Shortcutting on Multicaches

[+Geoextreme87]

A while back I had a 4 part multicache and I found people logging that they shortcutted straight to the final stage cause they knew the area and used the hint to find the cache location.

 

Now my cache was suppose to be a tour of the geology of a state park (At that time Earthcaches were not part of Geocaching.com) and so was hoping people would do this cache for just that purpose. Now I realize some people may not really care about the geology and just want to cache and I find that completely OK and as long as they ran through all the stages it was cool. Because it was an educational tour I made the hiding locations pretty simple and obvious so that cachers would continue onward and hence the same reason for the hints as well.

 

So when I found cachers posting on their "Found It" log that they shortcutted to the final stage without doing any of the other stages I was pretty annoyed cause it took me some time to develop this cache. As a result I deleted their finds and sent them an e-mail why I did such.

 

Now to me I feel the Multicache was setup for the adventure to the cache and not necessarily for the hide itself (Else wise I would just create a few traditionals).

 

I'm curious to see the opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

[+ngrrfan]

A while back I had a 4 part multicache and I found people logging that they shortcutted straight to the final stage cause they knew the area and used the hint to find the cache location.

 

Now my cache was suppose to be a tour of the geology of a state park (At that time Earthcaches were not part of Geocaching.com) and so was hoping people would do this cache for just that purpose. Now I realize some people may not really care about the geology and just want to cache and I find that completely OK and as long as they ran through all the stages it was cool. Because it was an educational tour I made the hiding locations pretty simple and obvious so that cachers would continue onward and hence the same reason for the hints as well.

 

So when I found cachers posting on their "Found It" log that they shortcutted to the final stage without doing any of the other stages I was pretty annoyed cause it took me some time to develop this cache. As a result I deleted their finds and sent them an e-mail why I did such.

 

Now to me I feel the Multicache was setup for the adventure to the cache and not necessarily for the hide itself (Else wise I would just create a few traditionals).

 

I'm curious to see the opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

Sounds to me like your hints are too clear. The few multi's I've done had no hints for the stages, so there was no way to shortcut the cache.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

I did a similar multi for a local park, but not for educational purposes, just to provide opportunities to visit it.

 

I gave few hints for the trail and the final but I made sure that it couldn't be circumvented by adding clues solved by the earlier stages part of the later stages.

 

That way, even if you know where stage 3 or 4 is, you need to go to stage 1 and 2 to pick up the numbers. It was hard work though, much harder than just separate clues to solve -- I got the final stage coords wrong and so I had to disable it quickly after publication! So check your numbers 3 times over if you do it this way.

[Alan White]

If you deleted my valid find log because I hadn't done the cache in a way you approve of then I'd simply log again without identifying that I'd shortcut it and you'd be none the wiser. Caching is about retrieving the (final) cache and signing the log.

 

If you don't want cachers to shortcut your multi or mystery then don't make it possible for them to do so.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think you should have deleted the finds. My rule for logging finds is pretty simple: you put your name in the logbook.

 

We ran into a very similar situation on a very hard multi we own many years ago. A local cacher logged a find and said he had skipped one of the hardest stages of the hunt. This was a stage we were pretty proud of. After some thought we realized that it took some specialized skill to skip the stage and pick up the hunt later. Once we realized that we thought, "good for him!" We let the find stand and corrected a small hint in the hunt to prevent shortcutting later.

 

This was based the fact the community has long accepted finds on caches one stumbles over. If stumbles are okay, then why wouldn't shortcutting a hunt?

 

Here's how I look at it. If I create a hunt where it is trivial for someone to shortcut it, then the fault is mine. I have the choice to accept the shortcutting or fix the hunt.

 

You said they knew the area enough to take a hint you gave them to find the cache. What if your hint was the actual coordinates of the final? Would you blame them for using it? I doubt it.

 

Personally, I would oppose any attempt to tighten up the criteria for logging a find. Why? ALRs. ALRs pretty much came about because owners were free to delete any log for any reason. I always thought that was wrong. If you start claiming that folks have to hunt the caches your way, then every one is going to define their way as something different from the next person and it's just going to get confusing.

