither example demonstrates any indication of force being applied to seekers by folks who place caches without ALRs.

Ergo, your examples are spurious and do not address the issue.

 

Perhaps that leaves freedom?

Freedom? On a private website? You really can't be serious. Should I be allowed to hide a cache that looks like a bundle of TNT, complete with timer & fake triggering device, under the steps of my local courthouse? If you say "No", then your argument is as hypocritical as it is spurious. After all, you don't want to impose on my "freedom", do you? :P

 

The "freedoms" granted to you as a cache hider are clearly spelled out in the guidelines.

If you are a control freak, or if you have a "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, these guidelines may not work for you.

As you've mentioned earlier, there are other listing sites which will still allow you to be a control freak and/or throw tantrums.

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post
I still Do NOT agree with the guidelines changes. Is there a way that (to avoid this rampant imperialism) that we as Players in the game(or sport.. or lifestyle) can Vote either For or against an upcoming change? I would even be willing to give the reviewers 3 votes all cast in the same manner for or against a guideline change. Also, How should one go about the possiability of reverting the latest guideline change, or even suggesting changes to the guidelines.

 

The Steaks

 

*Yes, I have read all posts to here!*

 

I'm confused. You don't agree with the change but you posted this found it log to a harmless little ALR that you could comply with from your keyboard while you logged it? It would appear from your actions that you are whole-heartedly in favor of the change.

 

My Official opinion is that ALRs should still exist. That log was my being frustrated with the current rules change, and Seriously Wished that the owner Could delete my log for Only that reason. YES, I KNOW WHERE THE CAPS LOCK KEY IS, but thats not the point here. Is it.

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

As you've mentioned earlier, there are other listing sites which will still allow you to be a control freak and/or throw tantrums.

... its temper-tantrums, but besides the point. Then to the next point. When will we see the "Big two" GC/TC start working together. I am NOT a numbers guy, but When will we see the options for adding our WM/TC finds to our find counts. I would guess that May appease some people.

 

Also, what is the next site that will be a Groundspeak site that Allows ALRs? Or do we just have to make them WiGs?

 

 

Where does the force come in.

"If you will list it you will comply" Check

"If you find this wou will comply" Check.

Looks like "Force" applies either way with the change.

 

I Was wondering when someone would put a Starwars quote in...

 

The Steaks

Share this post


Link to post

I do enjoy looking for fun caches. If I came across one with Arduous Lunatic Requirements then I just passed them up. Same as if driving by a road sign saying " Want to Log a Find? Stop here for your Free Root Canal at the All Night Dental Learning Center". Some people probably just can't wait to sit down and flip their lips open like hungry little birdies. More power to them. I just keep the wheels moving on.

Good thing is I don't remember seeing too many of those type anyway.

And for those that need to feel the whirl of a drill bit scoring their gums... they can still sit right down and let the good times roll! I don't think anyone is telling them that they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps that leaves freedom?

Freedom? On a private website? You really can't be serious. Should I be allowed to hide a cache that looks like a bundle of TNT, complete with timer & fake triggering device, under the steps of my local courthouse? If you say "No", then your argument is as hypocritical as it is spurious. After all, you don't want to impose on my "freedom", do you? :P

 

The "freedoms" granted to you as a cache hider are clearly spelled out in the guidelines.

If you are a control freak, or if you have a "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, these guidelines may not work for you.

As you've mentioned earlier, there are other listing sites which will still allow you to be a control freak and/or throw tantrums.

The issue isn't whether or not Groundspeak has the right to restrict which caches are listed on its site but what is the rationale for restricting the caches that are listed. Each guideline restricts a hider's freedom to participate in this game and perhaps to move it in the direction he sees fit. For the most part, Groundspeak wants to let geocachers police themselves. If someone has a good idea (like hiding a cache under a light post skirt where it is unlikely to be found by a muggle), that idea will get copied. Bad ideas generally will not take hold (although they don't die off because newbies continue to try them). Sometimes Groundspeak will make a guideline because of something they saw as a bad idea started to get traction (e.g., too many lame virtuals - add the "Wow" requirement).

