Don't use my cache for your challenge!

[+Arrow42]

...what is the bigger problem challenges or poor log etiquette?

Tact.

 

That's the reason I don't log caches I don't like. This is hobby. I'm into it because it is fun. (Yes, serious fun.) It's extremely easy to find nice things to say about a cache I really enjoyed. Not so much in regards to caches I hated. So, because logging disliked caches is not fun, I don't do it.

 

I think it less-than-tactful to log a cache with words that pretty say the finder didn't care about the cache, one way or the other, any more than the tick mark it provided. Sometimes it's almost as if the cache is invisible and the only thing is the smilie or whatever.

 

I'll keep that in mind if I ever visit a cache to fulfill a challenge (unlikely, but who knows?). Log each cache as an independent entity and be mindful of the CO's intent in placing the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't get it. Why would anyone object to being part of a challenge? They put their cache out there to be found right, so why object when someone does find it? What's so different about a challenge than any other find? So you don't think people would write nice long descriptive stories- just a quick found it for the challenge , thanks.? My experience is people who write long descriptive stories will and those who don't won't.

 

You don't have to "get it" to honor their wishes. However that you are at least thinking about it and trying to understand is a good sign. For the most part you are right. The vast majority of people won't care one way or the other. Some few will for their own reasons.

[+wimseyguy]

I can't decide if someone is a bit self centered or maybe just insecure, or most likely an unhealthy mix of the two to determine just how another cacher should enjoy finding their caches. Those who have defended the CO mentioned in the OP say that they put caches out for others to enjoy finding. Yet you also seem to want to control just how they will enjoy that experience. Inconceivable!!

 

Each cacher will walk away from the search with a different experience based on the ones they have already had before enjoying yours. Every time you have an experience it will color any following ones.

 

I've met some cachers who are very nice in person, but write lousy logs.

Oddly some of those cachers tell the best stories in person about significant finds, or unique hides.

I've met some cachers who are quite outspoken in here, but quite shy in person. Some are even a bit more "normal" than they present themselves online. Fortunately the opposite has yet to present itself with a rude person who seems nice online.

 

I choose to write unique logs for my finds because I enjoy doing it. Sometimes they are verbose, other times quite short. Sometimes I try to be humorous, other times not. Occasionally a bit of snark creeps into them when it is warranted. I like to think that the CO's and subsequent finders also enjoy my particular brand of wit or observations when they read them, but mostly I write for me. The exception being when I need to communicate a specific issue directly to the CO via my log, be it a maintenance need, or something else relevant to their cache that should be shared publicly like a safety concern.

 

You can only feel used/stepped on/insignificant by the words that someone posts to your cache page if you allow yourself to feel that way. Or maybe you are just spoiling for a good argument/discussion anyway?

Edited June 15, 2009 by wimseyguy

[CoyoteRed]

I'll keep that in mind if I ever visit a cache to fulfill a challenge (unlikely, but who knows?). Log each cache as an independent entity and be mindful of the CO's intent in placing the cache.

There's no need to toss out challenges altogether. I look at my grids, states, and counties. I'll probably log the challenges once I'm eligible, but I don't cache to fulfill those challenges. If it comes, it comes. If not, I'm not concerned.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

I spend a long time logging our caches. This last weekend we attempted 5 caches, found 2 and I left 2 found logs, 2 DNF logs, and 1 note. I processed 136 photos to get down to the 14 I used in the logs. I spent 2.5 hours writing and editing 912 words of what I hope is lively prose and processing those photos.

 

Because this system doesn't show DNFs or notes in our public profiles, you cannot see some of my best writing and photos from this weekend. (I hate that about this system.)

 

From what I understand from flask and the other cache owners here, they would think nothing of deleting my hard work in writing these logs if they suspected I had "bad" motives (did this as part of a challenge) in searching for those caches. I find this a very troubling set of attitudes.

 

I am blessed to live in Tennessee where people are nicer about these things.

 

Carolyn

 

Since the system won't show you this weekend's DNFs and Notes, here are the links to the logs.:

 

Six, Sicks, Icks: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...a7-efce6d7f1218

 

Joe's http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...ee-6948d7e9c67a

 

BSA http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...0b-3f089af9e4c5

[CoyoteRed]

Those who have defended the CO mentioned in the OP say that they put caches out for others to enjoy finding. Yet you also seem to want to control just how they will enjoy that experience.

I'm not reading it that way. I'm reading it more that CO want folks to enjoy the cache, however they choose, and it be more than simply a √ on some grid.

 

Kind of like a cook preparing a meal for someone to enjoy instead of simply for stuffing food in their mouths so they don't starve to death.

[CoyoteRed]

From what I understand from flask and the other cache owners here, they would think nothing of deleting my hard work in writing these logs if they suspected I had "bad" motives (did this as part of a challenge) in searching for those caches. I find this a very troubling set of attitudes.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. (To paraphrase my new favorite movie quote of the moment.)

 

Did you enjoy the hunt? No problem.

 

Did you hunt that cache solely for the √ and got nothing out of it because you failed to find, and thusly was unable to claim that √? Problem.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why would any cache owner be bothered by bookmarks? Any cache page only shows the first... what is it? two or three. After that there's the link to show the rest. Nothing "cluttered" about it. I have a strong dislike of the so-called "challenge" caches, but I sure wouldn't handle it that way!

 

I have a bookmark called "Lame Caches Not Worth Finding". It is a private list but I imagine a CO would not be too happy if that showed up on his page.

Phew!!! That's not me on the list...

 

Sadly the list is growing exponentially. Way too many lame caches (drive ups etc.) being published these days. Not worth the gas to go get them. The Ignore button is a great invention.

I can even agree with the last part of the quote. To add fuel, I have some lame caches and admit it. When I first started I got caught up in the "hide it and they will come" mentality. Lately I have begun archiving the lame ones when they come up missing. If I replace them, it is with much more thought. That's a big if... But the numbers hounds (yes I consider myself one) appreciate them. Lame or not, they get me out of the house.