 

OTOH, my rules is not hard and fast. Exceptions do apply like evidence of wrong doing, spoilers, etc. I mean if someone refuses to log a find without posting spoiler, then he's just not going to have a find stand on one of my caches.

 

IN SHORT: a stumble is not something you can prevent. Shortcutting is some combination of how smart the seeker is compared to how bad you've set up your hunt. Both are acceptable finds.

[+tekkguy]

I'm planning a multi for my third hide. (First hide is going out today, second around early November - yeah, I'm ahead of myself)

 

I thought about this exact scenario and decided to combat it by not giving any hints to the final. In stage 1, you'll get part of the coordinates to the final. Stage 2 will have part, Stage 3 will have part - there won't be any short-cutting, because even if you stumble on a later stage accidentally, you'll have to find the others to get the final coordinates - just gotta make sure no one stumbles accidentally onto the final!

[+wimseyguy]

You are wrong to delete a legit find. If they signed the log it is legit.

If you insist on controlling how cachers will find your cache, perhaps you need to rethink your hints and hides?

[+Geoextreme87]

A while back I had a 4 part multicache and I found people logging that they shortcutted straight to the final stage cause they knew the area and used the hint to find the cache location.

 

Now my cache was suppose to be a tour of the geology of a state park (At that time Earthcaches were not part of Geocaching.com) and so was hoping people would do this cache for just that purpose. Now I realize some people may not really care about the geology and just want to cache and I find that completely OK and as long as they ran through all the stages it was cool. Because it was an educational tour I made the hiding locations pretty simple and obvious so that cachers would continue onward and hence the same reason for the hints as well.

 

So when I found cachers posting on their "Found It" log that they shortcutted to the final stage without doing any of the other stages I was pretty annoyed cause it took me some time to develop this cache. As a result I deleted their finds and sent them an e-mail why I did such.

 

Now to me I feel the Multicache was setup for the adventure to the cache and not necessarily for the hide itself (Else wise I would just create a few traditionals).

 

I'm curious to see the opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

Sounds to me like your hints are too clear. The few multi's I've done had no hints for the stages, so there was no way to shortcut the cache.

 

I am very much aware of how they were able to shortcut but as stated before this cache was intend to show cachers unique places in the park. If a cacher cannot find the coordiantes how are they to prgress to the next spot? I should also add which I did not mention before that because it was a state park I was trying to minimize environmental impact from cachers searching an area for the coordinates. The hints were intended to help minimize this impact. I'm not really interested in why or how they were able to shortcut (I know how they could. I'm asking more about opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

[CoyoteRed]

I thought about this exact scenario and decided to combat it by not giving any hints to the final.

You can leave a hint somewhere along the path. You can lock the cache. Break up the coordinates in various ways. Putting too much information on the cache page is where most shortcutting comes from. Putting it on the cache page allows folks time to think about the hint. Put it in the field and it's harder. They have to think on the fly.

[+ace862]

If they've found and signed the log book then they get the find. It may not be the way you intended them to find it, but they found it none the less. My hat is off to them for using their smarts.

 

One thing you may want to consider is that the cachers whose logs you deleted, could now make a case to Groundspeak to have their finds reinstated.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

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

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

 

The bolding is my emphasis.

[+Geoextreme87]

Very interesting so far thank you for your opinions. This is some good insight so far if I decide to setup another multicache. So at the moment it seems I was in the wrong for deleting the finds. However I should ask why would one go do a multicache without trying to find all stages?

 

Also as one of you mention good point that someone could skip the stages and not mention it in the log as there was a few logs that just said "TFTC" and thats it I suspect that was exactly what happened, Now I did leave those logs for the just such reason there is no way to know if they did or did not shortcut. But the fact remains that the logs I delete, they did mention shortcutting.

 

Now walking onto a cache by accident is different from delibertly skipping parts of a cache. In fact I did have one group of cachers accidently find the cache and they still did the other stages before logging a find.

 

Keep on posting this is very useful (even if I don't completely agree )

[knowschad]

I can understand your sense of frustration, but the others are correct in that you should not be deleting Found It logs. Odds are, those cachers that shortcutted your multi would not have done your multi had they not been able to shortcut it. They frankly were not interested in seeing what you wanted to show them... instead they were just interested in the smiley. And that is a valid way to geocache, if that's what they want to do.

