Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 23
MissJenn

update to Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, April 2009

Recommended Posts

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

One can only hope.

 

Groundspeak does not approve earthcaches, they only list them. The guideline for an earthcache is that it must first be approved by earthcache.org. That is about the only guideline. So I don't think earthcaches are going anywhere for a long time.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
I rarely post in the forum's but this one is annoying, especially the whining by those who want to force everyone else to do things their way.

 

I'm disappointed about the ALR decision.

Isn't that a contradiction?
No. I understood what he meant.

 

On one hand you seem to be suggesting that cachers imposing their will upon others is bad.
When The Complainers want to remove a way to list caches simply because they don't like them, that's bad. The Complainers never HAD to hunt for any of the caches, but you'd never know it by listening to you and the rest of The Complainers go on and on about how you were being forced to do something you didn't want to do. So he's saying that The Complainers finally got their way, and the option to hide an ALR cache is now gone from the people that liked them as well as the people that didn't.

 

On the other hand you seem to be expressing disappointment that Groundspeak took steps which prevented cachers from imposing their will upon others.
I'm still waiting to hear an example of a single cache, ALR or not, that you've ever been forced to do. Cachers were never imposing their will upon others. All ALR caches were always optional to go after. Once you chose to log a Find on one, you would have also agreed, on your own, to meet the requirement for logging - without being forced.

 

Heck, you could always find them even if you didn't want to do the requirement, you just couldn't log the Find. And that's why people are saying this was a win for the numbers hounds too. It always sounded like The Complainers were more upset that they wouldn't get the smiley they so often looked down upon.

 

Maybe I need a nap. :)
That's not all you need.

Share this post


Link to post

As I'm reading through this thread (who said it would be shut down after 3 pages? :) ) I see how I could apply the guideline change to another of my caches. "Cedar Tree Fishing Hole" is a cache located in Oregon's Tillamook State Forest along an ORV (Off Road Vehicle, aka 4-wheeler and/or "Jeep") trail. Many cachers can get to it by using an ORV. Others drive as close as they can and hike in. Now, if I "required" that cachers find the cache with an ORV, I'd miss out on all of the great logs from cachers who hiked or drove the trail. I'm glad that some have chosen to drive in (a fun way to be able to drive under a huge fallen old-growth cedar tree deep in the woods), but would hate to limit folks to a smiley because they didn't follow some "requirement" I made for logging the cache.

 

Then it's great that you have not added an ALR to your cache. You don't have to. No cache owner has to or had to, and most won't. There are more than 750 000 active caches in the world - I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of them don't have an ALR. I for my part welcome the diversity of all these caches!

 

Of course there are some (or many?) caches I wouldn't do, because they mean no fun to me. Well, I don't have to - and maybe they are great for other cachers - now that's a win-win situation in my book.

 

Cheers,

Christian (Owyn)

 

:D

I guess I started something...without starting something...

Take a look at the rest of the previous 7 pages, and you'll see how I feel. I guess my depression wore off quickly, and now I'm ready to get back to the rest of my life and all of the other caches instead of worrying about losing ALRs. Now...If Unknown/Mysteries get nixed...then you'll see my undies in a bunch...

 

Now I'll go back to eating popcorn... <sigh>

Share this post


Link to post

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

The guideline goes on to say that cache owners must cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements. It does say if the logs can be deleted for other reasons if the the physical log has been signed. It also confusing because of additional guideline for challenge caches which seem to contradict this guideline.

 

No I don't think it is confusing. All it says about challenge caches is that either you can complete the challenge OR a substation number of other cachers can complete the challenge. That seems pretty clear. I think the extra verbiage about challenge caches is because HQ wanted to be clear that the guideline change was not aimed at challenge caches and that new challenge caches should be doable. I personally think this guideline change probably only affects a very small number of caches. I would guess less than 1% and probably less than 0.5%. I can think of one fun cache I did that had a ALR but know of several in my area that I would classify as just pure vindictive. Unfortunately the fun has to go with the vindictive.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

I can only think of a handful of ALR caches I have ever run across and I did not think there was anything wrong with them. But obviously some of the things mentioned here are a problem and should not be allowed. I think caching should be about trying to find a cache with a GPS. That is why I agreed with the decision to ban locationless caches (I did some but never did the yellow jeep). It is also the reason why I think pure puzzle caches should be banned. What does spending hours doing some puzzle that has nothing to do with caching have to do with trying to find a cache with a GPS. Most of the puzzle caches I have seen make much less sense than the ALR complaints. But there can be legitimate reasons for ALRs. I cannot say the same for having to spend hours solving some puzzle that has nothing to do with caching (or as many like me do - get the answer from someone). I would not see a problem having a multi cache where you could skip a stage by solving a puzzle, but it seems to me you should be able to find all caches with your GPS and two feet.