 

There was a local cacher who set up a sock puppet account called "annoyedcacher" and I was third on the top ten list of hated cachers in the area. What surprised me was I had only been caching for a few months, others for years. Some of the other cachers were known for good hides; yes some were lame, but we all grow as we mature in our hides. Just as I have been complimented on some of my hides and derided for others. I like to tell people they are more than welcome to click ignore on my caches. It does not break my heart.

 

 

Well that's no fun, the angsty profile has nothing in it right now. You certainly did explode on the scene as a rather prolific hider and finder of caches, I see. I'll bet you've moved up to at least no. 2 by now.

 

Have we ever even established what is ticking off the anonymous person who is the subject of this thread? Is it the bookmark lists, or cut and paste "found for the xxxxx challenge" logs? If I ever do create a challenge cache bookmark list, I would make it shared, but not public. And if you are a person who is annoyed by bookmark lists, you can create three of you own, and put your cache on them. That way the offending bookmark lists are not displayed on the cache page itself.

 

You know, something like "Caches that I put on this bookmark list to get other annoying bookmark lists off my cache page". Don't laugh, I've seen it done.

[+bflentje]

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

.

snip

.

So, you don't have to "get it." Just know that some of us are sensitive to it.

 

That's what this is about??? My gosh, get over yourselves.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

From what I understand from flask and the other cache owners here, they would think nothing of deleting my hard work in writing these logs if they suspected I had "bad" motives (did this as part of a challenge) in searching for those caches. I find this a very troubling set of attitudes.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. (To paraphrase my new favorite movie quote of the moment.)

 

Did you enjoy the hunt? No problem.

 

Did you hunt that cache solely for the √ and got nothing out of it because you failed to find, and thusly was unable to claim that √? Problem.

 

In fact, though, what is being defended is this:

 

"As of January 1st 2009, all of my caches will be exempt from logging for challenges, games, series or other bookmarked nonsense dragging down the game. I will delete any finds assocoated (sic) with this."

 

There is nothing there about enjoying the hunt. (And I really don't see how organizing one's hunt with a challenge harms enjoyment of the hunt for individual caches.) What is being defended is wholesale deletion of logs (no matter how good or bad) if they are used as part of a challenge, now or in the future.

 

As to your example of gourmet food preparation, at one point I had a personal challenge to visit every raw food restaurant in the US, photograph the entree and dessert, and enjoy eating it. (I also wrote up a bit about it.)

 

My challenge didn't in any way harm my enjoyment of each individual restaurant. In fact it enhanced it. I was able to compare and say, "Mmmm! Roxanne's (Marin County) has a lovely ethereal quality to the food with amazing service, but the food at Karyn's (Chicago) is delightfully solid and Midwestern and the raw pizza at Juliano's (Los Angeles) explodes with fresh flavor in my mouth in a way that only Californian cuisine does. But for everyday food, nothing beats Go Raw in Las Vegas. I could eat every meal, every day there.

 

Why not see challenge caches as enhancing the enjoyment of individual caches in the same way my restaurant challenge did for raw food?

 

Carolyn

[+Castle Mischief]

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

 

But in another attempt to explain it: many of us don't put out cache simply to be found, we put them out to be enjoyed. Because our efforts are sometimes boiled down to nothing but a stepping stone to a "bigger and better" cache, we feel efforts were not appreciated...

 

Hey, here's a concept: how about I hunt the caches I want to and enjoy them how I want to as long as I don't do anything detrimental to your placement?

 

It's a game piece on a much larger board. I can't imagine ever feeling to need to judge, grade, and then take issue with somebody finding my cache (that I placed to be found, after all) for them not meeting some arbitrary level of "enjoyment" that I had determined.

 

Seriously, do you dig out the Enjoyment Meter and wave it over the found log?

[+Renegade Knight]

...If they put restrictions on logging a cache, it's now an ALR, period.

... Should I be penalized because I hunt caches blind? ...

 

1) An ALR reqeust about an ALR cache...Ironic isn't it?

2) Yes you should be penalized for hunting blind where appropriate. A past cache had a season. Find it ouside the season and I would vaporize your log. I had no problem explaining why, but the entire point was that you would not go to that spot in the off season. Hunting blind creates different problems.

[+Renegade Knight]

Then it was decided that challenge cache owners could log their own challenge. WTF?

 

Decided by whom?

Cache owners can log their own caches of any type. There's nothing different about challenge caches....

 

Forum concencus. I was really suprised when some long standing don't log your own cache types flip flopped on the challenge caches.

 

As you point out, reality is that you can log your own cache regardless of what the forum thinks.

[+Renegade Knight]

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

.

snip

.

So, you don't have to "get it." Just know that some of us are sensitive to it.

 

That's what this is about??? My gosh, get over yourselves.

Exactly. To think that some folks just can't seem to bring themselves to honor a simple reqeust because they are so full of themselves that they clearly can't see that it's ok to pay a little respect and use another cache for their own purposes.

[+Col. Flagg]

I love challenge caches. I thought that's what this game was all about..the challenge. The challenge of the hunt, the challenge of the find. If you don't want to challenge yourself perhaps you should stick to the lame easy caches. Most challenge caches are there to challenge you, not just to "use caches as stepping stones;" these caches challenge you to go outside of your normal caching range, go places you never went before. The county challenge for instance. I would never have gone all around my state before, but now I have a reason too. How about solving 100 puzzle caches, or hiding 100 caches. I'm glad for them. I decided that if I ever find ever cache in a county I was going to set up a memorial for it with a challenge cache.

[+Castle Mischief]

Exactly. To think that some folks just can't seem to bring themselves to honor a simple reqeust because they are so full of themselves that they clearly can't see that it's ok to pay a little respect and use another cache for their own purposes.

 

If it were worded as a request, then perhaps.

 

"As of January 1st 2009, all of my caches will be exempt from logging for challenges, games, series or other bookmarked nonsense dragging down the game. I will delete any finds assocoated (sic) with this."

 

That's not a request. That's making your own rules and forcing people to follow them.

[+Nalarangka]

My final thoughts about this...

 

I own a challenge cache and if any cache owner wanted their cache removed from the challenge then I would honor that request...but I am not required to do so and if I did not remove that cache and someone logged that cache for the challenge then the cache owner is not allowed to delete that log as long as it was a true find.

 

PS I don't think you should have to ask permission of the cache owner to include his/her cache in a challenge...if you don't want people looking for your cache don't publish it.

