Shortcutting on Multicaches

[Clan Riffster]

You can't prosecute people for their thoughts.

Don't tell our court system. Hate crime legislation has been a way of punishing people for their thoughts for years.

Whack someone upside the head with a rotting lemming carcass and get sentenced to 1 year in jail.

Do so while spouting vitriol about the victim's ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc, and you go to jail for 3 years.

The only thing that is different is the thought process of the suspect.

 

Back on topic: Were it me, not only would I never even consider deleting a log from someone who actually found the cache, but if the voices in my head forced me to do so against my will, when I regained control of my senses I would send them an apology, and write Groundspeak myself, asking that the logs be restored. Deleting a log because the finder didn't jump through the hoops you placed makes you look like a control freak. Utterly boorish. Just my $0.02

[+Team Juniper]

We do a lot of long multi caches and usually if the hints/spoilers are done correctly they shouldn't reveal too much information so cachers can't just go to the final location. But, if they did this and signed the log, I'd still consider it a legitimate find, I'd just change the hints/spoilers or even the way the cache works to prevent this.

 

And I must say that I've also done this a couple of times, but only when being stuck somewhere along a multi. We always try to do a cache the way the placer designed it, but when that isn't possible, something is missing, muggled or we're stuck, we'll use everything in the cache description to try and find the box.

 

There's even been one cache where we visited the start point several times and couldn't find the tag to go to WP1. Using some local knowledge (nothing from the description, logs or hints) I guesstimated a possible place for WP1, went to check it out and did indeed find a tag. So we thought we'd found WP1 and that the coordinate on the tag would be WP2, but as it turned out, it already was the final WP with the stash. So in this case we inadvertently found the box, without even looking at hints or spoilers, and still enjoyed ourselves.

[+Stargazer22]

Snip...

 

...I made the hiding locations pretty simple and obvious

 

 

I think this could be the source of your situation. Making hiding locations simple and obvious on a multi is like an open invitation of a challenge to some folks. There are folks out there that find their fun by being able to complete a multi or a mystery cache without going to the stages or solving anything. They use Google Earth, maps, clues, and can sometimes find caches with an uncanny sense.

 

I don't think it was right to delete the logs. If you want people to only find the cache in the way you intended, then design the cache experience so that is nigh impossible for it to be found any other way. You will still get a few that somehow manage to find them anyway. I would not delete their logs, though. If the final cache is found and the log is signed, I say let the log stand.

 

By deleting logs because they didn't find the cache the way you expected them to find it, you are sending the message that your own fun is more important than the fun of others. Why did you place the cache? For your own fun, or to provide fun for others to find your cache?

 

I know if you deleted a log of mine under these circumstances, I would just put your caches on my ignore list and not seek them. I like to find caches that are put out there for my fun. In return I try to leave logs that will give the cache owner some fun, too.

[+sbell111]

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.

Many people do not know that they can have a log reinstated if it is improperly deleted. They do realize that they could take out their angst on the person's caches, however.

 

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." ...

While I have no more knowledge of what they meant by that statement than you do, I took it to be in response to those who were trying to make the converse of the guideline correct and argue that "Geocaches cannot be logged online as Found if the physical logbook has not been signed" or to argue that only actual signatures in the logbook would allow an online Found to stand, regardless of whether the cache owner accepts these as finds.

 

To this end, their advice not to read too much into this guideline meant that one should accept the guideline as written and not to make more out of it than what it actually states.

Edited October 8, 2009 by sbell111

[+Flo.]

I put a very hard puzzle out here and while waiting for it to be published was talking to a caching friend of mine. Told her that I was having a problem with it and she asked where it was. The only hint I gave her was it was by such and such a cache. An hour later the cache was published and the same friend called me. She had no idea how to do the puzzle, but her and another caching friend were gonna go see if they could find it with that one hint (they did not ask my permission to do it, just called and said that is what they are gonna do). Let me know how it goes and good luck was my response. There are not other caches around that area so they had a lot of ground to cover. Sure enough, a couple hours later, they called me hooting and hollaring and had succeeded in their mission. I could have been mad they did not do my almost impossible to solve puzzle in my mind, but instead decided to join in on their fun and got to listen to a story to remember of their trial and errors. This is something they like to do. Try to "beat the system" per se. In her mind the object of the game is to get the smiley at whatever expense needed (with limitations of course), where as mine is different and I would rather try to solve the puzzle or do the multi to see what I might see. I give them credit for taking that time to wonder the woods without any idea of where it could be and the savageness it took to do that. They both wrote lengthy logs on my page about how they went in search for the cache without doing the puzzle and to this day we still laugh at some of the stuff they went through to find that cache.

 

To keep this on topic, I don't think you should have deleted the logs, but that is just my opinion. Me and my friend play this game in different ways, just as I am sure you and I do. To each their own. I am not big on earthcaches as I feel the geologist in me is a kindergardener, but I still would have your multi.

[knowschad]

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.

 

 

That is a very well thought out and written explaination, Toz!