Share this post


Link to post

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

 

Why would anyone assume that? Earthcaches are specifically exempt from this new change.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that I have ranted, let me discuss the underlying problem. Why should all the responsibility of dealing with these issues be with GC.com and the reviewers? How about giving the USERS tools to deal with lame caches and caches that abuse the rules. Instead of a Draconian ban on ALR caches, how about ways for users to place peer pressure on problem cache hiders?

 

Why not allow a cache finder to anonymously rate a cache when they log it. Then the cache page could have the avg rating and how many have rated it. PQs could have the ability to filter caches by rating. I bet this would embarrass most to clean up their acts.

 

I also think people should not be able to have multiple accounts. Lots of times a cache owner will use a separate account for all or some of their hides to conceal their identity. I think this should not be allowed as it hinders peer pressure. Well I suppose there are some limited circumstances where this could be appropriate. There should also be a requirement that you need to find 10 or so caches before you hide one.

 

Maybe there could be a system if a certain number of people think a cahce sucks but complies with the rules, it could have a vote by cachers to determine if it should be shut down.

Share this post


Link to post

4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpgThank you Miss Jenn and the others - I am sure you thought thru this carefully and weighed a ton of arguments... Grab your bottle of Tylenol and take a break from reading for a while. Bravo.

 

I have some ignored caches to un-ignore now... and I wont look like a total idiot now, just a normal idiot.

 

4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Why not allow a cache finder to anonymously rate a cache when they log it. Then the cache page could have the avg rating and how many have rated it. PQs could have the ability to filter caches by rating. I bet this would embarrass most to clean up their acts.

 

Great... around here.. people would just sling crudd on my ratings just because I am me... it would have little to do with how the cache was or wasnt... people would sling mud just like on this forum... its an online game and people treat each other pretty much without much regard online.

 

Wow, it would be funny to see who was hated to the most in their area .... 4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpgThank you Miss Jenn and the others - I am sure you thought thru this carefully and weighed a ton of arguments... Grab your bottle of Tylenol and take a break from reading for a while. Bravo.
Many of us did indeed take quite some time and weighed many arguments.

There are some in this thread who suggest that this was some sort of a flippant decision made on a Friday afternoon so that we can then just take off for the weekend. No more problems by the time Monday comes around. Those are totally the wrong conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpg4c0a4ae0-0076-4ae0-80d9-c440aa1133e3.jpgThank you Miss Jenn and the others - I am sure you thought thru this carefully and weighed a ton of arguments... Grab your bottle of Tylenol and take a break from reading for a while. Bravo.
Many of us did indeed take quite some time and weighed many arguments.

There are some in this thread who suggest that this was some sort of a flippant decision made on a Friday afternoon so that we can then just take off for the weekend. No more problems by the time Monday comes around. Those are totally the wrong conclusions.

 

I would like to thank all of Groundspeak for the hard work and dedication the put in so we can all have a Hobby that I enjoy so very much. This isn't going to affect anything and I doubt many people will remember it in a month.

 

StaticTank

Share this post


Link to post
Wow... :) After reading six pages, I'm impressed with all the ways folks found to misread, misinterpret, and complain about the ALR and related guidelines changes, which seem to be a good thing, esp. after reading the context provided on p.2 by reviewer riviouveur and other knowledgeable sources. I reeeeally don't think the sky is gonna fall, or that Unknown caches, challenge caches, or Earthcaches are next on the hit list because of the ALR change (sounds a bit like an NRA scare tactic).

 

To an earlier comment by my local pal, The Jester - Yep, I'm impacted by the potential changes in cache categories as former ALR caches are changed from Unknown to another classification. Just this week I found a ? cache for the Know Your Local Cacher Challenge that was an ALR. I admit, I did it because the ALR was so easy (talk like a pirate when you sign the log). If I need to find another ? by that cacher to complete the challenge, I won't lose any sleep over it (well...I might, his true puzzles caches are pretty tuff).

 

Anywho, for VirginiaGator and others bemoaning the imminent demise in creativity now that they can't force finders to perform stunts to their liking, you decide: Perego's Lagoon (aka The Hula Cache). I bet you can guess the ALRequest..."Bonus points for doing the hula at the cache site and posting a picture." A shocking number of finders have complied with this silliness over the past four years, despite it being optional. Some even made the mile-long trek to the cache carrying appropriate regalia.

 

These people are clearly having no fun at all...

 

bb222650-a2c6-4a02-80fc-d6b45dcc1dd6.jpg

 

2600d79c-ce45-4993-8ac7-315d226e9317.jpg

 

b0285e02-14c8-4cd9-b709-6933eea7e776.jpg

 

7878575b-eded-4ebe-ae04-1b0c5fa3bd4e.jpg

 

f9462730-32b0-4f7a-bf90-2c8a1477acd9.jpg

 

Bonus points if you can pick out three posters on this thread (including the OP) in the photos. :D

 

Levity over. I now return you to the gripefest...