 

On the side topic about log quality...To my knowledge there is no log quality rules at geocaching.com and it would be my right to put TFTC on any and all caches I find although I usually try to say something unique for every cache. Just be happy I decided to log anything at all. Some of my caching buddies never log any of their finds which I am sure gets under some people's skin.

[+flask]

i am under no obligation to continue to maintain caches i don't enjoy owning, same as i am under no obligation to find caches i don't enjoy finding. neither do i write log that i don't want to write, nor trade for items i don't want.

 

you may call me childish and unclassy all you want, but the bottom line is that if i'm not having fun, i'm not going to play.

 

I have a question - would you be ok with a "challenge whore" who visited your cache because of the challenge, but actually left a thoughtful log? "Thanks for the cache. This helps with challenge X. When I started the hike we...(snip) On my way in I saw Y, I stumbled over Z. The cache brought me to a place I would have never seen before and I really appreciate the area.... etc etc etc.". Basically, the point I'm trying to get at is - what is the bigger problem challenges or poor log etiquette?

 

i'm totally good with people who write a decent log, even a log that indicates displeasure with my cache. my only problem with the challenges is that they seem to be leading more people to find caches quicker, thereby excusing themselves from writing decent logs.

 

and a decent log needn't be long. it need only express a thought or two relevant to the cache, the hunt, or whatever it puts in the finder's mind.

 

when i receive a log that says "out doing delorme challenge TFTC", it makes me wonder why i bothered. when i see a log that says "out doing delorme challenge, talked to don for a few minutes", i know exactly why i bothered.

 

when i see a log that says "took don to another cache up the road", i REALLY know why i bothered.

 

you see, the whole point of that cache is for people to come and see the rock wall that don's been building for the last forty years, and maybe to have them sit for a moment on his swing and look at the view. even if they don't take the time to sit, it's nice if they notice that they COULD if they wanted to, because don's gone to a lot of trouble to make that nook inviting for whoever comes along.

 

it's no fun for me or him if all people notice is that they've checked another cache off their challenge list, or that they've gotten 50 caches today.

 

i'm not above number runs; i adore high volume days from time to time. i never, never, never, NEVER confuse my happiness at finding a bazillion caches with anyone else's interest in what's meaningful in a log. if i can take the time to find your cache on my number run, i can jolly well write a log for it, and i will not assume that you will be delighted to hear that i've used your cache toward that goal and tossed it off like a used bandaid.

 

the first time i ever write a cookie-cutter cut-and-paste thanking all the little people for providing caches for my huge number run, i hope someone will come out to my house and shoot me execution-style.

 

i have done a few challenges, too. here are a couple of those logs by way of example.

[+EvanMinn]

I'm a fairly new cacher who doesn't do challenge caches but here is what is seems like to a fairly objective observer:

 

- Some hiders want to decide everyone what is a valid reason for looking for a cache and what isn't despite the fact that different people do geocaching for different reasons. Some do it mostly as a game and enjoy the challenge of the individual hunt; some do it mostly as a game and do it as a numbers challenge to try and get as many as possible; some do it to enjoy nature; some do it because they enjoy sharing their experiences in the logs. Most people are probably a combination (plus one or more I didn't include). It seems pretty self-centered to try and decide for everyone what is a valid reason to geocache base solely on one's own personal preferences.

 

- Some hiders are insulted if people write brief logs (seemingly) only for themselves or for a challenge. That comes across as a hider needing ego stroking: 'If you don't tell my why enjoy my cache, I will be insulted.' And it also seems like dragging a completely separate issue into it: brief logs are neither exclusive nor inherent to finds that are part of a challenge.

 

- Some hiders think they can read other cacher's minds: if a cacher is looking for my cache as part of a challenge, then they are ONLY looking for it as part of a challenge and not also because they think they will enjoy the cache. That if someone mentions in a log as having done it as part of a challenge, it makes sense to assume 1) they wouldn't have done that cache anyway sometime, 2) didn't enjoy it and only see it as a tick on a list. I have a hard time fathoming how someone could be so completely sure what someone else is thinking about a cache. Even a brief log wouldn't seem to be conclusive evidence of it since some people are into writing detailed logs and others just aren't and without mindreading, there is no way to know for sure the reason someone wrote only a brief log.

 

So, to me, again a fairly objective observer, it seems like the hiders complaining are the ones being petty, rude and showing a lack of respect for other cachers: they are trying to impose their own subjective viewpoint of how geocaching 'should' be enjoyed on everyone to the point that some threaten to delete logs if others are doing it for what they deem not to be a 'good enough' reason.

 

Of course, if they feel strongly enough they can always archive their caches but that just comes across as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

 

*edit* removed inadvertent smiley

Edited June 15, 2009 by EvanMinn

[+Unkle Fester]

...If they put restrictions on logging a cache, it's now an ALR, period.

... Should I be penalized because I hunt caches blind? ...

 

1) An ALR reqeust about an ALR cache...Ironic isn't it?

2) Yes you should be penalized for hunting blind where appropriate. A past cache had a season. Find it ouside the season and I would vaporize your log. I had no problem explaining why, but the entire point was that you would not go to that spot in the off season. Hunting blind creates different problems.

Interesting, and for the record I have been penalized for caching blind, I grabbed a cache that was a challenge (got into my GPS by mistake) found it and signed the log. Upon seeing this, I wrote a note stating I would log the find once I qualified. CO was happy he didn't have to delete my log and was satisfied that I would not have to go re-sign upon completion. There is a balance for making an appropriate deletion, such as not physically signing the log - but even that has an exception, at the CO's discretion. (usually being satisfied you found it)

 

To clarify, my point isn't about past caches... if it's past it's season, why is it still there? And even if it were, I should still be able to log the find if I signed the log book - that's why we can log archived caches. We have some caches out here that get disabled during hunting season or during the school year, but I don't go after disabled caches (except when it is disabled the day I'm out hunting for it).

 

If ALR's are banned, and a traditional cache is active, why should I be penalized for finding it, regardless of the reason for said find? I guess I don't see the logic in the OP's CO request. (seems to be a common theme)

 

What happens then if I log a find and then find a challenge later that the old find qualifies for? I didn't go and search for the cache specifically for the challenge, but there it is... Would that be off limits too?