[+Renegade Knight]

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..

 

It's enough that they do care. The owners sets the rules. If you choose not to honor then, why would you be suprised they delete your log? Give them a break. Find the cache right, or put this owner on your ignore list since they don't live up to your expectations.

 

If this site decides that multi caches can be logged if the log book is signed then you can make your case there.

 

If you go cache maggot over a simple thing like this, then that says you have no respect for others and no intregety yourself.

 

Good luck out there.

[+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.

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....

I'm not following. If only the log matters. Stages, Chicken Hats, Haiku and what not are all suggestions as none need to exist or be "obeyed" for a find to stand. It doesn't matter how well any part of a suggestion is designed. It's optional. Optional means the cache type doesn't need to exist as it no longer serves much of a purpose at all. However multi's do exist so I'm thinking the stages are enforcable.

 

It really suprises me that the cacher threatening to go maggot didn't just lie about it. The owner wouldn't know the difference and it seems to fit with the integrety they are showing in respecting their fellow man.

[+Renegade Knight]

... To each their own. ...

 

That's the crux of your debate. Some say that means finders can ignore owner intent, wishes, and short circuit everthing. I have to factor in finders who like to do this to get "my own fun" out of owning a cache. If they get short circuted to me that means the cache failed, archive and move on to another one.

 

Some owners don't care how a finder finds it others do. That finders rely on owners to have any fun at all means that where owners care finders should as well and where owners dont' care, they can take short cuts or do the full monte as they see fit. Some finders have enough integrety to do a cache as intended. A lot are too selfish to see past the smilie.

 

I've long since passed the point where any one smilie matters. They are like points on who's line is it. It's far easier and simpler to honor the owners wishes when they crop up than to make war over the smilie. Howver some folks like to make war. War is different than forum debate.

[+bflentje]

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.

 

Thank you for catching on.

[+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..

 

It's enough that they do care. The owners sets the rules. If you choose not to honor then, why would you be suprised they delete your log? Give them a break. Find the cache right, or put this owner on your ignore list since they don't live up to your expectations.

 

If this site decides that multi caches can be logged if the log book is signed then you can make your case there.

 

If you go cache maggot over a simple thing like this, then that says you have no respect for others and no intregety yourself.

 

Good luck out there.

 

Apparently you're suffering from not having properly read me post too.

 

But I disagree on the use of the word "rules". I align myself with the Riffster's position (oh my, did I really just say that?)

[+sbell111]

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..

It's enough that they do care. The owners sets the rules. If you choose not to honor then, why would you be suprised they delete your log? Give them a break. Find the cache right, or put this owner on your ignore list since they don't live up to your expectations.

 

If this site decides that multi caches can be logged if the log book is signed then you can make your case there. ...

I bolded the part where your train left the rails. The cache owner does not set the rules as to what it means to find a geocache. The guidelines are clear: Sign the logbook, get a smiley.

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.

I'm not following. If only the log matters. Stages, Chicken Hats, Haiku and what not are all suggestions as none need to exist or be "obeyed" for a find to stand. It doesn't matter how well any part of a suggestion is designed. It's optional. Optional means the cache type doesn't need to exist as it no longer serves much of a purpose at all. However multi's do exist so I'm thinking the stages are enforcable.

 

It really suprises me that the cacher threatening to go maggot didn't just lie about it. The owner wouldn't know the difference and it seems to fit with the integrety they are showing in respecting their fellow man.

Again, I bolded the bit where your post stopped making sense to me.

 

The fact that people can skip steps on poorly engineered multis does not mean that we should no longer have multis. After all, most people would agree that some traditional caches are poorly developed. Does that mean that there should no longer be traditional caches?

 

Also, just because some multicaches are poorly engineered and make skipping stages easy does not mean that additional requirements should be allowed for these caches. This is no different that the additional logging requirements that some owners put on their physical caches that made their ownership role easier. These were deemed inappropriate.

Edited October 8, 2009 by sbell111

[+baloo&bd]

I just want to make sure I understand the "have to do all the stages" argument.

 

I pull up to a city park that is 2 square blocks. The multi states the final is a regular. Looking at the park there are relatively young, healthy trees, a tennis court taking up 1 full block, a statue in one corner and very full healthy bushes that happen to be right near where I park.

 

I assume that the urban setting being what it is that the CO probably hid it in the park and stick my head in the bushes to find a a large tupperware container near the center base of one of the bushes. I am suppose to still do all the stages or my find doesn't count?

 

When I was a relatively new cacher, I found the cache described, in fact it was among my first FTF's. It is still active today, however now adopted out. I've also found another one that as we were going to stage one, something caught my eye as we passed an area that turned out to be the cache.

 

Sorry, but if either through my ingenuity/experience or possibly the poor placement skills of the CO, I still accomplished the ultimate task and the find is valid.

 

While I have never found a cache that someone just gave me the final coords to, and I am not aware of someone in my area (at least the ones I know) doing that, if a cacher decides to get the final coords from someone, ultimately it is their loss.