[+Geoextreme87]

If they've found and signed the log book then they get the find. It may not be the way you intended them to find it, but they found it none the less. My hat is off to them for using their smarts.

 

One thing you may want to consider is that the cachers whose logs you deleted, could now make a case to Groundspeak to have their finds reinstated.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

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

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

 

The bolding is my emphasis.

 

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

[CoyoteRed]

You might look at it as a traditional treasure hunt. The purpose of any stage you go to is to find a clue. Once you find the clue, you move on. That's just the way it is. So, if they don't need to go and find that clue, they don't do it. The treasure hunters are focused on the end game. It's the explorers who are focused on the journey

 

Some folks are treasure seekers. Some folks are explorers. (Some folks are collectors.) Different types of folks enjoy this hobby.

[+wimseyguy]

I don't think ace was suggesting that completing the multi as originally designed should be considered an ALR.

But there is a similar structure in that the log was properly signed and therefore the cache is considered to be found.

 

If any of the owners of those deleted logs contact geocaching.com and ask for them to be restored I'd bet on 'Yes we will' not 'No we won't.'

[CoyoteRed]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

Only if you are requiring them to do the stages in order to log a find.

[+tekkguy]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

Only if you are requiring them to do the stages in order to log a find.

 

Unless that requirement is built into the challenge of the cache, as in my example above ... if you find the final without getting to all stages, cool. But the only help you'll get from me is within the stages themselves.

[knowschad]

I will say that it looks like an *awesome* multi-cache, and that anyone that cheats on it is only hurting themselves. Of course, if they know the park well enough to go straight to the final, then they also have probably already seen the places that your intermediate stages would take them to.

[+Geoextreme87]

You would be surprise how little people see in a park. Not to mention just because you saw it doesn't mean you seen it from a different perspective and/or for its intellectual or cultural value. But thats getting off topic.

 

Please keep the posts coming, its appreciated

Edited October 7, 2009 by Geoextreme87

[+Renegade Knight]

....

I'm curious to see the opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

I think you are fine to request the ones who didn't complete the cache change their logs to a note, and if they don't delete the log. Some feel that however you sign the log, it's all good, but it rather gets in the way of actually having challenge caches and multi caches in that if it's all in the log, then types don't matter.

 

That said, it's no fun deleting logs, or having your cache short circuited. The easiest way to do this is to make it so they have to do the work in front of the find. Delete your hints so they need to do the legwork. Some may still cheat but less will have the option.

[+Renegade Knight]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

Only if you are requiring them to do the stages in order to log a find.

If the anti ALR rules apply then multi caches have no reason to exist.

That they do exist in spite of the new anti ALR rules pretty much means that they are grandfathered like challenge caches, or that TBTB haven't yet clarified the sitution.

 

If stages are merely a suggestion (like the new SLR's (suggested logging requiremnts) then they can be deleted as a catagory.

[+doingitoldschool]

We have a simple multi that has what can be a give away clue for the final, if you stop and think about it. We didn't see it when we published it, and it took over a year and a half for the first person to figure it out and skip the first stage.

That's mia culpa, not theira culpa, and I wouldn't delete their log. Just miapinion.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Delete your hints so they need to do the legwork. Some may still cheat but less will have the option.

 

You could actually put the encrypted hint for the next stage in with the coordinates for the next stage. Just make sure they are fairly short so they can be decrypted easily on the trail.

[+ace862]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

 

I think that is a really good question. I think an argument can be made for it depending on how the cache is set up.

 

I should just say that I am just proposing an argument here for debate. That is not how I prefer to play the game. In most cases, I like to do caches as they are intended. That is why the hider put them out there.

[+Geoextreme87]

I don't think ace was suggesting that completing the multi as originally designed should be considered an ALR.

But there is a similar structure in that the log was properly signed and therefore the cache is considered to be found.

 

If any of the owners of those deleted logs contact geocaching.com and ask for them to be restored I'd bet on 'Yes we will' not 'No we won't.'