 

The site has generally accepted that definition of when you and post a 'Found It' log would be policed by cache owners and not by the site. The few owners who abused this privelege were dealt with individually. This is where this guideline change is different, because it didn't ban a cache type or restrict a location where the cache could be placed or what you could write on the cache page. This guideline took away the right of the cache owner to defined what was required for a 'Found It' log on their cache.

 

Some people are arguing that the only restriction on the 'Found It' log should be that you sign the physical log. Up until April 4, however, Groundspeak allowed cache owners to have additional requirements for posting a 'Found It' log. They basically said to those who wanted a puritan definition when you could post 'Found It' that each cache owner had the freedom to have their own definition. They actually seemed to feel that asking finders to perform a simple task was not a bad idea. They trusted cache owners to police themselves and require tasks that were simple and fun (or added to the experience is a meaningful way). However, some cache owners began requesting onerous tasks be accomplished. These cache owners began to delete logs of people who tried to meet the requirement but couldn't quite satisfy the cache owner. They began asking for tasks that Groundspeak felt were not appropriate. Requiring that a cache be hidden or that a travel bug be left in the cache were determined to be in conflict with other Groundspeak policies. Some tasks, such as reserving FTF for a particular person, were also seen to benefit the cache owners friends at the expense of other caches and should not be allowed for that reason. And there were probably some tasks that were seen as distasteful and inappropriate for what is generally considered a family friendly activity. Unable to find language to restrict the bad ALRs that would be simple enough for hiders to understand and for reviewers to enforce, the guideline was change to restrict for the first time cache owners rights to deleted 'Found It' logs. It was decided that most 'bad' ALRs were acceptable so long as doing them was optional. And language was put into the guidelines to give the reviewers some wiggle room in denying ALRs that seem inappropriate even when optional.

 

I suspect it may be hard for some of the people who supported having ALRs to fathom the real intent of the change so long as the people who didn't think ALRs should have been allowed in the first place continue to state the reason they believe this. It doesn't seem seem to jive with the explanation that some of the reviewers and Groundspeak lackey have give in this thread. However I personally was swayed by one of the arguments made by those who have always opposed ALRs. There is a difference between requiring something extra be done to sign the physical log and requiring something extra be done so that your online 'Found It' log doesn't get deleted. I don't think you can reverse these two things. Clearly many people go geocaching and never log the caches they find online. The online log to me is a separate activity from geocaching. As such, I want to be able to use the online log to keep track of the caches I have found. If the cache owner wants me to write a haiku or post a picture from the cache site (and I know in advance so I remember to bring my camera), I can do this without it interfering with my ability to use the 'Found It' log as I want to. When they start asking me to do things I can't or won't do, it means that if I find their cache, I can't use the 'Found It' log as I want to. While I certainly could've ignored caches where I couldn't or wouldn't do the ALR (or better, find these caches and post a note instead of a 'Found It'), this left me with an uncomfortable feeling about the caches where I was happy to perform the ALR. Was I giving the owners of these cache some confirmation that the 'Found It' log had some value beyond my just wanting to keep track of my finds?

Share this post


Link to post

The issue isn't whether or not Groundspeak has the right to restrict which caches are listed on its site but what is the rationale for restricting the caches that are listed. Each guideline restricts a hider's freedom to participate in this game and perhaps to move it in the direction he sees fit.

That isn't quite true. No guideline on this site restricts a hider's freedom to participate in geocaching. This site's guidelines only affect what is allowed on this site. Geocaching.com may be the most popular listing site for geocaches, but you are free to play anywhere you want. You're even free to start your own site if you want. That's the beauty of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post

The issue isn't whether or not Groundspeak has the right to restrict which caches are listed on its site but what is the rationale for restricting the caches that are listed. Each guideline restricts a hider's freedom to participate in this game and perhaps to move it in the direction he sees fit.