 

As to some of the comment preceding this, when we hide a cache we agree to maintain the caches and delete bogus logs. Setting aside the fact that you may consider just doing the final a bogus log, I think most, if not all, should agree that saying you found the cache and signed the log (implied by posting an online log) is most definitely an example of a bogus log. If the CO is aware of that, either through checking the log or the finder being dumb enough to write in the log that they did not sign it, CO's are entitled to, if not obligated by the agreement, delete the log.

[+geodarts]

I admit I have found the final for a few multis where I could not find all the stages and recently logged a find for a puzzle that I could not solve and simply had to get the cache. I have also done kyack catches by land which were not how the owner intended them to be done. And night caches during the day. Fortunately my logs have never been deleted.

 

I have also hid traditionals that were designed to bring people to a particular area and some people missed the point of the cache by finding it at night when you can't see the view. But I would not delete the log just because I designed the cache for a different experience.

 

To me the purpose of caching is to have fun and I don't want to agonize over how somebody found any of my caches.

 

But one thing I would suggest to the OP is to add an earthcache to the area now that they are back on geocaching.com. Since you want to show the geology, this would do it best. I always like it when I can

do a physical cache at an earthcache site and you could probably set it up so that people would also do the multi as you intended since they would be there at the same time.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Erickson

[+Crow-T-Robot]

When I design or place a multi, I do it with the idea that I'm giving the finder a map. You find the coordinates and I will lead you to the final. To me, that seems like the easiest way to find a multicache. I give you precise coordinates, you follow them and bingo! you found the cache.

 

The other way is to get to the starting point and start trying to shortcut a longer multi by guessing where the final might be stashed. If you guess right, I say good for you. I don't view that as an owner failure or cache failure...you just found the cache.If you guess wrong, you can search for quite a long time, only to revert back to following the coordinates. Personally, I try to make it rewarding to find the waypoints as well as the final. I try to inject humor and creativity along the way and if you shortcut to the final, you'll miss that aspect. It's not a loss on your part, since you were more interested in the final and the smiley that goes with it. No skin off my back, or yours.

 

So, if you haven't gathered, I don't consider finding all existing waypoints to a multicache to be a requirement to log a find. As an owner, the only way I'm going to know that you didn't find each waypoint is if you say so in your online log. Same with PAF networks. Find the cache, have fun. It really is that simple.

 

It's enough that they do care. The owners sets the rules.

 

The owner can set any rule he wants regarding his cache. He/she can tell you that you have to fly in on a dragon while doing a handstand before your find will count, but if it's published on this site, your signature in the physical log book is the line in the sand as to whether your find is legitimate or not.

 

Bruce

[+ecanderson]

Back when I was a chemistry student, one of our lab assignments was to grab a sample of an "unknown" pure (uncompounded) material and determine what it was. It was a simple Pass/Fail approach -- you either correctly identified the material or you didn't. The TA (a grad school student assistant) told us to use whatever means were at our disposal. That was great, because the chem lab was well equipped with lots of great toys for analytical work.

 

I walked up, grabbed my sample, unstoppered the test tube, got one whiff of the contents, wrote my answer on the label of the test tube, handed it back to the TA and left for an early lunch.

 

Found out the next day that the TA had given me an "Fail" for the lab. I called him and asked him why. He said that although I had correctly identified the material, I hadn't done the work he had expected. I reminded him that he'd said to use whatever means were at my disposal. I'd smelled it, and come to my conclusion. I suggested that if he could think of a single chemical that smelled like 1-4,Dichlorobenzene (moth balls), he could get back to me, but that I'd be speaking to the dean that afternoon to get the grade fixed. The dean did indeed correct the grade to a "Pass", and suggested to the TA that he either change his requirements for a passing grade for identification or use something less obvious.

 

Talk about a parallel...

[+Geoextreme87]

CONCLUSION

 

All right everyone I want to first thank you all for keeping this pretty civil and explaining your reasons and opinions on such.

 

Now based on the info that I have read both on the geocaching site and on this blog, plus the fact that none of the cachers that I deleted ever got their finds back I would have to conclude to the best of my knowledge that I did not actually break any rules (Though several of you disagree, which you made obvious in your post, please read the next paragraph).

 

HOWEVER, I find that I (and the few brave to agree with me ) am severely in the minority on the topic of whether it was ETHICAL or NOT. So I have concluded ETHICALLY speaking I WAS IN THE WRONG.

 

I have also concluded from this blog that most cachers (both as seekers and COs) would consider short cutting an acceptable act. This is good info to consider if I were to decide to ever make another multicache so that I set it up that its 99% short cutting proof. That way no cache seekers step on my toes and I don't vice versa and hence and overall enjoyable cache for all.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

Now to throw you guys some unknown (or perhaps known if you did some profile checking on me, lol) background info about this multicache scenario.