 

Please do not take this as an attack on your post cause I'm aware that you were not given this info beforehand. In my e-mails I did say if they disagreed that they could contact one of the Cache Reviewers. Saying such, none of there find logs have reappeared nor have I recieved any e-mails.

 

Now that doesn't mean that they did or did not contact them, I have no way to know. Just adding that tidbit of knowledge out there since it has come to my attention via your post.

[+Geoextreme87]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

 

I think that is a really good question. I think an argument can be made for it depending on how the cache is set up.

 

I should just say that I am just proposing an argument here for debate. That is not how I prefer to play the game. In most cases, I like to do caches as they are intended. That is why the hider put them out there.

 

Point taken and hey thats why we have these forums. Thanks

[+bflentje]

If you deleted my valid find log because I hadn't done the cache in a way you approve of then I'd simply log again without identifying that I'd shortcut it and you'd be none the wiser. Caching is about retrieving the (final) cache and signing the log.

 

If you don't want cachers to shortcut your multi or mystery then don't make it possible for them to do so.

 

Ditto.. move on or ditch the hints. And if you (the CO) continue to delete my valid finds I would certainly contemplate going cache maggot after the third or fourth attempt at logging.

[+bflentje]

However I should ask why would one go do a multicache without trying to find all stages?

 

Why do you care how someone finds it? We's got people to see, places to go, give us a break..

[+Vater_Araignee]

IMNSHO, it is perfectly fine to shortcut a multi if the CO screws up giving you the info to do it.

 

PAFing and reveal sits are another story.

[+DocDiTTo]

I would have liked to see the various stages of your multi, as they sound like they're at interesting points in the park. Actually on a recent cache trip my friends and I briefly toyed with attempting your new earthcache in that park, but after reading the requirements we realized we'd need half a day to do it and we didn't have the time or all the required equipment.

 

That said, I have on occasion, skipped stages of multi-caches. Sometimes it's because I found a stage out of order and sometimes because I found it a mental challenge to try to figure out the final coords without actually hunting every stage. Sometimes I get lucky, sometimes I don't. But, as long as my name is in the log book, it should count as a find. One thing I do NOT do is ask others to tell me where the final of a multi is -- if I can't find it on my own (however I manage to do so) then I don't think I deserve to count it as a find.

 

In the case of your cache, if people skipped the stages they probably missed out on seeing some very neat parts of the park. That's their loss. Whether you delete their find is up to you, if it were my cache I'd change the hints to prevent shortcutting. If someone manages to score the final without finding all the stages, so be it, but you don't have to make it easy for them.

[+Xaa]

There are many ways to shortcut multi's. I'd consider "getting the final coords from another person" the only one that is really against any form of sportmanship. The others are an accomplishment on their own, and something that might just happen.

 

You might be too friendly in your hint for the final, or with spoiler pictures (or people logging your cache might be too friendly, that's a pity).

Or your cache setup might be too easy to break. Some examples: if you take a trail, the points will be on the trail, most likely the cache will be too. If you have clues on your waypoints (like tags with A, B, etc) then use coords like N12 34.(A-5)67 E12 34.(A+4)67, then anyone can see that A is 5. Avoid stuff like that and check your cache beforehand for those tricks. On the other hand, it might help people who are walking your route but miss a point somewhere, so it's a balance.

 

In this part of the woods there are teams that make it a hobby to crack multi's by just reading the description and using logic and experience. Some of those will just see if they can do it, and then walk the multi anyway to check their findings. Some will just do it to turn a multi into a traditional.

 

My personal opinion would be somewhere in the middle. I hardly shortcut multi's, even though I do try it every now and then for fun (the calculation part that is). If it's in urban environment, and I know the environment well enough, I don't feel too bad about skipping the points. If it is in a nice outside environment, I normally do the walk anyway.

 

If people would do it to my multi, I think the best line of thought would be "aha, well, if they broke the code, they had their fun with it, they missed the walk but that's their loss". Unless of course it would be the "I got the coords from my friend" kind of moron.

[Skippermark]

I'm asking more about opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

You shouldn't have deleted their found logs.