That isn't quite true. No guideline on this site restricts a hider's freedom to participate in geocaching. This site's guidelines only affect what is allowed on this site. Geocaching.com may be the most popular listing site for geocaches, but you are free to play anywhere you want. You're even free to start your own site if you want. That's the beauty of capitalism.

 

Yeah, but it is like GC.com being the drug supplier and I am the addict. I get angry when the supplier changes what I got used to and the supplier tells me I can go somewhere else. Of course I cannot go somewhere else, because I am addicted to this place! I have been here for six years, so I cannot just leave my addiction. :D

 

At least the drug supplier gave me a forum where I can speak my disgust for the change. Maybe they will someday be more receptive, but I will continue to play either way. We'll see when the next cache type becomes a pain in the rear. I await the next announcement. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Many thanks for removing ALR.

 

But introducing challenge caches was not a good idea. Why should one be allowed to log a cache only if one has found some other caches?

 

They are not introducing Challange Caches - just recognizing that they permitted despite the ALR. I own "A BC Challange" that requires you find a cache for each letter of the alphabet before attempting the cache. It creates a nice optional activity and has encouraged some rare letter caches to be placed.

 

Also OK (I presume) is Puzzle Caches that require finding info in various other caches to assemble the coords. Do you have an issue with these kind of series caches?

Share this post


Link to post
It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

I think it'd be more accurate to say, "It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining from the site", assuming of course that the volunteer reviewers would qualify as being part and parcel of what most would consider as "the site". As I understand the issue, this was done to make the reviewer's jobs easier, not to satisfy the whims of whiners. If satisfying whiners was Groundspeak's primary function, LPCs would've went away years ago.

I don't agree with your characterization. In contrast to, say, keeping track of 37 different land manager regulations, it was always easy to review an ALR cache -- just slap a form letter on it, just like I do for caches too close to railroad tracks. It was the whining in response to that which made my volunteer life less fun. Ditto to listening to people complaining to me about their log being deleted because their picture wasn't exactly right, and asking me to mediate.

 

The increasing volume of oddball ALR caches, and the whining which accompanied their review and publication, was beginning to approach the reviewer misery index reached by virtual caches in 2003.

 

Remember... you all were seeing just the ALR's in the form in which they were published.

 

Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

 

ALRs could be reinstated with the guideline that "No reviewer will be required to get involved in any dispute between a cache owner and a cache finder. Groundspeak will remain neutral on all ALR caches."

 

ALR caches could be required to have the following warning posted in the cach listing, in bold red lettering-

 

This is an ALR geocache. This cache has been designed only for the most daring and wild geocachers who thoroughly enjoy risking their lives and limbs -- and sanity -- in pursuit of their sport. DO NOT tackle this cache if you are afraid of being embarrassed, annoyed, psychologically disturbed or having fun.

If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city, county and state governments) are NOT responsible for any embarrassment, annoyance, psychological disturbance (pre or post cache) or fun which may befall you or your team members, nor for any harm or hazards to which others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) may be exposed. Most importantly -No Whining will be allowed!

 

Wouldn't this solve the problem? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

~Cache warning verbiage shamelessly borrowed and altered from one of Vinny & Sue Team's caches.~

Thanks.

Edited by team moxiepup

Share this post


Link to post

...

If you are a control freak,

...

control freak

...

You know, your idiotic name calling really detracts from any point you are trying to make. I might listen to you more if you'd leave off said nonsense!

Share this post


Link to post

...Like I said way back in the sub-1000 posts era of this thread, when dinosaurs roamed the earth- it's time to either accept the change and move on or not accept the change and move on.

 

I'm glad somebody said that.

 

Or option #3: start an on-line petition and post to your myspace/facebook/twitter account about the "rampant imperialism" of a how a hobby-based company runs its business. Heck, throw a tea party. That will really get their goat. They'll be so goat-depleted that they will have to import those nasty genetically-altered, irradiated goats from Europe.

 

Hey! :rolleyes: Stay away from our goats, will ya?