When I quote folks in a reply, I often just snip out the part that I am specifically replying to. In this case, I'm copying your whole post, hydnsek. Thanks for this: for all of this entire post.

 

I haven't read every single post in these 9 pages. Has anyone been able to earn the bonus points for picking out three posters on this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

I seriously doubt it.

Jim

Over the years, Groundspeak has rolled back quite a number of changes due to a critical mass of feedback from the community. In a way, turning Additional Logging Requirements into "optional tasks" is one of those rollbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
If on the other hand it is an enforceable rule and Groundspeak has the mechanism to punish cache owners who aren't following it then I'm afraid TPTB are no better than the owners of ALRs who have been characterized as control freaks.

Groundspeak is not the legal system and doesn't have to come up with a complete justice system every time a law rule guideline is changed.

 

The game works on good faith and the 99.9% of people who abide by the rules, including the ones that they personally don't think so much of, will continue to ensure that this is so.

 

If a few "ex-ALR" cache owners insist on deleting logs, then I imagine that one of two "weapons" will be used: the ability to make a log undeletable, or archiving the cache. This is of course pending "Frogslap", a new feature to allow Signal to really punish you by having your GPSr deliver a 50,000 volt shock (I believe Jeremy is in discussions with Garmin about adding that to the "West Virginia", the next model in the Colorado/Oregon series).

That's Frogslap™, actually.

We haven't decided yet how Platinum Members will be affected by Frogslap™.

Share this post


Link to post

What would be the current call on an ALR cache that was a challenge to find 100 events before logging? Obviously I ignored it and still plan on ignoring it as I am not even a 1/3 way there in 3 years... There is one like that in our area and I doubt it fits the challenge decision that 1) the owner could do it themselves, 2) that a substantial number of people could log it... - Like 3 folks in our area...

 

100 Events

Share this post


Link to post

When I quote folks in a reply, I often just snip out the part that I am specifically replying to. In this case, I'm copying your whole post, hydnsek. Thanks for this: for all of this entire post.

 

I haven't read every single post in these 9 pages. Has anyone been able to earn the bonus points for picking out three posters on this thread?

You're more than welcome. :D And nope, nobody's even tried. I think they're all too busy formulating their next line of argument. :)

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

I seriously doubt it.

Jim

Over the years, Groundspeak has rolled back quite a number of changes due to a critical mass of feedback from the community. In a way, turning Additional Logging Requirements into "optional tasks" is one of those rollbacks.

 

Yes, I stand corrected. mtn-man pointed out the smiley count thing that I was unaware of. I do support the change. I did a ALR cache that was fun but I'm sure it will continue just fine as an optional task cache. Thank you for your comments and taking the time this evening to comment.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

I seriously doubt it.

Jim

Over the years, Groundspeak has rolled back quite a number of changes due to a critical mass of feedback from the community. In a way, turning Additional Logging Requirements into "optional tasks" is one of those rollbacks.

 

I'm sorry, I am a little slow. Could you explain the term "roll back"? What I get from it is that you mean when geocaching has banned or gotten rid of certain caches, but I could be dead wrong. I hope these forums and angry e-mails aren't the sole source of community feedback that is used in determining regulation changes. The fact that they are majorly biased scares me of future developments that could occur.

 

Thank you for your kind explanations, btw! Even those of us against this new decision appreciate it when TPTB are courteous and forward.

Share this post


Link to post

When I quote folks in a reply, I often just snip out the part that I am specifically replying to. In this case, I'm copying your whole post, hydnsek. Thanks for this: for all of this entire post.

 

I haven't read every single post in these 9 pages. Has anyone been able to earn the bonus points for picking out three posters on this thread?

You're more than welcome. B) And nope, nobody's even tried. I think they're all too busy formulating their next line of argument. :D

I didn't figure it would be fair for me to do it... :):D

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe You probably have a good reason for this change, but i ( and no'ne of my caching friends!) can see it.

How about a good explaination?

Explanations have already been posted to this thread, but they're a bit hard to find among all the other posts.

 

Sorry, i can't find an explaination. Only lame excuses for new arbitrary limitations.

 

Franz

Edited by massafranz

Share this post


Link to post

On the second page, look for a post that includes the following:

One of the groups pushing for this guideline change was a substantial majority of the volunteer reviewers. It's not much fun publishing caches where you know that almost nobody - including the cache owner themselves, in many cases - has the slightest hope of ever meeting the ALR. Quite a few of the ALR submissions which we see border on the vindictive.

 

...And why the heck don't you just filter out things like that?

Why do you make the whole community suffering for the ?mistakes? of some single individuals?

Let 'em proof that it's solveable, and it's OK.

If i don't like to fulfill an ALR of a cache, i leave the cache.