 

People often find ways to shortcut caches, sometimes by bushwhacking directly to it or parking somewhere the owner didn't know about. I've seen owners complain because people aren't going the way they intended. Should their logs be deleted because the didn't take the correct path? Where do you draw the line. You draw the line at the signature. If they signed the log, then it's a find.

 

If you don't want people to shortcut the cache, set it up differently so it won't happen. If you keep it the same way, expect people to go to the final if they can figure out a way to do that.

[Andronicus]

I accidentily found a final of a multi a couple of weeks back. I wasn't even looking for it. I signed the log, then did a quick search on my cell phone and found the first stage. Kind of backwards, but that's the way it goes.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Personally, I would leave their logs...nothing wrong with what was done. Sure, your cache was intended a bit different...but nothing wrong with how the cache was found. I have had a couple of my caches found by people outsmarting me and/or my puzzle or multi...I sort of get a kick out of reading how someone found my cache in a way I hadn't thought of...

Edited October 7, 2009 by ArcherDragoon

[Skippermark]

A friend recently found a 5/5 climbing cache. The 5 difficulty is overrated because the cache is visible in plain site, but most people need ropes to get it.

 

He was in the area and decided to check out the cache and thought it looked like it could be reached without using ropes. Sure enough, he climbed out onto the cliff and reached the cache by standing on a small ledge. It wasn't easy, and a fall probably would have killed him (it was about 50' up), but he got it nonetheless.

 

When he logged it online he said that he got it without using ropes. A few hours later the owner deleted his log, saying he did that because he didn't use ropes. My friend wrote back to the owner and said he found it. He signed it and was going to log it as a find. He never heard anything after that, and his found it log remains.

[+rob3k]

If somebody finds the final based solely on info available to anyone on the cache page then I say that should stand.

 

You could remove the hints for the later stages from the page and simply include them physically. In other words, stage 1 would have the coordinates and the hint for stage 2.

[+sbell111]

I guess one thing I see here which may be its own thread all together is doing the intermediate cache locations for a MULTI CACHE considered an ALR?

Only if you are requiring them to do the stages in order to log a find.

If the anti ALR rules apply then multi caches have no reason to exist.

That they do exist in spite of the new anti ALR rules pretty much means that they are grandfathered like challenge caches, or that TBTB haven't yet clarified the sitution.

 

If stages are merely a suggestion (like the new SLR's (suggested logging requiremnts) then they can be deleted as a catagory.

I disagree with your premise.

 

A better way to put it would be that if the anti-ALR rules apply to multis, then poorly designed multicaches have no reason to exist.

 

It is only those multis that are designed in such a way that people can ignore the stages and continue to the final locations that are affected. In this sense, it is just like ALRs that require a cacher to take some action that proves that he/she found the cache. The only useful purpose that it serves is that it allows a cache owner to be lazy. The owners of well-designed multis need not require that people go to each stage because people would be unable to sign the log if they don't go to each stage.

 

Edited to add that the so-called 'anti-ALR' rule certainly applies to multicaches. Per the guidelines, they apply to all physical caches. If the physical logbook was signed, the online 'found' log stands.

Edited October 7, 2009 by sbell111

[PastorJon]

If you deleted my valid find log because I hadn't done the cache in a way you approve of then I'd simply log again without identifying that I'd shortcut it and you'd be none the wiser. Caching is about retrieving the (final) cache and signing the log.

 

If you don't want cachers to shortcut your multi or mystery then don't make it possible for them to do so.

 

Ditto.. move on or ditch the hints. And if you (the CO) continue to delete my valid finds I would certainly contemplate going cache maggot after the third or fourth attempt at logging.

 

- Deleting finds of cachers who did not find all stages of a multi : questionable

- Contacting a reviewer to reinstate the log : acceptable

- Cache maggotry : completely unacceptable!

 

I respect your right to disagree with what the cache owner did.

I find reprehensible the suggestion that cache maggotry is the appropriate solution.

[PastorJon]

If the physical logbook was signed, the online 'found' log stands.

 

I've run into a handful of multi-caches where each stage had a log-book.