 

smile_goat.gif

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post

 

ALR caches has been designed only for the most daring and wild geocachers who thoroughly enjoy risking their lives and limbs -- and sanity -- in pursuit of their sport. DO NOT tackle any ALR cache if you are afraid of being embarrassed, annoyed, psychologically disturbed or having fun. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city, county and state governments) are NOT responsible for any embarrassment, annoyance, psychological disturbance (pre or post cache) or fun which may befall you or your team members, nor for any harm or hazards to which others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) may be exposed. Most importantly -No Whining will be allowed!

 

 

Of course, at the same time, they could have just written That into the site Guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining to the site.

I think it'd be more accurate to say, "It was about following the path that resulted in the least whining from the site", assuming of course that the volunteer reviewers would qualify as being part and parcel of what most would consider as "the site". As I understand the issue, this was done to make the reviewer's jobs easier, not to satisfy the whims of whiners. If satisfying whiners was Groundspeak's primary function, LPCs would've went away years ago.

I don't agree with your characterization. In contrast to, say, keeping track of 37 different land manager regulations, it was always easy to review an ALR cache -- just slap a form letter on it, just like I do for caches too close to railroad tracks. It was the whining in response to that which made my volunteer life less fun. Ditto to listening to people complaining to me about their log being deleted because their picture wasn't exactly right, and asking me to mediate.

 

The increasing volume of oddball ALR caches, and the whining which accompanied their review and publication, was beginning to approach the reviewer misery index reached by virtual caches in 2003.

 

Remember... you all were seeing just the ALR's in the form in which they were published.

 

Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

 

ALRs could be reinstated with the guideline that "No reviewer will be required to get involved in any dispute between a cache owner and a cache finder. Groundspeak will remain neutral on all ALR caches."

 

ALR caches could be required to have the following warning posted in the cach listing, in bold red lettering-

 

This is an ALR geocache. This cache has been designed only for the most daring and wild geocachers who thoroughly enjoy risking their lives and limbs -- and sanity -- in pursuit of their sport. DO NOT tackle this cache if you are afraid of being embarrassed, annoyed, psychologically disturbed or having fun.

If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city, county and state governments) are NOT responsible for any embarrassment, annoyance, psychological disturbance (pre or post cache) or fun which may befall you or your team members, nor for any harm or hazards to which others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) may be exposed. Most importantly -No Whining will be allowed!

 

Wouldn't this solve the problem? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

~Cache warning verbiage shamelessly borrowed and altered from one of Vinny & Sue Team's caches.~

Thanks.

 

Yeah, that would certainly be the end f the problem! B) Basically, you'd be giving the owner the right to delete anything for any reason at any time...should really make the game friendlier and running smoothly! Don't like the neighbor's dog, delete the neighbors' finds. The last finder didn't place it exactly where you originally did, delete the find (regardless of if the previous finder did replace it exactly where he FOUND it). No thanks, I'd rather have an authorative voice keeping things in order than anarchy!

Share this post


Link to post

 

ALR caches has been designed only for the most daring and wild geocachers who thoroughly enjoy risking their lives and limbs -- and sanity -- in pursuit of their sport. DO NOT tackle any ALR cache if you are afraid of being embarrassed, annoyed, psychologically disturbed or having fun. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city, county and state governments) are NOT responsible for any embarrassment, annoyance, psychological disturbance (pre or post cache) or fun which may befall you or your team members, nor for any harm or hazards to which others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) may be exposed. Most importantly -No Whining will be allowed!

 

 

Of course, at the same time, they could have just written That into the site Guidelines.

 

Yes, they could have...and I am SURE GLAD they went the way they did! The idea of allowing the cache owner to do whatever they wish is scary. Why even bother to have them ask permission, why not allow them on RR tracks? Hey, maybe we should allow people to hide them in businesses which would then require you to pay to get the find. Maybe we should allow agendas and controlling ALRs and just take GS right out of it altogether...why even have reviewers at all?