 

The geology multicache was archived for the facts of people short cutting (which could be proven by the fact that they stated such in their "Found It" logs) and despite my best efforts, severe muggling due to the geologic areas being in high foot traffic areas.

 

An Earthcache (published 1/21/2008) solved the problem as requirements were needed for each stage and order of stages didn't matter and seeing how a 10 year old did this cache with no problem I would say the requirements are not unreasonable. This also filled the intentions of why this cache was made, as people who were interested in the Park's Geology did this cache and those who were not did not.

 

It should also be noted that I built two other caches in this park to meet the needs of "cachers who liked to find the treasure" and those "who liked the adventure to the cache". I made a simple C&D Traditional along one of the trails (that was also less than 300' from the road) and a another Multicache (5 stages), though could be from a 5 stage to a 2 stage, has not been by any of the cachers to the best of my known ability. I will note if a cacher would happen to beat the system I would send them a "I'm very disappointed in your decision e-mail" but based off the ethics observed here in the blogs I would not delete his/her's find.

 

I will however not give back any of the finds for the old geology multicache. As I did take this very personally as being disrespectful to me for the time and effort I put into the making and maintaining of this cache. (You may express your disagreement if so wish but it will not change my decision)

 

At this point I see no need to further continue this forum and will not respond any further.

 

Again I want to thank you all for your opinions and your polite manners to me and the other cachers on this topic.

 

Cache On!

Edited October 9, 2009 by Geoextreme87

[+W1zz]

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?

 

You should realise that every stage of a multi could result in a DNF. That's what a Multi is all about: the need to find multiple spots. If a geocacher fails to get what is required to find at one step, then their hunt is over and that's the way it should be. They either need to search more or you'll need to revise the status of this stage: does it require maintenance or correction ? So if you want to minimize the impact on the surroundings at a stage location, make it obvious to find on the trail, NOT IN YOUR TEXT. What you want is for them to REALLY NEED to physically go there but then easily find the requirements for the next step.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Find cache. Sign log. Get smiley.

The find is valid. You should tell them to relog the cache.

I would relog the cache, and if you deleted it again, I'd complain to GC. They can set the find so you cannot delete it.

I like to take people to great views. If they go on a rainy day, and do not see the view, that's their problem. They found the cache and signed the log.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Harry Dolphin

[+simpjkee]

You are WRONG to delete their finds. If you want it to be necessary for cachers to visit all stages to find the cache then make it necessary. You have not done that and people are making genuine finds and you're deleting them. That's not cool. The problem (as you see it) is with your cache and NOT with the cachers who are claiming completely acceptable finds.

[+sbell111]

Now based on the info that I have read both on the geocaching site and on this blog, plus the fact that none of the cachers that I deleted ever got their finds back I would have to conclude to the best of my knowledge that I did not actually break any rules (Though several of you disagree, which you made obvious in your post, please read the next paragraph).

First, you clearly did not read the guidelines if you believe that the 'information on the geocaching site' supports your deleting finds when the logbook was signed.

 

Second, using the fact that none of the geocachers got their logs back as proof that you were right to delete them is a very poor argument.

[+Team Cotati]

You can't prosecute people for their thoughts.

Don't tell our court system. Hate crime legislation has been a way of punishing people for their thoughts for years.

Whack someone upside the head with a rotting lemming carcass and get sentenced to 1 year in jail.

Do so while spouting vitriol about the victim's ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc, and you go to jail for 3 years.

The only thing that is different is the thought process of the suspect.

 

Back on topic: Were it me, not only would I never even consider deleting a log from someone who actually found the cache, but if the voices in my head forced me to do so against my will, when I regained control of my senses I would send them an apology, and write Groundspeak myself, asking that the logs be restored. Deleting a log because the finder didn't jump through the hoops you placed makes you look like a control freak. Utterly boorish. Just my $0.02

 

That one is not going to go unchallenged:

 

""a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

 

Selecting a victim is not a thought. It is an action.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+baloo&bd]

You can't prosecute people for their thoughts.

Don't tell our court system.

That one is not going to go unchallenged:

 

This nonsense has what to do with the topic?

[+Team Cotati]

You can't prosecute people for their thoughts.

Don't tell our court system.

That one is not going to go unchallenged:

 

This nonsense has what to do with the topic?

 

Zero, absolutely nothing.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Now based on the info that I have read both on the geocaching site and on this blog, plus the fact that none of the cachers that I deleted ever got their finds back I would have to conclude to the best of my knowledge that I did not actually break any rules (Though several of you disagree, which you made obvious in your post, please read the next paragraph).

First, you clearly did not read the guidelines if you believe that the 'information on the geocaching site' supports your deleting finds when the logbook was signed.

 

Second, using the fact that none of the geocachers got their logs back as proof that you were right to delete them is a very poor argument.

Geoextreme87, I'll expand.

Can you prove that they even bothered to go above your head to get the logs reinstated?

I know I wouldn't bother.

I hope for you caches sake that they don't see what now appears to be bragging. They might decide the fagedaboudit rout was the wrong one and do some deleting of their own. Human nature can be an amazingly nasty thing in it's 180's.