 

What about the cache I log for a challenge and then the owner changes his mind a week later, does he have the right to nuke my log at his whim?

 

I think not.

 

Now, where did I put my tin-foil hat...

[Andronicus]

I think it is clear that everyone has their own opinion on what is rude or not nice etc. But in the end, the rules Ground Speak have come up with state that if the log book is signed, the CO can not delete the online log. Simple as that. If a CO doesn't like that, they can post their caches on a different geocaching site.

 

Maybe this discruntled CO should turn this cache into a challange cache. "The callange is to not use this as part of any other callange cache." That would do it.

[CoyoteRed]

Hey, here's a concept: how about I hunt the caches I want to and enjoy them how I want to as long as I don't do anything detrimental to your placement?

Say we and some friends go out to eat. The servers bring everyone's food but yours. We all eat while you sit there. That you haven't gotten your meal while we eat ours doesn't do anything detrimental to you.

 

Right?

 

Some folks don't care. Some do.

 

If you don't want to challenge yourself perhaps you should stick to the lame easy caches.

Obviously you've not done some our caches nor seen some of the caches we've done.

Most challenge caches are there to challenge you, not just to "use caches as stepping stones;" these caches challenge you to go outside of your normal caching range, go places you never went before.

This may well be true and I don't have a problem with it. It's when folks do use caches as stepping stones that I have a problem.

 

In fact, though, what is being defended is this:

 

"As of January 1st 2009, all of my caches will be exempt from logging for challenges, games, series or other bookmarked nonsense dragging down the game. I will delete any finds assocoated (sic) with this."

 

There is nothing there about enjoying the hunt. (And I really don't see how organizing one's hunt with a challenge harms enjoyment of the hunt for individual caches.) What is being defended is wholesale deletion of logs (no matter how good or bad) if they are used as part of a challenge, now or in the future.

Maybe if there had been a bit of consideration before now it wouldn't have gotten to this. You reckon?

 

Still, these challenge caches are a sub-game within the hobby. If someone doesn't want to participate in this sub-game why should he be forced? Just like some folks don't want to be forced into participating in the race to be the number one smilie hoarder or even compared to someone else's smilie count, so they don't log--some folks pooh-pooh even that. Me, I've been a longtime advocate the option for removing smilie rewards from caches. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Just like I don't lavish praise on every cache placed because, quite frankly, some are pure junk. I simply don't log them and I don't participate in the "every cache is a good or worthy cache" game. Would you have me be forced to log every cache found? What about folks who don't move TB's? Should they be forced? What about cache owner's who don't like TB's in their caches. Can they not move them to another cache or should they be forced to let them stay until someone else moves them?

 

Folks really shouldn't have to be included in any sub-game they don't want to participate in. Period. This is what this is all about.

[CoyoteRed]

I think it is clear that everyone has their own opinion on what is rude or not nice etc.

That's the truth.

 

But in the end, the rules Ground Speak have come up with state that if the log book is signed, the CO can not delete the online log. Simple as that.

Umm... not so simple. In fact, quite wrong. A CO can, in fact, delete logs for a variety of reasons. What had changed was that a CO can no longer delete a log merely because you didn't perform something in addition to merely signing the log. Your log can be deleted for posting a spoiler, profanity or a host of other reasons.

 

Yes, the CO in the OP has presented an illegal ALR, IMHO. However, would you respect his wishes if he had asked? "Please don't use any of my caches as part of any challenge." No longer an ALR and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

If a CO doesn't like that, they can post their caches on a different geocaching site.

...ummm... Edited June 15, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+Castle Mischief]

Hey, here's a concept: how about I hunt the caches I want to and enjoy them how I want to as long as I don't do anything detrimental to your placement?

Say we and some friends go out to eat. The servers bring everyone's food but yours. We all eat while you sit there. That you haven't gotten your meal while we eat ours doesn't do anything detrimental to you.

 

Right?

 

Some folks don't care. Some do.

 

Apples and aardvarks.

 

For the analogy to fit the waiter would have to run back out and snatch the food away from me, telling me that I am not eating the food in a manner consistent with his definition of enjoyment and that because of this I am deprecating the quality of everyone else's food. Actually, the waiter would have to reach into my gullet and pull the food back out, slop it on the plate and then take it back to the kitchen.

 

Before I was enjoying the meal by my standards. I failed to enjoy it to the waiter's standards. Now, mission accomplished Mr. Waiter Guy, I am not enjoying it.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Yes, the CO in the OP has presented an illegal ALR, IMHO. However, would you respect his wishes if he had asked? "Please don't use any of my caches as part of any challenge." No longer an ALR and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

But he didn't and we are. The onus is on the actions of the CO. For some reason you're trying to make it about all the heathen challenge cachers and their heatheny heathen ways.

[+rjb43nh]

EvanMinn-"So, to me, again a fairly objective observer, it seems like the hiders complaining are the ones being petty, rude and showing a lack of respect for other cachers: they are trying to impose their own subjective viewpoint of how geocaching 'should' be enjoyed on everyone to the point that some threaten to delete logs if others are doing it for what they deem not to be a 'good enough' reason."

Well stated. I think that sums it up.

[+Scooter Bill]

I had warned several cachers against using my Daylight Saving Time Machine (ALR) cache (GC1HTTN)

in a local Busy Day Challenge cache because of a conflict in the requirements of both caches.

 

The Busy Day cache required cachers to find six different types of caches (traditional, multi, mystery, virtual, etc) in one 24-hour period. This conflicted with my ALR in that all on-line logs had to be dated in the past (via time travel at the cache vortex and the drop-down dates on the cache page). One cacher tried it anyway and almost messed up his carefully planned Busy Day Challenge. I guess he took me seriously when I deleted his non-ALR compliant log (accepted practice at the time). He was free to re-log his find after he figured out a way to meet restrictions on both caches (which he did after a flurry of emails to both COs).