And if I require ALR's for one of my caches , there's a (for me very good) reason for it.

 

Like i already wrote: If you keep on getting the rules closer and closer, i will public my 'cans' on other platforms. So what....

 

Franz

Share this post


Link to post

We can only assume that Earthcaches will be the next to go.

 

Why would anyone assume that? Earthcaches are specifically exempt from this new change.

 

One of two reasons...either those who post these comments actually believe this and are paranoid of TPTB's powers OR they don't believe this and are alarmists trying to feed on the paranoia of those that actually do buy into this. Either way, :)

Share this post


Link to post

[

 

On one hand you seem to be suggesting that cachers imposing their will upon others is bad.
When The Complainers want to remove a way to list caches simply because they don't like them, that's bad. The Complainers never HAD to hunt for any of the caches, but you'd never know it by listening to you and the rest of The Complainers go on and on about how you were being forced to do something you didn't want to do. So he's saying that The Complainers finally got their way, and the option to hide an ALR cache is now gone from the people that liked them as well as the people that didn't.

 

Does anyone remember who some of the "complainers" were? Those "complainers' WERE forced into something, something they started not to like. Those "complainers' Had to deal with this carp more and more, making their experience less-than-enjoyable (from what I've read). Anyone remember who this group was????

 

Oh, now I remember...the reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

Not quite. Going back to the beginning there have always been requirements in addition to just finding the cache.

 

Dave Ulmer wrote in his posting "The Great American GPS Stash Hunt !":

"The only rule for stashes is: Get some Stuff, Leave some Stuff!!"

 

In his announcement of the first geocache or "Stash #1" he wrote:

"Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book."

 

If interpreted strictly this is not "please do so", it is "do so!"...

 

I read this a bit differently than that, I read it as Dave left out two words (possibly by accident??)...those words being "IF YOU". I say by accident, but probably Dave never imagined some would end up being so stuck on definitions to an activity meant to be fun.

 

Let me see if I can help: IF YOU get some stuff, leave some stuff. I hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post

Am I correct in that all ALR-related caches are now being relegated to the mystery/puzzle cache category? That looks like a simple change.

Edited by Team_Bucky

Share this post


Link to post

Cache Owner = Hide a cache for others to find

Cache Finder = Use the information presented to find the cache

 

Going back to the beginning, it's really as simple as that.

 

Not quite. Going back to the beginning there have always been requirements in addition to just finding the cache.

 

Dave Ulmer wrote in his posting "The Great American GPS Stash Hunt !":

"The only rule for stashes is: Get some Stuff, Leave some Stuff!!"

 

In his announcement of the first geocache or "Stash #1" he wrote:

"Take some stuff, leave some stuff! Record it all in the log book."

 

If interpreted strictly this is not "please do so", it is "do so!"...

 

I read this a bit differently than that, I read it as Dave left out two words (possibly by accident??)...those words being "IF YOU". I say by accident, but probably Dave never imagined some would end up being so stuck on definitions to an activity meant to be fun.

 

Let me see if I can help: IF YOU get some stuff, leave some stuff. I hope this helps!

 

Of course I don't interpret Dave's writing in a strict way! I just wanted to point out that geocaching has evolved quite a bit since the first cache. Now there are multi caches, puzzle caches and so many other changes and additions. I welcome most of them. There are so many caches in the world that no one is "forced" to do any of them.

 

We all can just ignore caches we don't like. Either by using the "ignore" feature (although I think it isn't consider in the map feature) or by using our cognitive abilities.

 

I would have loved a change of cache types and/or attributes in a way that anyone can see directly not only what type of cache it is (traditional / multi), but also if he has to do something before the hunt (maybe an added "?" to the cache icon) and/or if he has to do something after finding the cache (maybe an added "+" to the cache icon).

 

What would remain is the added hassle for the reviewers. This could possibly be solved my stating clearly in the guidelines that if a cache owner wants to have an ALR, he has to prove to the reviewers that he has fulfilled the requirements himself.

If a cache owner still wants anyone to wear a silly hat, put up a tent on a market place or embrace a policeman, he would have to do himself and send his reviewer a photo of this. I guess many of the silly ALRs would go away.

 

And I think there are quite legitimate ALRs: I consider it cheating if anyone signs the logbook of a tree climbing or similar T5 cache that is handed down to him - unless I know that he would be able to get to the cache himself.

 

Cheers,

Christian (Owyn)

Share this post


Link to post

I think this cache, published Friday, April 3rd is one of the first "suggested ALR" caches published in the world. I, for one, am looking forward to having my picture taken with the funny nose and glasses in the cache. I'm just zany and madcap that way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Many of us did indeed take quite some time and weighed many arguments.

There are some in this thread who suggest that this was some sort of a flippant decision made on a Friday afternoon so that we can then just take off for the weekend. No more problems by the time Monday comes around. Those are totally the wrong conclusions.