[Keystone]

This nonsense has what to do with the topic?

Nothing, so that tangent is finished. Thank you.

 

Back on topic, the OP's cache is a poster child for why ALR's were banned.

 

The fact that we have a 2009 forum thread examining log deletions in May 2007 is remarkable.

 

The deleted logs are quite innocent and speak of tracking down the final cache using pure geosense, not by getting the coordinates from a prior finder. I, too, have felt that special thrill from finding the final of a multicache based on asking myself "where would I hide the final?" after I could not find the well-hidden first stage. I gushed enthusiastically about this in my log and it would have been a buzz kill to see it deleted.

 

Find the cache, sign the logbook, earn a smiley. It's quite simple, really.

 

I am tempted to write to the two accounts whose logs were deleted, linking them to this thread, and explaining that a restored find is just an e-mail away.

[+Vater_Araignee]

This nonsense has what to do with the topic?

Nothing, so that tangent is finished. Thank you.

 

Back on topic, the OP's cache is a poster child for why ALR's were banned.

 

The fact that we have a 2009 forum thread examining log deletions in May 2007 is remarkable.

 

The deleted logs are quite innocent and speak of tracking down the final cache using pure geosense, not by getting the coordinates from a prior finder. I, too, have felt that special thrill from finding the final of a multicache based on asking myself "where would I hide the final?" after I could not find the well-hidden first stage. I gushed enthusiastically about this in my log and it would have been a buzz kill to see it deleted.

 

Find the cache, sign the logbook, earn a smiley. It's quite simple, really.

 

I am tempted to write to the two accounts whose logs were deleted, linking them to this thread, and explaining that a restored find is just an e-mail away.

WOOT WOOT!

keySTONE keySTONE keySTONE!

[+wimseyguy]

I will however not give back any of the finds for the old geology multicache. As I did take this very personally as being disrespectful to me for the time and effort I put into the making and maintaining of this cache. (You may express your disagreement if so wish but it will not change my decision)

1. The decision to restore the wrongly deleted find logs isn't yours to make. If geocaching.com determines you were in the wrong, they will restore and lock the logs to prevent further deletion.

2. Lighten up Francis. Taking it personally is where you made your fatal flaw. We're just playing a game in the woods hunting tupperware using billion dollar gummint satellites. You can only be offended by someone if you allow yourself to be offended.

 

I hope Keystone does contact those two whose logs were deleted.

[+niraD]

I hope Keystone does contact those two whose logs were deleted.

+1

[Clan Riffster]

Selecting a victim is not a thought. It is an action.

Deleted after seeing Keystone's post.

Sorry Boss!

Edited October 12, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Renegade Knight]

...The owners sets the rules. ...

I bolded the part where your train left the rails.

 

We have to agree on the basics before we can agree on the more nuanced debates.

 

The owner sets the rules. I put a period on that. This site is of two minds when it comes to owner rules. One the owner is responsible. This site and I agree on this. This site has muddied the waters a bit with the anti ALR rules. However where I'm responsible as owner I get first, and last say on the rules for the cache. I'm not going to debate it with a finder or this site. If I'm responsible that's the price. Take that away and you move responsiblity to someone else. This site isn't ever going to agree to assume the responsiblity for a cache.

 

This site may or may not list the cache but that's a different call. If there ever is a conflict this site may choose to "unlist" the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Find the cache, sign the logbook, earn a smiley. It's quite simple, really....

 

That describes a traditional.

 

It describes a fraction of a multi, meaning it's all good and you just removed the reason for the mutli to exist as a type of cache. It's now nothing more than a suggestion. Same as all other ALRs.

[+Renegade Knight]

I will however not give back any of the finds for the old geology multicache. As I did take this very personally as being disrespectful to me for the time and effort I put into the making and maintaining of this cache. (You may express your disagreement if so wish but it will not change my decision)

1. The decision to restore the wrongly deleted find logs isn't yours to make. If geocaching.com determines you were in the wrong, they will restore and lock the logs to prevent further deletion.

...I hope Keystone does contact those two whose logs were deleted.

It is his to make as the owner. This site isn't in the cache owning business. Meaning they should not really be butting in on any one cache where the find isn't legit. Don't find the stages, you haven't found the multi cache, merely a stage.

 

Which stage counts? The first? Hey there's a log. Per the Keystone test it's good as a find regardless of what the owner thinks.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

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..

 

It's enough that they do care. The owners sets the rules. If you choose not to honor then, why would you be suprised they delete your log? Give them a break. Find the cache right, or put this owner on your ignore list since they don't live up to your expectations.

 

If this site decides that multi caches can be logged if the log book is signed then you can make your case there.

 

If you go cache maggot over a simple thing like this, then that says you have no respect for others and no intregety yourself.

 

Good luck out there.

 

Apparently you're suffering from not having properly read me post too...