 

This doesn't necessarily relate to the cache at hand, but I would contend the following:

 

IF

all stages had a physical logbook

 

AND

the CO clearly stated on the cache page that all logbooks must be signed

 

THEN

expecting all logbooks to be signed should not be considered an ALR, and the CO would be within their rights to delete the finds.

[AZcachemeister]

If you deleted my valid find log because I hadn't done the cache in a way you approve of then I'd simply log again without identifying that I'd shortcut it and you'd be none the wiser. Caching is about retrieving the (final) cache and signing the log.

 

If you don't want cachers to shortcut your multi or mystery then don't make it possible for them to do so.

 

Ditto.. move on or ditch the hints. And if you (the CO) continue to delete my valid finds I would certainly contemplate going cache maggot after the third or fourth attempt at logging.

 

- Deleting finds of cachers who did not find all stages of a multi : questionable

- Contacting a reviewer to reinstate the log : acceptable

- Cache maggotry : completely unacceptable!

 

I respect your right to disagree with what the cache owner did.

I find reprehensible the suggestion that cache maggotry is the appropriate solution.

 

He said he would CONTEMPLATE the action, not actually do it.

To be honest, in the described situation, I would contemplate it too.

You can't prosecute people for their thoughts.

[+niraD]

And if you (the CO) continue to delete my valid finds I would certainly contemplate going cache maggot after the third or fourth attempt at logging.

- Deleting finds of cachers who did not find all stages of a multi : questionable

- Contacting a reviewer to reinstate the log : acceptable

- Cache maggotry : completely unacceptable!

 

I respect your right to disagree with what the cache owner did.

I find reprehensible the suggestion that cache maggotry is the appropriate solution.

Interesting. I didn't read bflentje's response as a suggestion that cache maggotry is the appropriate solution. I read bflentje's response as a suggestion that contemplating cache maggotry is a natural response.

 

As a practical matter, provoking those who have found your cache (and who therefore know where you hid it) by deleting their online Found logs seems a risky proposition. Most will resist the temptation to get even with you by "going cache maggot". But some may not.

[PastorJon]

My apologies. Apparently I did not carefully read the sentence which provoked my response.

 

I suppose there is nothing wrong with "contemplation." But it would seem as though contacting the reviewer to have the log reinstated and locked would come to mind first.

 

Again, my apologies. Thanks for pointing out what I missed.

[+George1]

I have found a couple of multis by just going to the final location and signing the log. I got enough information by knowing the Cacher, and the area, to figure out where the final was. It took me some searching though. The fine art of tracking down a Cache is not for everyone. Everyone thought it was neat how I found it. I have also found a puzzle Cache and never solved the puzzle. That one took me several miles of walking but I did it. Other Cachers have tried my method but have not had the success I have. Many call me the Tracker.

[AZcachemeister]

If the physical logbook was signed, the online 'found' log stands.

 

I've run into a handful of multi-caches where each stage had a log-book.

 

This doesn't necessarily relate to the cache at hand, but I would contend the following:

 

IF

all stages had a physical logbook

 

AND

the CO clearly stated on the cache page that all logbooks must be signed

 

THEN

expecting all logbooks to be signed should not be considered an ALR, and the CO would be within their rights to delete the finds.

 

I put out my caches to provide fun for my fellow cachers, not to see if I can control their behavior.

 

If someone can figure out where the final is without finding some (or any!) of the previous stages, then I guess that was fun for them.

If someone wants to contact their friend who has already found the cache and get the co-ordinates to the final from them, then I guess that was fun for them.

 

If I spend four hours hiking to the top of a remote mountain peak to hide my cache, and someone charters a helicopter to get there and SIGN THE LOG, is it a find or not? They didn't do the hike like I wanted them to do!

 

One GC ID=ONE log to sign=one

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I'm asking more about opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

 

I have shortcutted three multi-caches. The first was because I accidentally spotted the final on my way to a stage (kinda hard to ignore it). The other two had extremely bad coordinates on various stages, and I was able to glean enough information from the hints and the cache descriptions to FTF the finals.

 

I don't regret short-cutting these (especially the FTFs after others posted DNFs) however I typically try to find the cache in a manner that I suspect the owner intended. I appreciate the work that went into a multi-cache and want the full experience of the cache.