 

I could see that as the end of this site in mere weeks to months! Landowners would restrict use, finders would soon be stealing caches from people they were wronged by while hiders continue to push the envelope further and further since there's no guiding force anymore!

 

The only thing this suggestion does is give the cache owner COMPLETE control over everything...NO THANKS!!!

Share this post


Link to post

...

If you are a control freak,

...

control freak

...

You know, your idiotic name calling really detracts from any point you are trying to make. I might listen to you more if you'd leave off said nonsense!

 

So you back it up with name calling...good show!

 

I agree with Clan, I agree with the control freak label as well, some of the owners truly ARE control freaks, sorry if this upsets you.

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

Now where would be the fun in that? B)<_<

 

idiotic name calling

What's that dripping noise I hear? Oh, it's irony. Hello Pot. My name's Kettle. Black really is your color. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

 

ALR caches has been designed only for the most daring and wild geocachers who thoroughly enjoy risking their lives and limbs -- and sanity -- in pursuit of their sport. DO NOT tackle any ALR cache if you are afraid of being embarrassed, annoyed, psychologically disturbed or having fun. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city, county and state governments) are NOT responsible for any embarrassment, annoyance, psychological disturbance (pre or post cache) or fun which may befall you or your team members, nor for any harm or hazards to which others (i.e., friends, family, coworkers) may be exposed. Most importantly -No Whining will be allowed!

 

 

Of course, at the same time, they could have just written That into the site Guidelines.

 

Yes, they could have...and I am SURE GLAD they went the way they did! The idea of allowing the cache owner to do whatever they wish is scary. Why even bother to have them ask permission, why not allow them on RR tracks? Hey, maybe we should allow people to hide them in businesses which would then require you to pay to get the find. Maybe we should allow agendas and controlling ALRs and just take GS right out of it altogether...why even have reviewers at all?

 

I could see that as the end of this site in mere weeks to months! Landowners would restrict use, finders would soon be stealing caches from people they were wronged by while hiders continue to push the envelope further and further since there's no guiding force anymore!

 

The only thing this suggestion does is give the cache owner COMPLETE control over everything...NO THANKS!!!

 

Whoa there! Easy fella... B)

 

The above mentioned whining guideline was written only in referance to ALR caches (Hint- Read the first sentence), and pertained only to the whining. I really don't see where permission issues or safety concerns were said to be null and void. How does "No whining" equate to "give the cache owner COMPLETE control over everything"? <_<

 

Oh yeah... another issue with my post. It was satire. Tongue in cheek satire, but satire none the less. :rolleyes:

 

Here's a thought... Play the game YOUR way, just don't ruin it for everyone else!

 

nowhine_sign-personal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

Now where would be the fun in that? :rolleyes:B)

 

Could be fun, even profitable! <_<

 

25572.jpg

Edited by team moxiepup

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

 

ALRs could be reinstated with the guideline that "No reviewer will be required to get involved in any dispute between a cache owner and a cache finder. Groundspeak will remain neutral on all ALR caches."

 

ALR caches could be required to have the following warning posted in the cach listing, in bold red lettering-

 

This is an ALR geocache. ... No Whining will be allowed!

 

Wouldn't this solve the problem? :rolleyes:

This suggestion wouldn't solve teh problems that were reported.

 

Happily, no further 'solution' is required as the guidelines change appears to resolve the bulk of the reported problems.

 

Also, I find it to be ironic that the bulk of the whiners are those who are upset because they won't be able to arbitrarily delete logs any longer. It appears that they are whining because they think that the change was due to other people whining (even though that had little to do with the decision, apparently).

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

 

ALRs could be reinstated with the guideline that "No reviewer will be required to get involved in any dispute between a cache owner and a cache finder. Groundspeak will remain neutral on all ALR caches."

 

ALR caches could be required to have the following warning posted in the cach listing, in bold red lettering-

 

This is an ALR geocache. ... No Whining will be allowed!

 

Wouldn't this solve the problem? :rolleyes:

This suggestion wouldn't solve teh problems that were reported.