[+tozainamboku]

The problem may be that Groundspeak has pushed the concept of cache ownership to point that cache owners believe they have such control over their cache that they can even specify the reason a cacher might go looking for it. Cache owners were given the responsible for quality control of their cache page. They were instructed to delete bogus, counterfeit, or off-topic logs. This got out of hand when cache owners started deleting logs because finders wouldn't perform some kind of additional requirement for logging the cache online. While this was tolerated for a long time, eventually the guidelines were changed and cachers are no longer allowed to delete a log based on additional logging requirements.

 

Cache owners need to understand that once your cache is listed on Geocaching.com, you have very little control. Yes, you can delete logs but it better be for a good reason (bogus logs, spoilers that the logger won't change, or inappropriate language). You can edit the cache page to provide an updated description or hint. You can change the the difficulty and/or the terrain rating. You can add or remove attributes. You can change the coordinates but only by a certain amount, and even then a reviewer may archive your cache if you move it too close to another cache or to some location where the cache would be in violation of the guidelines. You can change the name of the cache (that ought to take care of the people who are logging the cache for an alphabet challenge), the placed by field, and even the date hidden. You can archive your cache.

 

There are things you can't do. You can't change the cache type. You can't keep someone's public bookmark list from showing on your cache page. You can't control who finds your caches (other than to make it PMO and even that doesn't necessarily keep a non-premium member from finding it). You can't control the reason someone decides to look for your cache or ignore your cache. You can't stop someone from using your cache for a challenge cache (you can ask them to take your cache off the list but short of archiving your cache you can't do much - and depending the challenge, someone who previously found your cache might still be able to use it). You can't stop phone-a-friends or people posting spoilers on a different website (you might be able delete logs because you felt a person "cheated" to find your cache, but given the ALR guidelines you risk the chance that Groundspeak would reinstate these logs and lock your cache page if they don't agree).

 

There is one other power you have as a cache owner. To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, as has been done in this forum before, "Nobody can make you feel your cache is inferior without your permission". If you get a crappy log or one that says "I only found your cache to meet the requirements of the ABC challenge", it can only bother you if you let it. Since you don't have control over why anyone might search for you cache and whether or not they are going to enjoy it, I suggest just not letting them make you feel inferior.

[+EvanMinn]

...

Folks really shouldn't have to be included in any sub-game they don't want to participate in. Period. This is what this is all about.

 

That makes sense. No person should have to participate in something they don't want to.

 

And no "folks" ARE being forced to participate (i.e., take an active part in) in any challenge.

 

However, that is not at all what they are saying. They are saying they don't want their CACHES to be part of a challenge and that is a completely different kettle of fish.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Still, these challenge caches are a sub-game within the hobby. If someone doesn't want to participate in this sub-game why should he be forced? Just like some folks don't want to be forced into participating in the race to be the number one smilie hoarder or even compared to someone else's smilie count, so they don't log--some folks pooh-pooh even that. Me, I've been a longtime advocate the option for removing smilie rewards from caches. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

I think that there is a difference between being forced to do something and having something that one has created destroyed or taken away. The spirit that motivates someone to destroy a log "in a heartbeat" with no consideration for the person who took time to write the prose and post the photographs is the same spirit of vandalism that motivates someone else to destroy caches they don't like. The fact that Groundspeak apparently allows the one is quite disappointing. Nonetheless, people often have the capacity and power to do things that they would not do because it would simply be immoral or unethical to do so. I think most cache owners are good ethical people and would not do so or would contact the cache logger to discuss the problem before a deletion (thus giving the logger the opportunity to rescue the prose and photographs to their own computer). The ones who would act without basic consideration for loggers have made their positions known on this thread (and others) and I'm happy to put their caches on my list of caches I don't log.

 

Would you have me be forced to log every cache found?

 

No. I also wouldn't support deletion of your logs without substantial reason.

 

What about folks who don't move TB's? Should they be forced?

 

Obviously not. However, if they choose to take a travel bug, their feet should be held to the fire to release it in a cache unharmed. Taking something that doesn't belong to you or destroying it is unethical.

 

What about cache owner's who don't like TB's in their caches. Can they not move them to another cache or should they be forced to let them stay until someone else moves them?

 

Obviously they should move them to another cache. Again, they should not destroy them no matter how much they don't like travel bugs. Would you support a cache page that said "I don't like travel bugs. Do not place them in this cache. I will destroy any I find here"?

 

Carolyn

[+J-Way]

I've read two reasons why people object to finders using their cache as part of a "challenge":

 

1. Short logs that imply that the cache was worthless except they needed it to finish the challenge.

2. The cache gets added to tons of bookmark lists.

 

As for 1, this is the classic "log quality is degenerating" argument that is brought up repeatedly in the forums. And, yes, log quality is degenerating. Assuming the cache is worth a wordy log, then the finder whose log reads, "found for Delorme grid 43," is the same cacher that would log as, "34 of 67 for today," or, "TFTC," if this had not been part of a challenge. Elimination of all challenge caches wouldn't eliminate the problem, just change it a bit. There is no way to eliminate this problem without seriously infringing on the people's right to be insensitive and lazy. Incidentally, I'm a rather wordy logger. I was in the top ten wordiest loggers in my state back when INATN had the top ten lists. But even I'm guilty of occasionally posting a log similar to "Found to get a cache in xxxxx county." Mainly because I had limited time and the ONLY reason I bothered to lift up that lamp skirt was to get a find in a new county before continuing on down the road. I would never post a log like that to a cache I found worthy, and I doubt I'd ever post a similar log to a CoyoteRed cache.

 

I can kinda see the point of objection 2. Most people like to use Bookmark Lists (BMLs) as lists of recommendations, or for putting all the caches in a series in one place, or for listing all the caches along a particular trail or in a particular area. If a cache I owned happens to be on several lists with titles like "OMG THE BEST CACHES EVER!!!!!", I might get irked when the first three (the ones visible on the cache page), are all lists for alphabet or DeLorme or county challenges, therefore relegating the good lists to the second page. The solution to this problem is to delete old challenge bookmarked lists after a period of time. Eventually, the oldest remaining BMLs will be the ones that cache owners WANT to see, and the newer BMLs will be on the second page that you have to link to.

Edited June 15, 2009 by J-Way

[+flask]

 

1. Short logs that imply that the cache was worthless except they needed it to finish the challenge.

 

 

 

i didn't say short logs. i didn't say sucky logs, either, but that's what i was getting at. a log can be both short and decent.