 

Reverse that. IF meaning choice is involved. Or did I miss something as you contemplate your options?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

...The owners sets the rules. ...

I bolded the part where your train left the rails.

We have to agree on the basics before we can agree on the more nuanced debates.

 

The owner sets the rules. I put a period on that. This site is of two minds when it comes to owner rules. One the owner is responsible. This site and I agree on this. This site has muddied the waters a bit with the anti ALR rules. However where I'm responsible as owner I get first, and last say on the rules for the cache. I'm not going to debate it with a finder or this site. If I'm responsible that's the price. Take that away and you move responsiblity to someone else. This site isn't ever going to agree to assume the responsiblity for a cache.

 

This site may or may not list the cache but that's a different call. If there ever is a conflict this site may choose to "unlist" the cache.

I'm not for a moment stating that you don't have the authority to take your ball and go home. Nor am I doubting that TPTB have the authority to archive your cache listing. However, that does not change the fact that the archived listing may include a 'found it' log of that person who signed the cache's log, whether or not you want it there.

 

This is not about the ownership of the box. It's about the online logs.

...Find the cache, sign the logbook, earn a smiley. It's quite simple, really....

That describes a traditional.

 

It describes a fraction of a multi, meaning it's all good and you just removed the reason for the mutli to exist as a type of cache. It's now nothing more than a suggestion. Same as all other ALRs.

According to the guidelines, it descibes all physical caches. Therefore, it describes all multis.

[+sbell111]

I will however not give back any of the finds for the old geology multicache. As I did take this very personally as being disrespectful to me for the time and effort I put into the making and maintaining of this cache. (You may express your disagreement if so wish but it will not change my decision)

1. The decision to restore the wrongly deleted find logs isn't yours to make. If geocaching.com determines you were in the wrong, they will restore and lock the logs to prevent further deletion.

...I hope Keystone does contact those two whose logs were deleted.

It is his to make as the owner. This site isn't in the cache owning business. Meaning they should not really be butting in on any one cache where the find isn't legit. Don't find the stages, you haven't found the multi cache, merely a stage.

 

Which stage counts? The first? Hey there's a log. Per the Keystone test it's good as a find regardless of what the owner thinks.

That very idea would be enough to keep me from putting a logbook in each multi stage.

[+tozainamboku]

I have to agree with RK. The ALR rule marks a change in the attitude of this site regarding owner maintenance of online logs. Prior to the new guideline it was generally accepted in this forum that cache owners were the ones that decided which logs could stay and which could be deleted. There was little doubt that owners could define rules for "doing their cache as intended". Deleting logs simply out of spite or for no apparent reason was of course a no-no. These logs could be reinstated by Groundspeak and if necessary the cache could be archived and the pages lock to prevent an owner from continuing to delete a legitimate log. Just as cache owner could delete logs for not meeting the specified requirements, a cache owner could decide to allow a find on cache that was missing or even allow armchair logging of a virtual cache.

 

Some puritans just couldn't stand this. It should be sign the log = get to log find online.

 

Their complaints as well as just the silliness of some ALRs first got ALRs listed as Mystery caches so that cachers would read the page and know there were additional requirements. But this didn't satisfy the puritans. What's more is that this "official" recognition lead to some cache owners inventing ALRs that were no longer meant to add to the enjoyment of the cache by those who choose to do them, but were simply there to give the cache owner an excuse to delete logs. Not being able to come up with guidelines for acceptable ALR caches that would not be a subjective test the reviewers would be asked to make like the old "Wow" requirement for listing virtuals, TPTB decided to do away with ALRs altogether. But this did away with any reason that a cache owner might have for deleting logs other than "You didn't sign the physical log". All the cache owners that used threat of log deletion to get people to do all the stages of their cache or to follow park rules when searching for the cache or any other reason no longer had that capability. Now what was once accepted - that cache owners could make sure you found all the stages, make sure you followed park rules, etc. - is clearly forbidden. Cache seeker can do what they like and so long as the physical log is signed there is nothing the owner can do about it.

 

Now Groundspeak is going after cache owners who allow certain logs where the finder did not sign (or at least did not actually visit the cache site). They have essentially told virtual cache owners that they must delete armchair logs or risk having their cache archived. This may be simply a backdoor TPTB are using to archive the few remaining virtual caches. They have already made it so these caches can't be adopted - meaning that eventually all these caches will be without cache owners and therefore subject to archival. We shall see if Groundspeak takes a similar stand against remote logs on puzzle caches as is being discussed in another thread.

 

We used allow cache owners to experiment with various rules for logging of caches, but we seem to be moving in the direction of a puritan reformation where the online log is given a narrow definition that cache owners are forced to accept or have their caches archived.

[CoyoteRed]

...Find the cache, sign the logbook, earn a smiley. It's quite simple, really....

That describes a traditional.

 

It describes a fraction of a multi, meaning it's all good and you just removed the reason for the mutli to exist as a type of cache. It's now nothing more than a suggestion. Same as all other ALRs.

I'm starting to wonder what you consider the goal of a hunt.