 

Happily, no further 'solution' is required as the guidelines change appears to resolve the bulk of the reported problems.

 

Also, I find it to be ironic that the bulk of the whiners are those who are upset because they won't be able to arbitrarily delete logs any longer. It appears that they are whining because they think that the change was due to other people whining (even though that had little to do with the decision, apparently).

 

I find it ironic that the bulk of the people in favor of the guideline change assume they know the reason why the pro ALR folks will miss the ALRs. Arbitrary deletions were never my motive for wanting to hide one, or a worry when hunting for one. And yes, apparently the whining of folks who found ALRs caches but chose not to do the ALR, was a major contributing factor.

Share this post


Link to post

...Freedom? On a private website? You really can't be serious. Should I be allowed to hide a cache that looks like a bundle of TNT, complete with timer & fake triggering device, under the steps of my local courthouse? If you say "No", then your argument is as hypocritical as it is spurious. After all, you don't want to impose on my "freedom", do you? :rolleyes:

 

The "freedoms" granted to you as a cache hider are clearly spelled out in the guidelines.

If you are a control freak, or if you have a "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, these guidelines may not work for you.

As you've mentioned earlier, there are other listing sites which will still allow you to be a control freak and/or throw tantrums.

 

Yes Freedom.

You are absolutly free to place a cache that looks like TNT. Your freedom to do so doesn't at all mean you won't have to face the consequences of your actions. Freedom comes with responsiblity. That part I know you know so I wonder why you bring it into a debate over ALR's.

 

Caching freedoms are not granted to me by this site. Rather this site is free to create guideliens on what they will list. We are free to debate in the forums those guidelines because this site has wisely chosen to allow this in the forums where they can monotor the discussion and use it as feedback.

 

I made a case that ALR's take away certain freedoms of those who choose to list here. I also made the case that finders throwing a hissy fit over their own "rules" being imposed on the cache owners are as much of a control freak as those they accuse. If you made a case with this post I didn't see it. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Wouldn't it have been easiest to abolish whining?

 

ALRs could be reinstated with the guideline that "No reviewer will be required to get involved in any dispute between a cache owner and a cache finder. Groundspeak will remain neutral on all ALR caches."

 

ALR caches could be required to have the following warning posted in the cach listing, in bold red lettering-

 

This is an ALR geocache. ... No Whining will be allowed!

 

Wouldn't this solve the problem? :rolleyes:

This suggestion wouldn't solve teh problems that were reported.

 

Happily, no further 'solution' is required as the guidelines change appears to resolve the bulk of the reported problems.

 

Also, I find it to be ironic that the bulk of the whiners are those who are upset because they won't be able to arbitrarily delete logs any longer. It appears that they are whining because they think that the change was due to other people whining (even though that had little to do with the decision, apparently).

 

I find it ironic that the bulk of the people in favor of the guideline change assume they know the reason why the pro ALR folks will miss the ALRs. Arbitrary deletions were never my motive for wanting to hide one, or a worry when hunting for one. And yes, apparently the whining of folks who found ALRs caches but chose not to do the ALR, was a major contributing factor.

Not a large one, according to those in the know.

Share this post


Link to post

...I agree with Clan, I agree with the control freak label as well, some of the owners truly ARE control freaks, sorry if this upsets you.

Some cache owners are control freaks. So are some finders.

I see little difference between. "Do my ALR My Way or I'l delete your log" and "I'll do your cache my way so tough nuts to you on any rule you may have on it".

 

The control freak argument works for and against both sides here.

Personally I think the finders should lose because their control issue can cause harm. While a owner's is only annoying.

 

Simple case.

Bats. They hibernate. An ALR that says "Finds are only allowed during summer and all logs from any other time are deleted" is apt. A anti ALR finder that says "you control freak, you aint' the boss of me" and goes and finds the cache who logs is creating a problem for the bats, the land mangager who allowed the cache who sees the flagrant disrespect. Oh and posting that there are hibernating bats that caused the ALR to be created can be counter productive since some folks would see that as an invication to go see the bats.

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...