 

after a lovely date, a gentleman caller might send flowers, but he should not leave cash on the nightstand.

 

too many challenge whores are simply leaving their loose change.

[+briansnat]

'm totally good with people who write a decent log, even a log that indicates displeasure with my cache. my only problem with the challenges is that they seem to be leading more people to find caches quicker, thereby excusing themselves from writing decent logs.

 

and a decent log needn't be long. it need only express a thought or two relevant to the cache, the hunt, or whatever it puts in the finder's mind.

 

when i receive a log that says "out doing delorme challenge TFTC", it makes me wonder why i bothered. when i see a log that says "out doing delorme challenge, talked to don for a few minutes", i know exactly why i bothered.

 

when i see a log that says "took don to another cache up the road", i REALLY know why i bothered.

 

 

This is not an issue that is unique to those participating in challenge caches. There is a segment of geocachers who couldn't care less about the neat place you are bringing them to. They want that smiley and bye-bye.

 

I place many of my caches in spots with nice views, or near areas of historic significance. If the finder enjoys the spot as much as I did, awesome! That's why I put it there. If he's just looking for another notch in his belt, it's his loss and no concern of mine.

 

Sure a "#7 of 57 today, TFTC" log can be disappointing when your cache is at the the house where George Washington wrote his farewell to the troops. You can lead a cat to the goldfish bowl, but you can't make him eat.

 

Cache owners really can't control the reason someone would hunt one of our caches and I wouldn't dream of trying. Heck, if only one out of 100 finders appreciated the reason I brought him there, I'd view it as a success.

Edited June 15, 2009 by briansnat

[+EvanMinn]

 

i didn't say short logs. i didn't say sucky logs, either, but that's what i was getting at. a log can be both short and decent.

 

after a lovely date, a gentleman caller might send flowers, but he should not leave cash on the nightstand.

 

too many challenge whores are simply leaving their loose change.

 

But you are making a huge assumption when you conclude they would have left something more to your satisfaction if they looked for it while not doing a challenge.

 

Logs of that nature are a completely different issue that are neither exclusive nor inherent to challenges.

 

Is that really the purpose behind placing caches: so the hider can read logs? Or is it to give people an enjoyable experience?

 

To assume because they wrote next to nothing they didn't find it a worthwhile experience is another huge assumption. Some people write next to nothing even for caches they think are worthwhile. Some people are plain and simply not into writing logs except for the bare minimum regardless of what they think of the cache. That is just not part of the game they are into.

 

If the reason you hide caches is only so that people will write stuff you want to read and if they don't, you are going to be bothered by, I think you are destined to be eternally disappointed regardless of whether challenges even exist or not.

Edited June 15, 2009 by EvanMinn

[+flask]

 

i didn't say short logs. i didn't say sucky logs, either, but that's what i was getting at. a log can be both short and decent.

 

after a lovely date, a gentleman caller might send flowers, but he should not leave cash on the nightstand.

 

too many challenge whores are simply leaving their loose change.

 

But you are making a huge assumption when you conclude they would have left something more to your satisfaction if they looked for it while not doing a challenge.

 

Logs of that nature are a completely different issue that are neither exclusive nor inherent to challenges.

 

Is that really the purpose behind placing caches: so the hider can read logs? Or is it to give people an enjoyable experience?

 

To assume because they wrote next to nothing they didn't find it a worthwhile experience is another huge assumption. Some people write next to nothing even for caches they think are worthwhile. Some people are plain and simply not into writing logs except for the bare minimum regardless of what they think of the cache. That is just not part of the game they are into.

 

If the reason you hide caches is only so that people will write stuff you want to read and if they don't, you are going to be bothered by, I think you are destined to be eternally disappointed regardless of whether challenges even exist or not.

 

over and over people don't seem to be reading what it is that i'm writing. either that or reading comprehension has sunk to such a level that we might as well give up the written word altogether.

 

if you have nothing to say about a cache, fine.

 

if all you have to say is your advertisement that you're racking up huge numbers or blowing through a challenge, keep it to yourself.

 

i also do not want you to announce at social engagements how much money you make. i do not want to have to see your underwear, to know your receptiveness as a sexual partner, or to see your tramp stamp.

 

i put these stat mongering bottomfeeders on the same level with people who want you to know that they're WAAAAAY too popular and busy to talk to you live because they have to take all these phone calls and text messages.

 

when i am with people, i turn my phone OFF. i talk to the person who is present, and i do not indicate to them that something or someone else is much more important.

 

even when i AM more interested in my find count than the cache, i keep in mind that the cache owner does not care one bit that i have found so many caches today. i make the effort to write a decent log that fits the cache.

 

if i'm too busy to write a decent log, i'm too busy to find that many caches. if there are too many to log, i might could cut down on the number of caches i find so that i will be able to log them properly.

 

 

you will notice that i did not anywhere insist on a long log; just a decent one. making the sole content of your log about your find count or your challenge is not decent. it is crass.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

even when i AM more interested in my find count than the cache, i keep in mind that the cache owner does not care one bit that i have found so many caches today. i make the effort to write a decent log that fits the cache.

 

if i'm too busy to write a decent log, i'm too busy to find that many caches. if there are too many to log, i might could cut down on the number of caches i find so that i will be able to log them properly.

 

 

you will notice that i did not anywhere insist on a long log; just a decent one. making the sole content of your log about your find count or your challenge is not decent. it is crass.

 

I agree with most of what you've written here. I believe in basic courtesy. If I don't have anything nice to say about a cache or if I don't have time to write a decent log, I don't log that find. I've avoided logging a few "finds" and I will probably avoid logging finds in the future that I can say nothing good about or do not remember well enough. We've even established a rule of thumb: We search for no more than 4 caches in a day because that is the maximum I can remember and log well. (And if one of those four turns out to be in a garbage dump, I'm not going to log that find.)

 

Also, I am not promoting long logs either. In fact, if I didn't take so much time in the editorial process, my logs would be considerably longer, but it takes time for me to edit them down so that they are good (as opposed to long).