Be that as it may (and I'm not disputing it), it still seems to me like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, as was the recent <div> fiasco.

 

Over the years, Groundspeak has rolled back quite a number of changes due to a critical mass of feedback from the community. In a way, turning Additional Logging Requirements into "optional tasks" is one of those rollbacks.

Yes, they rolled back the <div> block, and they should roll back the ALR removal. - There are better ways to handle the problems a few ALRs have been causing, without getting rid of those that nicely add to the geocaching experience.

(I have made suggestions earlier in this thread if you want to know my suggestions.)

Share this post


Link to post
On one hand you seem to be suggesting that cachers imposing their will upon others is bad.
When The Complainers want to remove a way to list caches simply because they don't like them, that's bad. The Complainers never HAD to hunt for any of the caches, but you'd never know it by listening to you and the rest of The Complainers go on and on about how you were being forced to do something you didn't want to do. So he's saying that The Complainers finally got their way, and the option to hide an ALR cache is now gone from the people that liked them as well as the people that didn't.
Does anyone remember who some of the "complainers" were? Those "complainers' WERE forced into something, something they started not to like. Those "complainers' Had to deal with this carp more and more, making their experience less-than-enjoyable (from what I've read). Anyone remember who this group was????
Yeah, I remember who they were. Mostly they're the ones jumping up and down in this thread rejoicing the fact that they're no longer "forced" to do something they had never been forced to do.

 

They're the ones that are really happy that some enjoyment has been taken away from others, even though their enjoyment level wasn't increased as a result.

 

I know them very well.

Edited by Mushtang

Share this post


Link to post

Because of this rule change, I have decided to disable all of my caches, until I can decide whether to archive them or change them. I have 8 caches (no big deal). 2 are Earthcaches and 6 are puzzle caches. Five of the puzzle caches are of a historic theme. In order to log them you are required to go to the site, log the book, look around for some answer for the questions supplied. These are not silly requirements like put a=on a funny hat. These answers are the reason I set up the caches. To learn a little about the history of the city I live in. If the cacher no longer needs to answer the questions the reason for the cache is no longer valid.

 

I was informed by a GC representative that I will no longer be allowed to remove the names of loggers who do not answer the questions and I had to make the questions optional. I was also advised that two of these caches should be made multis because the container is some metres away from the cache. The reason they are offset is that there is no good hiding location at the monuments or signage where the coords take you.

 

Rather than changing my caches to suit the new rules, I think I will most likely just get out of the cache owning business and become a just a collector.

Share this post


Link to post
I was also advised that two of these caches should be made multis because the container is some metres away from the cache. The reason they are offset is that there is no good hiding location at the monuments or signage where the coords take you.

 

What you're describing is the perfect set up for an offset multicache, rather than an ALR cache. Doing it the off-set way accomplishes exactly what you want, ie, gets the cacher to the monuments/signs and gets them to read them. Coords take cacher to signs, cache page uses the signs and some questions about them to generate a second set of coords for cache.

 

I own two such hides; in both cases, the really cool spot is subject to severe summer flooding, so the coords take you to the cool spot that floods, and an off-set takes you uphill to a safe spot for an ammo can.

I could have listed them as ?Mystery ALR caches, coords to can then go to the "good spot" and get info to email me, but it really works better the other way, and so will your caches.

Edited by Isonzo Karst

Share this post


Link to post

Yes we have gone back to the Old School of Caching, and its about time. I still have over 50 acitve caches out there that are not even affected by this guideline change.

Thanks for this much needed fix.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I take a break from the forums for one weekend and there's a rule change followed by a drama bomb. Weeee...

 

I don't see what the problem is (with the change) and I don't understand the comments along the lines of "next to go are our precious puzzle caches/earthcaches/remaining virtuals".

 

it seems pretty simple to me.

 

Geocaching = finding things. Geocaching.com = where I go to claim that I found them.

 

Obfuscating the location of the container = puzzle cache. An extension of the obfuscating of the tradition by means of camouflage, etc. The puzzle hides the cache; the camo hides the cache. I find it, and I claim the find at GC.com.

 

Obfuscating the signing of the log = ALR. I find the cache, then I have to perform something that is not geocaching in order to claim the find.

 

Geocaching.com is were I claim the find, so it's up to them to define the conditions under which I can claim it on their site. They have decided that the "performing something that is not geocaching" doesn't pass muster when it comes to claiming a find on their listing service.

 

I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Wow... :) After reading six pages, I'm impressed with all the ways folks found to misread, misinterpret, and complain about the ALR and related guidelines changes, which seem to be a good thing, esp. after reading the context provided on p.2 by reviewer riviouveur and other knowledgeable sources. I reeeeally don't think the sky is gonna fall, or that Unknown caches, challenge caches, or Earthcaches are next on the hit list because of the ALR change (sounds a bit like an NRA scare tactic).