 

I have also had people short-cut some of my multi-caches (and admit as much in their logs) however I would never consider deleting their logs. They chose to find my caches their own way, and obviously my cache wasn't designed to prevent this (some might view as a flaw).

[AZcachemeister]

To the OP:

I would certainly have done all the stages as you intended, even if I knew where the final was.

Those who do otherwise are only cheating themselves, and you shouldn't worry about it.

You certainly can shake your head and feel sorry for them.

[+WRASTRO]

If I find your cache and sign the log then I would be very unhappy if you delete my online found it log. I have found quite a few puzzle and multi caches in a different way than the cache owner anticipated. I say "good for me". If you don't want anyone to find your cache without following your design at every step then you need to ensure it can't be done.

 

Deleting found it logs for those who did not go to every WP is bad form and is against GS policy. That said, I will usually do all of the stages of a multi even if I can figure out the final before doing them all.

[+ecanderson]

I'm curious to see the opinions of other cachers and how they feel on shortcutting, their perspectives on what defines a find on a multicache, and if my decision to delete their finds would be considered ethical or not.

I'll weigh in with the pack that says that any information you provide or point to on your cache page that leads someone to a final (be it traditional, puzzle or multi) is fair game.

 

If you want finders to take a specific path, it's your job to make sure that this happens.

[+tozainamboku]

Edited to add that the so-called 'anti-ALR' rule certainly applies to multicaches. Per the guidelines, they apply to all physical caches. If the physical logbook was signed, the online 'found' log stands.

When the ALR guideline change was made were told by several reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys not to read too much into the phrase "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." We were told that this change was to apply to what at that time were commonly referred to as ALR caches, where the cache owner required that you do something unrelated to finding the the caches, in addition to signing the log, in order to log "Found It" online. Several post were made with examples of where someone might delete the a "Found It" of someone who had signed the physical log. These included log that indicated a cache was visited during hours when the cache was not legally available, logs that indicated a cacher intentionally damaged property in order to find the cache, or logs that indicated the finder shortcut a multi or puzzle cache. There was never a direct response from TPTB as to whether or not one could delete these logs, only a cryptic response not to read more into the guideline change than was intended. Apparently this ambiguity on the part of TPTB has left the impression on many that any time the physical log is signed a cache owner can not delete the "Found It" log and any reason given would be interpreted as an additional logging requirement. I don't believe this was the intent. The change was made because after first recognizing the idea of ALRs by having to list them as mystery caches, some people abused them by creating requirements that were meant as nothing more that an excuse to delete some logs. Some ALRs were so silly or far fetched that TPTB saw them as adding nothing to the enjoyment of caches. Had they all stuck to some simple task that anyone who found the cache could do there probably would not have been a need for the change. But because some got ridiculous it was decided to do away with these altogether. Prior to the change, most people felt that if cache owner put a lot of work into a multi or a puzzle and wanted to make sure that people did the cache as intended they could delete logs that indicated that this was not the case. The new rules that were meant for ALR caches only have given the "puritan-literalists" something that they can use to say you may never delete a log of someone who signed the physical log. But we know that you can delete logs that contain spoilers or use inappropriate language. So what is to say you can't delete a log of someone who states in their log that they didn't do the cache as intended?

 

I want to point out that I only disagree with those who want to misinterpret (IMO) the ALR guidelines to apply to something they were not intended to apply to. I do agree with most people that if a cacher is clever enough to find a way to skip stages in a cache or brute force the answer to a puzzle that they found the cache and the log should stand. If a cache owner were to put on the page that logs of those that don't visit every stage or who didn't solve the puzzle will be deleted, I would not see that as an ALR. For a multi, a cache owner could even put a log book in each stage and require that they all be signed in order to log a find online. And if the "puritan-literalist" don't like that, the owner could put a log book in each stage and allow the finder to log a "Found It" for each stage where they signed the log.

[+bittsen]

The rules say "Find cache" "sign log" "collect smiley" (paraphrased, of course) so where is the problem?

 

If you delete someones legitimate log, you are asking for a Karma visit (however that may happen).

 

JMHO