 

But there is a reciprocal politeness that is at issue in this thread. It is the threat to delete logs, not for their quality, not for their violation of Groundspeak's rules, but merely because the cache owner believes that the cache was found with the wrong motive, that of a challenge. This is wrong.

 

Further, it is bad strategy if you what you want is to promote good logs. Telling Joey Numbers Whore that you're going to delete his TFTC! log, one of 100 he logged that day is worthy of a shrug. You are not discouraging him because he has so little invested. Instead, you are discouraging people who care about what they write and spend time to make it good. Why work hard on a log if the cache owner can delete it at whim? Support for this sort of action will have the exact opposite effect of what you say you want.

 

Carolyn

[+flask]

i don't believe that i advocated anywhere for the deletion of logs for reasons of editorial oversight.

 

i believe i have ever only advocated for deletion of logs with spoilers, and bogus logs.

 

logs that are simply unflattering to me and my cache are let stand; they are part of cache history, crass or not. all legitimate logs that do not contain spoilers should be let stand, always.

 

here in the forums is a lovely place from which to take potshots at trends i do not like; no actual logs are harmed in the process.

 

if this loud and (to me) entertaining debate prompts one person to write a decent log where he otherwise might not have done, i have accomplished all i hoped to do.

[+tozainamboku]

I read over in the ice cream forum where somebody complained that people were eating her pistachio ice cream because they were trying to meet some challenge to eat different colored ice cream and they needed a green ice cream. The ice cream maker was really annoyed. She said that she made pistachio ice cream for people to enjoy the nutty flavor and the texture of the real pistachio chunks she used in the ice cream. Now she felt offended because someone ate her pistachio ice cream just because it was green. She posted that she didn't want her ice cream used to meet any ice cream eating challenges. She said that if you didn't want to eat her ice cream for the right reason you shouldn't bothering eating it at all.

Edited June 16, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Unkle Fester]

I read over in the ice cream forum where somebody complained that people were eating her pistachio ice cream because they were trying to meet some challenge to eat different colored ice cream and they needed a green ice cream. The ice cream maker was really annoyed. She said that she made pistachio ice cream for people to enjoy the nutty flavor and the texture of the real pistachio chunks she used in the ice cream. Now she felt offended because someone ate her pistachio ice cream just because it was green. She posted that she didn't want her ice cream used to meet any ice cream eating challenges. She said that if you didn't want to eat her ice cream for the right reason you shouldn't bothering eating it at all.

OMG, ICE CREAM!!!

[+Unkle Fester]

 

Yes, the CO in the OP has presented an illegal ALR, IMHO. However, would you respect his wishes if he had asked? "Please don't use any of my caches as part of any challenge." No longer an ALR and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

But he didn't and we are. The onus is on the actions of the CO. For some reason you're trying to make it about all the heathen challenge cachers and their heatheny heathen ways.

UF: Hi, I'm Unkle Fester and I'm a heatheny heathen

Forums: Hi Unkle Fester!

UF: It's been three days since I sacrificed a goat, on my honor...

 

(I'm kidding, the locals get kind of upset when I do that)

 

Does this mean I can hide a cache that states anyone but Vinney can go out and find... Nothing personal Vinney, I'm just saying...

 

(edit spelling)

Edited June 16, 2009 by Unkle Fester

[+mwellman]

If you can't create a ALR, then you can't create a bookmark ban. Period.

 

After reading these forums, I have made a greater effort to personalize my logs, not that they were all bad before. As a cache owner, yes, I am disappointed by the TNLNSL at scenic spots or creative hides. But not everyone is a writer and I have to accept that.

 

As someone who enjoys challenges - why? They get me out of my comfort zone - i hardly did puzzles until I had to for a challenge and now I love them and look for different ones to solve. I doubt that we would have tried 5 terrains or difficulties except for challenges. We have learnt that we are smarter/tougher than we thought and we can DO them. MIST - we try to avoid - why do them when you can find more creative or hiking caches?

 

As a challenge owner - we created a alphabet town challenge as many of caches were placed in the two major cities in our province and communities 25 km away were ignored. To start off the challenge - we placed one in Xena, the only "X" in Saskatchewan. There were none in "Qs" until one generous cacher placed one in Qu'Appelle and the first finder of that cache kindly placed one for the owner to find. Now three "Q" communities have caches. The other cachers have thanked us for helping them discover more of our beautiful province. And when you come to cache in Saskatchewan, you will be able to find more caches along the highways and gravel roads. What is wrong with that?

 

If someone reads a bookmark and become interested in your cache - ie Caches you have to do before you die or for an Alphabet challenge, then visits your cache and writes a wonderful log about their experience - why do you care how they found about it? The important thing is that they enjoyed your cache and isn't what that is all about.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Luckless]

I don't get it. Why would anyone object to being part of a challenge? They put their cache out there to be found right, so why object when someone does find it? What's so different about a challenge than any other find?

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

 

But in another attempt to explain it: many of us don't put out cache simply to be found, we put them out to be enjoyed. Because our efforts are sometimes boiled down to nothing but a stepping stone to a "bigger and better" cache, we feel efforts were not appreciated. For instance, one of our early hides is out int he middle of nowhere, but on a back country route from one point to another. It provides a view of a rediversion canal for a hydro power plant and possibly some wildlife. I'd call it a very average cache. For a long time it was the only cache on page 48 of the SC Delorme map. The only bookmarks on this cache are Delorme Challenges. The bookmarks don't bother me and most of the logs that mention the challenge don't bother me. The logs that bother me are the ones that seem to say the only thing they appreciate about the cache is the excuse to check off that page.

 

Also, here's another reason I know a lot of folks don't get the idea of it not being just about being found, but enjoyed. With the proliferation of trache where the only idea is just being found tells me that many folks really don't get it. If I only wanted my caches to simply be found then I could use this drawer full of film cans and I know of a lot of parking lots, I could easily fulfill a goal of caches just getting found.

 

Now, we should recognize that there are different reasons for folks to geocache and different things get them off the couch. What I focus on is the cache. Strip away the smilie or data that fits neatly into columns, what does that cache provide me during my experience hunting it? Because I couldn't care less about the smilie; what state, page, or county it is in; what cell of a grid it fits in; or a host of other things a find log* on a cache might provide someone, I'm sensitive as to why folks hunt our caches.