 

To an earlier comment by my local pal, The Jester - Yep, I'm impacted by the potential changes in cache categories as former ALR caches are changed from Unknown to another classification. Just this week I found a ? cache for the Know Your Local Cacher Challenge that was an ALR. I admit, I did it because the ALR was so easy (talk like a pirate when you sign the log). If I need to find another ? by that cacher to complete the challenge, I won't lose any sleep over it (well...I might, his true puzzles caches are pretty tuff).

 

Anywho, for VirginiaGator and others bemoaning the imminent demise in creativity now that they can't force finders to perform stunts to their liking, you decide: Perego's Lagoon (aka The Hula Cache). I bet you can guess the ALRequest..."Bonus points for doing the hula at the cache site and posting a picture." A shocking number of finders have complied with this silliness over the past four years, despite it being optional. Some even made the mile-long trek to the cache carrying appropriate regalia.

 

These people are clearly having no fun at all...

 

bb222650-a2c6-4a02-80fc-d6b45dcc1dd6.jpg

 

2600d79c-ce45-4993-8ac7-315d226e9317.jpg

 

b0285e02-14c8-4cd9-b709-6933eea7e776.jpg

 

7878575b-eded-4ebe-ae04-1b0c5fa3bd4e.jpg

 

f9462730-32b0-4f7a-bf90-2c8a1477acd9.jpg

 

Bonus points if you can pick out three posters on this thread (including the OP) in the photos. :D

 

Levity over. I now return you to the gripefest...

When I quote folks in a reply, I often just snip out the part that I am specifically replying to. In this case, I'm copying your whole post, hydnsek. Thanks for this: for all of this entire post.

 

I haven't read every single post in these 9 pages. Has anyone been able to earn the bonus points for picking out three posters on this thread?

 

Raises hand!!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
I was also advised that two of these caches should be made multis because the container is some metres away from the cache. The reason they are offset is that there is no good hiding location at the monuments or signage where the coords take you.

 

What you're describing is the perfect set up for an offset multicache, rather than an ALR cache. Doing it the off-set way accomplishes exactly what you want, ie, gets the cacher to the monuments/signs and gets them to read them. Coords take cacher to signs, cache page uses the signs and some questions about them to generate a second set of coords for cache.

 

 

Regardless, both caches have ALRs that I consider essential to the cache. The point of my caches is to learn a little about where you are. I do not see these simple questions and answers as being optional. The history is the reason for the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes we have gone back to the Old School of Caching, and its about time. I still have over 50 acitve caches out there that are not even affected by this guideline change.

Thanks for this much needed fix.

Same here...none of my 80+ hides are affected by this change (even the ones that have been archived for quite some time)

Share this post


Link to post

 

it seems pretty simple to me.

 

Geocaching = finding things. Geocaching.com = where I go to claim that I found them.

 

Obfuscating the location of the container = puzzle cache. An extension of the obfuscating of the tradition by means of camouflage, etc. The puzzle hides the cache; the camo hides the cache. I find it, and I claim the find at GC.com.

 

Obfuscating the signing of the log = ALR. I find the cache, then I have to perform something that is not geocaching in order to claim the find.

 

Geocaching.com is were I claim the find, so it's up to them to define the conditions under which I can claim it on their site. They have decided that the "performing something that is not geocaching" doesn't pass muster when it comes to claiming a find on their listing service.

 

I can live with that.

Then why do we have "members only" caches? are they not just the ubber ALR? In order to log a "Members only" cache, don't you first need to complete the "additional Logging requirement" of paying for a premium membership?

 

Sounds against the new rule change to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Then why do we have "members only" caches? are they not just the ubber ALR? In order to log a "Members only" cache, don't you first need to complete the "additional Logging requirement" of paying for a premium membership?

 

Sounds against the new rule change to me.

Not true. You need to be a PM to see the cache details. There is a well known "back door" for logging PMO cachers that anyone can use. So PMO's are more like a puzzle cache - you need to do something before finding it.

Share this post


Link to post

Then why do we have "members only" caches? are they not just the ubber ALR? In order to log a "Members only" cache, don't you first need to complete the "additional Logging requirement" of paying for a premium membership?

 

Sounds against the new rule change to me.

Not true. You need to be a PM to see the cache details. There is a well known "back door" for logging PMO cachers that anyone can use. So PMO's are more like a puzzle cache - you need to do something before finding it.

Care to share the "back door" with me, because it is not so well known with me. If I see a sign that says no trespassing or members only, I assume it is just so.

 

And if you are able to go around the members only rule, then why not get rid of it. One of the reasons I subscribed to premium is to do members only caches, now i find out that anyone can for free.