 

If you chart a hunt you have a wind up and wind down. The peak is signing the log (or some other acceptable form of find verification--whatever that means). The wind up is what ever is put in your path. It's the distance from where your behind generally is planted to the cache. It could be elevation changes, puzzles, obscure gird formats, climbing a tree, finding a way to open the cache, etc. The peak is the singing of the cache. The wind down is the putting the cache back where you found and making it ready for the next finder, leaving the area, logging online or whatever else bookkeeping you choose to do.

 

The wind up is whatever the cache owner chooses to make it. He can make it a traditional where he provides you with the coordinates to the final. Or he can say you need to go to a different spot first before I give the coordinates to the final. Or he might say you need to figure out this puzzle and when you do you get to have the coordinates to move on.

 

Where the two camps of whether shortcutting is a viable option or not is whether the path the cache owner has placed in front you is the path you have to go or it is merely a path. I say it's a path. How you find the cache is up to you. Cheat or be a non-participating tag-along and you still sign the log then it's a find--a cheesy find, but still a find non-the-less.

 

So, is the intermediate stages of a multi or the puzzle in a mystery merely a suggestion? Yep. But that's what I gave you in order to find the cache. Find is a different way and kudos to you. I'll just have to make it harder for you to short cut it next time.

[CoyoteRed]

But this did away with any reason that a cache owner might have for deleting logs other than "You didn't sign the physical log".

Care to point out where this is case? I might agree with you if cache owner are no longer able to delete logs with spoilers or reference illegal activity they participated in while on the hunt. However, unless someone who can speak with some authority can say otherwise, I think you're way off base on the new rules. The new rules was specifically targeting ALRs and not the ability of cache owners to properly manage their cache hunts.

[+Planet]

My opinion? Without reading the whole thread.... Your hint was too easy and you brought this upon yourself. Delete the hint, make it harder, and leave the logs intact. They found it and they signed the paper log.

[+Geoextreme87]

Allrighty well so much for me not adding another reply.

 

It seems I have to justify my rational for basing that I do have the right to delete the "Found it" logs that stated that they delibertly shortcutted and did not do any of the other stages except for the final stage. (PLEASE NOTE just because something is unethical does not mean I violated any of Groundspeak guidelines which is further explained below.)

 

1. Heres the link on the www.geocaching.coms site that states I can delete logs. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint

 

"Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

2. Here is why going to the intermediate caches on a multicache are NOT an ALR and is a requirement.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

 

"Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

 

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

By only doing the final they have not met the requirements of a multicache! Do not treat this as a traditional cause it isn't one!

 

At the time when these cachers tried to make their claim, I had no ALRs in place! All they had to do was go to ALL the stages and sign the log (the minimum requirement of a multicache). But I guess my expectations on people were too high.

[+baloo&bd]

Allrighty well so much for me not adding another reply.

 

Where on earth does anything you quoted justify deleting a legitimate log? As to the ALR, it becomes one when after they properly sign the log, then you decide that there will be penalties for outsmarting you.

 

Not sure if you have been following the thread, but back in post #76 geocaching.com stated that the finds were legitimate and if requested by the finders, they would be promptly reinstated. What more clarification is needed?

 

You made a mistake. No problem, everyone does. You posted, or so it appears, to find out if it was justified or not. It has been pointed out several times in several ways why deleting the logs was improper. No one is even asking you to correct your mistake just learn from it going forward.

[+Geoextreme87]

Allrighty well so much for me not adding another reply.

 

Where on earth does anything you quoted justify deleting a legitimate log? As to the ALR, it becomes one when after they properly sign the log, then you decide that there will be penalties for outsmarting you.

 

Not sure if you have been following the thread, but back in post #76 geocaching.com stated that the finds were legitimate and if requested by the finders, they would be promptly reinstated. What more clarification is needed?

 

You made a mistake. No problem, everyone does. You posted, or so it appears, to find out if it was justified or not. It has been pointed out several times in several ways why deleting the logs was improper. No one is even asking you to correct your mistake just learn from it going forward.

 

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to.

 

Step 2: 2 cachers decided they would skip all intermediate stage and go straight to the final cache. This is not a traditional cache this is a multicache they need to hit the intermediate stages.

 

Step 3: Some who posted in this long series of blogs state if that I require a cacher to go to an intermediate stage in a multicache that I've just created an ALR. I was merely explaining based off the info from the geocaching website I can not see how I violated any rule. (see upper two links in previous post)

 

Conclusion

 

My intention of this blog was to see if what I did was considered ethical. I've found that too most shortcutting to a cache is ethical and therefore logging a find is acceptable. I respect that as their opinion and will consider that factor when making another multicache (so that I avoid this problem in the future).

 

I decided then to post what happen to this cache and I have cachers stating now what I did was consider "illegal" to the caching guidelines. I merely just pulled the info from those same guidelines justifying why what I did was "legal" (No matter how unethical).