 

So, you don't have to "get it." Just know that some of us are sensitive to it.

 

Okay, if not perhaps a little too sensitive. If someone finds /enjoys just your cache alone you're okay with that, but if someone finds/ enjoys it - and who is to say they wouldn't enjoy it?- as part of a challenge you're not. To me it seems like the same experience/ enjoyment. A great hide is a great hide. Isn't it their loss for not having stopped and smelled the roses along the way? And who's to say they'd do that anyway. You (and I) at least hope they would enjoy the effort we put into our caches.

As for a stepping stone to a bigger and better cache. Are challenge caches really bigger and better? I've never done one. I think the attraction has more to do with bragging rights for having completed the challenge. There is a cache here, I guess you could call it a challenge, where someone took his hardest caches and made finding each one the challenge. You get bragging rights for having completed this series of caches with some long difficult hikes. The owner too of these caches can take bragging rights for having created them.

[CoyoteRed]

What is wrong with that?

Nothing as long as the caches are decent. But if they're tossed under a skirt or behind a dumpster simply to have a smilie in a town that starts with "Q" then it fully illustrates a point. Caching for the sake of something other that the cache. That seems to be what the CO in the OP was talking about.

[+Jackalgirl]

Okay, I have read through this thread and I have a question:

 

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

 

I thought that this was a no-no.

 

I'm not stating that it is okay or not okay to object to one's cache being used for a challenge. But the OP quoted a statement in which the CO indicated that he/she would actually delete logs that mention a challenge (I'm paraphrasing).

 

Would geocaching.com admin types restore the log if such a thing were done and it was subsequently reported?

[+Isonzo Karst]

If the finder has signed the physical log, is it okay to delete the online log?

 

No, the answer to that question lies here, in the listing guidelines, and also in Keystone's response, post #5 of this thread.

[+EvanMinn]

...

even when i AM more interested in my find count than the cache, i keep in mind that the cache owner does not care one bit that i have found so many caches today. i make the effort to write a decent log that fits the cache.

 

if i'm too busy to write a decent log, i'm too busy to find that many caches. if there are too many to log, i might could cut down on the number of caches i find so that i will be able to log them properly.

 

you will notice that i did not anywhere insist on a long log; just a decent one. making the sole content of your log about your find count or your challenge is not decent. it is crass.

 

No, I am not misreading it because you keep saying it over and over again: you are offended when people don't write a log for your cache that is up to your standards.

 

If you are going to hide caches, you are just going to have to accept that some people are just not into the writing logs part of the game. That is never going to change. Different people are into different parts of the game.

 

And you also seem to be starting with the premise that the logs are for the hider and not for the cachers; people writing something just for themselves is unacceptable: "keep it to yourself.".

 

Other people see the logs as a record for themselves and not as something they do for the hider. Again, that is something that is not going to ever go away since it is strictly a matter of opinion.

 

I actually agree that is nice of people to at least write something but shoddy logs are just part of the game. They are never going to go away. It just seems overly sensitive to let that kind of thing bother you since it is just part of the game and always will be. There will never be a time when everyone has the same opinion as to what is an acceptable log or whether the logs are for the hiders benefit or just a record for finders.

 

And lastly, don't misread ME: I am not saying you should not fight or complain about shoddy logs. Even though I believe they will always exist, part of it is that some people are not aware of other people's opinion that it is rude. The only way the will learn is if someone says something.

 

But at the same time I don't know that you should let it bother you so much that you actually get offended. Fight the good fight but be careful of being TOO sensitive to the issue.

 

And lastly, all of this is a completely separate issue from having someone's cache be part of a challenge.

[CoyoteRed]

But at the same time I don't know that you should let it bother you so much that you actually get offended. Fight the good fight but be careful of being TOO sensitive to the issue.

Not speaking for flask, but I don't get offended to the point of outrage. I get offended on the scale of when I'm following a stranger through a door and they don't look back to see if someone is following and let the door close in my face. Yep, that's a bit rude, but I just shake my head and move on.

 

Some of the posters here are pretending that we all of the opinion that simply using a cache as a stepping stone is rude are foaming at the mouths and hopping mad. You're not, but we can still recognize it as rude. We certainly are not going to deny that it's rude or pretend it's okay simply because you can't stop it.

 

And lastly, all of this is a completely separate issue from having someone's cache be part of a challenge.

Um, no, it's not. If no one had ever told the CO that his cache(s) were being used for challenges would he have ever made the statement? Probably not.

[knowschad]

Sometime in the recent past, a cache hider in my "extended" caching area posted the following to all of their cache listings. I don't want to single them out or give away their name as that's not the point (and I request that posters refrain from doing so), but here's the text:

 

DavidMac,

 

Can you please get ahold of the cache owner in question and ask him to come here and settle this topic for us? We're coming up wiht ice cream analogies and sacrificing goats here, for Pete's sake.

Edited June 16, 2009 by knowschad

[Mushtang]

Sure a "#7 of 57 today, TFTC" log can be disappointing when your cache is at the the house where George Washington wrote his farewell to the troops. You can lead a cat to the goldfish bowl, but you can't make him eat.

You (and others) assume that just because someone didn't write about how cool the location was that they didn't think it was cool. A lot of people just aren't that good at expressing themselves, so they don't. Others don't view the online log as a place to do anything except keep records of which caches they found. Maybe they enjoyed the hell out of the George Washington cache location but only wrote "#7 of 57 today" because in their mind Geocaching is about finding the caches, not about writing logs.

 

Assuming what others have in their heart when they find a cache, or log online, or hide a cache, or anything else it just arrogant.

[+sbell111]

We know a lot of you (collective) don't get it. That's fine that you don't get it. Just accept that some of us don't like being used.

.

snip

.

So, you don't have to "get it." Just know that some of us are sensitive to it.

 

That's what this is about??? My gosh, get over yourselves.

Exactly. To think that some folks just can't seem to bring themselves to honor a simple reqeust because they are so full of themselves that they clearly can't see that it's ok to pay a little respect and use another cache for their own purposes.

I think that most people would happily honor all reasonable requests. The OP's issue, however, was neither reasonable, nor a request.