Share this post


Link to post

Then why do we have "members only" caches? are they not just the ubber ALR? In order to log a "Members only" cache, don't you first need to complete the "additional Logging requirement" of paying for a premium membership?

 

Sounds against the new rule change to me.

Not true. You need to be a PM to see the cache details. There is a well known "back door" for logging PMO cachers that anyone can use. So PMO's are more like a puzzle cache - you need to do something before finding it.

Care to share the "back door" with me, because it is not so well known with me. If I see a sign that says no trespassing or members only, I assume it is just so.

 

And if you are able to go around the members only rule, then why not get rid of it. One of the reasons I subscribed to premium is to do members only caches, now i find out that anyone can for free.

That really has nothing to do with the original topic. If you do a forum search for the word 'backdoor' you should be able to find it.

Share this post


Link to post

I can only think of a handful of ALR caches I have ever run across and I did not think there was anything wrong with them.

But obviously some of the things mentioned here are a problem and should not be allowed.

I think you've touched on the key issue behind this change.

Like yourself, all the ALRs I've encountered were light, fun activities that the owner added to bring an extra grin to the seekers. The owners thought what they added would increase the fun level of the cache, and for the most part, those hunting the caches agreed wholeheartedly. Life was good. However, in these forums we're hearing about folks who are creating ALRs that are not so well received by the general caching public.

 

(As an example, imagine an ALR requiring that you swear allegiance to Rosie O'Donnell and her minions of evil)

:lol::D:):lol::lol:B):D:lol:

 

This creates a bit of a quandary. Do the reviewers allow all ALRs, including those which do not appear to be any fun for anyone, (such as many of the examples listed here), or do they act as referees, judging each new ALR by some entirely subjective "Wow" factor? It doesn't seem like an enviable position to be in. From my perspective, it would seem a lot easier to change the guidelines so that the term "Requirement" is replaced by the term "Suggestion". This allows everybody to enjoy the fun. Those who are all starry eyed over ALRs can still perform the tasks listed on the cache pages. Those who feel a particular ALRS is ridiculous no longer have to avoid that cache. Cache owners can still list all manner of silliness on their cache pages, without being put in a position of having to delete logs.

 

but it really works better the other way, and so will your caches.

I would think a huge advantage for cache owners doing it this way is you won't have to pick your way through "Found It" logs, checking their answers. :(

 

The history is the reason for the cache.

What IK is suggesting would preserve the reason for the cache. The seekers would be put in a position where they would have to read the plaque, soaking up the historical data, before they would be able to locate the final. Obviously, since they are your caches, you are free to archive them, but then everybody loses.

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post

What does this mean for existing Fizzy like challenge caches? Do we have to remove the requirement of finding all 81 diff/terrain ratings? If so, we might as well archive them.

A Fizzy Challenge meets the description in the new guidelines governing challenge caches. I look forward to finishing that someday myself. It is not affected.

 

A Challenge requiring the finder to take pictures of fifty different zoo animals would fare differently under the new test, at least if I were reviewing it.

 

"It is not affected" is not entirely correct. According to these guidelines, Fizzy challenge caches are most definately affected as follows:

"QUOTE

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so."

If I read the above correctly, a Fizzy callenge by definition would be not be allowed because of its difficulty, "substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so." (be able to complete the challenge). Also, the cache owner must have, "have met the challenge yourself" (has met the requirements that he has posted). Affected, yes but should be allowed, also yes! :)

Just out of couriosity, what is your personal definition of substantial. (reall vauge wording in my book)

 

I think that plenty of people could finish the fizzy challenge in my state, they may not want to but they could. I myself will probibly not finish the challenge but it would be relatively easy to do so compaired to some of the challenges I am working on.

Share this post


Link to post

All I can say is Thank you!!!

 

I can't count the number of times I have come across a traditional cache and logged. Only later to have the log deleted and the nasty little note to say you didn't complete the ALR. What ALR? This was a Traditional cache. Well someone went in and edited the cache after publishing. Or, what about the cache hider who is too lazy to maintain their caches so, they want you to photograph yourself near the cache site so they can verify you were there instead of actually going out every now and then and checking on the cache themselves.

 

Do you know how weird it is to take a photo of yourself on a piece of playground equipment for an ALR? This really has gotten out of hand. Glad someone has finally put an end to it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

That really has nothing to do with the original topic. If you do a forum search for the word 'backdoor' you should be able to find it.

Well, to bring it back on topic. After searching "backdoor" I got a thread that says that the backdoor has been closed. I can not test this as I am a premium member and do not want to waste space by creating a bogus account to test it. If this is the case "Members Only" caches do require an ALR. A Premium Membership.