 

So what happens in the past remains in the past UNCHANGED! However I will consider these mainstream ethics to multicaches in the future.

 

Does this clarify everything?

[+baloo&bd]

I don't know how to make it any more clear.

 

OH...OH....I know....I know. Read post #76.

[+bittsen]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Baby steps...

 

1)Find cache.

2)Sign log.

3)Get smiley.

 

I could explain it to a two year old with those words.

 

It wouldn't matter if I was walking through the forest, completly oblivious to the hobby of caching, tripped and my face fell on a cache. If I sign the log, I can collect the smiley.

 

It's just about how I got my first one. If it was a final of a multi, the find would still count.

[+Geoextreme87]

As too post 76,

 

I realize this is a reviewer who is blogging. This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking. There is a difference between ethics and rules.

 

To Keystone I respect your opinion but these people posted right on their "Found" logs that they SKIPPED all intial stages except the last. By defintion a multicache has at least two stages. They found only one stage therefore they did not stand within the requirements of a multicache and I have the right if I so choose to delete their post to maintain quality of my cache.

 

Now I realize some people don't mind if people shortcut on their multicaches and that is completely fine (that is your cache its your choice) but with this one that I created, I felt that they didn't complete what by defintion is a multicache.

 

It should also be noted for those of you who are big on the "Smiley" I made a traditional cache in this park to meet exactly the expectaions that you wanted (Find container, signed log, claim a smiley). I was hoping that would fill the caching fix. Obviously it didn't and was partially the reason why I archived this cache and replaced it with an Earthcache whichhas solved this problem. Again I placed this topic to determine ethics solely.

 

Keystone I ask you respectfully, please let my decisions in the past remain the way they are. Multicaches that I will create in the future will not have this problem as I will leave them hintless and will respect what cachers in this blog have strongly consider ethical. this should prevent both seeker and CO's little toes from being stepped on.

[+Geoextreme87]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Baby steps...

 

1)Find cache.

2)Sign log.

3)Get smiley.

 

I could explain it to a two year old with those words.

 

It wouldn't matter if I was walking through the forest, completly oblivious to the hobby of caching, tripped and my face fell on a cache. If I sign the log, I can collect the smiley.

 

It's just about how I got my first one. If it was a final of a multi, the find would still count.

 

Those are the steps to a traditional cache not a multicache! The first step should actually be find 1st stage then continue to coordiantes after till you find "final" cache. Then its sign log and get smiley.

 

As for the forest accident to each CO is thier own decision. Also finding a cache by accident is different from delibertly skipping stages cause you can. Some CO may find those acceptable others like myself may not.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Geoextreme87

[+baloo&bd]

I realize this is a reviewer who is blogging posting. This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking. There is a difference between ethics and rules.

 

<snip>

 

Keystone I ask you respectfully, please let my decisions in the past remain the way they are. Multicaches that I will create in the future will not have this problem as I will leave them hintless and will respect what cachers in this blog have strongly consider ethical. this should prevent both seeker and CO's little toes from being stepped on.

 

Correction:

 

"Keystone I ask you respectfully, please let my unethical and disregard for the rules in the past remain the way they are. Multicaches that I will create in the future will not have this problem as I will leave them hintless and will respect what cachers in this blogforum have strongly consider ethical. this should prevent both seeker and CO'smy little toes from being stepped on."

 

Why am I posting responses? These loose, misguided interpretations of guidelines are what lead to even more complex guidelines being put in place that lead to either misunderstandings or elimination of facets of the hobby that some enjoy because something had to be written for the least common denominator. Guidelines that would not otherwise need to be written if simple common sense were applied.

 

The basics of geocaching were listed a couple post up. Find cache, sign log, get credit. ALR's, some of which were fun and the requirements added to the enjoyment, were eliminated because of abuses such as the ALR you imposed on the cachers in question.

 

History says Keystone will probably not initiate anything. It simply is not worth it and his time is better spent elsewhere/\. However do not show any disrespect to think that means approval or agreement.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Allrighty well so much for me not adding another reply.

 

It seems I have to justify my rational for basing that I do have the right to delete the "Found it" logs that stated that they delibertly shortcutted and did not do any of the other stages except for the final stage. (PLEASE NOTE just because something is unethical does not mean I violated any of Groundspeak guidelines which is further explained below.)

 

1. Heres the link on the www.geocaching.coms site that states I can delete logs. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint

 

"Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

2. Here is why going to the intermediate caches on a multicache are NOT an ALR and is a requirement.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

 

"Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

 

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

By only doing the final they have not met the requirements of a multicache! Do not treat this as a traditional cause it isn't one!

 

At the time when these cachers tried to make their claim, I had no ALRs in place! All they had to do was go to ALL the stages and sign the log (the minimum requirement of a multicache). But I guess my expectations on people were too high.

 

But you are missing this part of the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

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.

 

If the physical cache log was signed, the finder may log the find online. Period.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+niraD]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to.

Where in the guidelines does it say that anyone needs to go to all the stages of a multi-cache?