Share this post


Link to post

This creates a bit of a quandary. Do the reviewers allow all ALRs, including those which do not appear to be any fun for anyone, (such as many of the examples listed here), or do they act as referees, judging each new ALR by some entirely subjective "Wow" factor? It doesn't seem like an enviable position to be in. From my perspective, it would seem a lot easier to change the guidelines so that the term "Requirement" is replaced by the term "Suggestion". This allows everybody to enjoy the fun.

 

Not that this will happen--I understand that the *volunteer* reviewers have a lot on their plate already--but was there a conversation about the option to amend the guidelines to ask that any and all ALR cache submissions must be "location based", and not required silliness or non-location-based actions? It seems rather straight forward to enforce without much variation due to the multiple different volunteer reviewers. Some of the suggestions for ALRs have been crazy, but still many others are in the reasonable pile. Grey area has been cast out, however, and there will be no ALRs. So be it.

 

I'm beyond the bummed stage of grief...I'm over it. But now I'm wondering if alternatives to all out banning were discussed, and if so, what was suggested that didn't seem workable? Just hoping to fill my head with more understanding about how this was discussed to come to this conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post

This creates a bit of a quandary. Do the reviewers allow all ALRs, including those which do not appear to be any fun for anyone, (such as many of the examples listed here), or do they act as referees, judging each new ALR by some entirely subjective "Wow" factor? It doesn't seem like an enviable position to be in. From my perspective, it would seem a lot easier to change the guidelines so that the term "Requirement" is replaced by the term "Suggestion". This allows everybody to enjoy the fun.

 

Not that this will happen--I understand that the *volunteer* reviewers have a lot on their plate already--but was there a conversation about the option to amend the guidelines to ask that any and all ALR cache submissions must be "location based", and not required silliness or non-location-based actions? It seems rather straight forward to enforce without much variation due to the multiple different volunteer reviewers. Some of the suggestions for ALRs have been crazy, but still many others are in the reasonable pile. Grey area has been cast out, however, and there will be no ALRs. So be it.

 

I'm beyond the bummed stage of grief...I'm over it. But now I'm wondering if alternatives to all out banning were discussed, and if so, what was suggested that didn't seem workable? Just hoping to fill my head with more understanding about how this was discussed to come to this conclusion.

There is an alternative...you can ask people to put on the funny hat after finding the cache and if they want to they can. The only thing that has changed is that you can not require them to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

 

That really has nothing to do with the original topic. If you do a forum search for the word 'backdoor' you should be able to find it.

Well, to bring it back on topic. After searching "backdoor" I got a thread that says that the backdoor has been closed. I can not test this as I am a premium member and do not want to waste space by creating a bogus account to test it. If this is the case "Members Only" caches do require an ALR. A Premium Membership.

Had you read the entire thread - you would have found a lively discussion about how it got accidently closed - an apology from HQ was issued and then the backdoor was offcially endoresed and re-instated.

 

By the way visit: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?ID=xxxxxxxx (replace the x's with the ID code and you can log it) have the PM that led the non-PMs there - record the ID number when they log it.

 

While a non-pm cannot see the listing details and coords - they certainly can still log one.

Share this post


Link to post

I stand corrected.

 

But still, someone has to pay the ALR for a non member to log. So, it is still an ALR.

Share this post


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

I apologize if I missed it but has the subject of cache/find history been addressed? For those who are concerned about their numbers, especially their number of puzzles, the fact that ALR cache owners are being required to change the cache designation from Unknown to Traditional (or anything else, for that matter) is going to wreak havoc.

 

One Challenge Cache (which, by the guidelines, isn't effected) here comes to mind: To log a find, the cacher must have a certain percentage of their total finds be puzzles. What happens to anyone working on this challenge?

 

I seem to remember discussions about changing a cache from a Traditional to a Multi, and the stock answer had always been "You are changing the cache history if you change they type. Don't do it." This always made sense to me, so to hear otherwise now directly from Groundspeak is dismaying.

 

To do this "right," the cache should be archived, then re-listed. Instead, cache owners are being told their Unknown Caches are going to be made into Traditionals. The only reason I can see to do it this way is to make it not look like the giant cache purge that it is.

 

Edit: (Hopefully) clarified my last paragraph.

Edited by Too Tall John

Share this post


Link to post

There is an alternative...you can ask people to put on the funny hat after finding the cache and if they want to they can. The only thing that has changed is that you can not require them to do so.

 

Not quite what I meant...

I'm wondering if there was a discussion about enforcement instead of a purge. If one of the motivating factors was that requirements were becoming less and less geocaching related, what was discussed about those that were still geocaching related? So I'm not talking about funny wigs, I'm talking about things like historical monument reading or including "how you honor the wetlands like the one near these coordinates..." in the online log.

 

I understand the new guidelines. I'm fine with it. I know we can all still perform optional extras if the cache owner asks us to. I just wonder how the conclusion to ban was achieved if part of the issue was non location-based or geocaching-related listings...surely there was another side to these "nons".

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...