ALR's---were they THAT bad?

[+The Weasel]

I was sitting here looking at some of the harder caches I have done regarding terrain. I used to like the ALR feature (additonal log request) for let's say a 5 terrain cache.

 

For example, we have a 5 terrain cache that is on top of an old cement pillar (approx 35ft) that used to be part of an old bridge. I have seen in the logs that some people do that cache as a group (which is fine) but only 1 person of the group is actually doing the terrain part by climbing the ladder or whatever means they used to get the cache.

 

If I was the cache owner I would almost feel jipped that a bunch of finds were logged by people not fully doing the cache. That's why I liked the ALR feature that you could make it that you wanted a pic of each cache with the cache from it's hiding spot.

 

Maybe it's just me, or just a midweek rant

[+Shop99er]

I don't think the issue was that ALR's were bad. I think is was that they were getting out of hand.

 

There was one that required you to put on a spacesuit, real or home made, and post a picture taken at the cache site. Which BTW, was a very public spot. It's not the worst example, but one that I remember well. That ALR was what stopped me from doing that cache.

[Clan Riffster]

I had one that was an ammo can 30' up a palm tree, chained in place.

I included a rope in the cache so those who made the ascent could pass it down to those who didn't.

I was just happy that folks were finding it.

Didn't really care about how they found it.

[+sbell111]

Maybe it's just me, or just a midweek rant

Could be both.

[+The Weasel]

What I am thinking along the lines of is along the lines of a Fizzy Challenge where you have to fill in your entire 81 diff/terr combo. In my example, you didn't REALLY do the cache but were more of a cheerleader. I just think reasonable ALR's were good for certian things.

[GOF and Bacall]

What I am thinking along the lines of is along the lines of a Fizzy Challenge where you have to fill in your entire 81 diff/terr combo. In my example, you didn't REALLY do the cache but were more of a cheerleader. I just think reasonable ALR's were good for certian things.

 

Sure. But the problems start when you try to define reasonable. The CO of the spaceman cache mentioned above certainly thought it was a reasonable request. Shop99er obviously felt otherwise.

[+StarBrand]

TPTB didn't want to get into the business of trying to decide what was simple and reasonable and what was overboard - so the whole idea was dumped. I can understand that.

[CoyoteRed]

If I was the cache owner I would almost feel jipped that a bunch of finds were logged by people not fully doing the cache. That's why I liked the ALR feature that you could make it that you wanted a pic of each cache with the cache from it's hiding spot.

What if the trip required a boat trip and climb your pylon? The folks with the boat took the guys who climb the pylon to it. Now the climbers are the only ones to get a smilie?

 

If it's a team effort, then every member of the team can say they did that cache.

 

In my mind, the only gray area is how far away the left behind team members are. Okay, a boat trip, a SCUBA dive, then a hike, and then a rock climb. Do the guys left behind in the boat get to claim a find? Eh... I think hollering distance is about a good distance to say yea or hay.

 

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

 

What about someone who recovers a cache in a busy park and returns to a group so every can sign?

 

There's huge gray areas in claiming a find. Personally, I think the whole idea is a two edged sword. It makes the hobby popular, yet fosters several negatives like trache placements and argument over what is and isn't a find.

[+bittsen]

Get coordinates, find cache, sign log, get smiley.

 

That is the base of the activity.

 

Why do some people like to make it more difficult with an ALR, because they like to control others.

 

And, what does it take away from a cache owner if only one person of the group actually climbs the last obstacle? Absolutely nothing.

 

Don't pet the sweaty things...

[GOF and Bacall]

..Don't pet the sweaty things...

 

All depends on what things are sweating and why.

[jholly]

That's why I liked the ALR feature that you could make it that you wanted a pic of each cache with the cache from it's hiding spot.

 

Ever hear of a program called photoshop?

[Andronicus]

 

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

 

 

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Some ALRs were a lot of fun! I did a few requiring a photo at the cache site. I have no problems with that. Post your photo of you under the hat in the sculpture. That was a fun! And added emphasis to the cache. "Use the name of a Honda vehicle in your response." "As a prelude to finding this cache..." They were fun. But, I guess, they got got of hand. Some people just set out to spoil the fun. Oh, well.

The major problem, is that these are grandfathered as mystery caches, because of the ALR. But now, they are traditional caches, with the mystery icon. But, I will still post the requested photo!

[CoyoteRed]

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff.

Exactly. The more I think about it then less I like the present scheme of keeping track of activity.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff.

Exactly. The more I think about it then less I like the present scheme of keeping track of activity.

 

Nothing says you have to use the frog's system of keeping track. It's a bit of work but I have almost got all my finds converted to my own system. Hang the numbers!

[CoyoteRed]

Nothing says you have to use the frog's system of keeping track. It's a bit of work but I have almost got all my finds converted to my own system. Hang the numbers!

The activity isn't only the seekers' log of activity, but also the hiders' cache's activity.

[GOF and Bacall]

Nothing says you have to use the frog's system of keeping track. It's a bit of work but I have almost got all my finds converted to my own system. Hang the numbers!

The activity isn't only the seekers' log of activity, but also the hiders' cache's activity.

 

True. But barring not hiding any caches I have not yet found a way to opt out of that side of the record keeping. Few of the problems we see are driven by the hide counts anyway. It is the find counts that drive the controversy and anger.

[+tozainamboku]

There were some cool ideas and some ALRs that served a valid purpose. From the MissJenn's original post announcing the change to the ALR guidelines it is clear that Groundspeak felt this was the case as well. It was the inability to come up with guidelines that the reviewers would be able to enforce that led to all ALRs except challenges being disallowed.

 

We regret that a few really cool ideas may be lost as a result, and we apologize to the cache owners concerned. Groundspeak has decided that the number of ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd had grown large enough.

 

It may be possible to handle ALRs somewhat along the way commercial caches are handled. Reviewers will deny any cache with commercial content. Groundspeak though reserves the right to approve a commerical cache if they find it in their interest to do so. It should be clear to anyone following one of the threads on the International Space Station cache that Groundspeak can approve any cache they like regardless of whether it meets the guidelines. Approving something with an ALR that a cache owner can enforce by deleting logs is probably something that Groundspeak could do on case by case basis if the ALR was really cool or if it served some purpose that couldn't be achieved otherwise. My guess is that proof you really found the 5 star terrain cache and that somebody else didn't sign your name for you is not going to be something TPTB will agree is a valid purpose for having an ALR.

[+thedeadpirate]

This was one of those situations much like the virtuals where people had pushed the limits so much that something needed to be done. Rather than put the burden on the reviewers to decide which ALR's had merit, they just decided to do away with them altogether.

 

One of geocaching's greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses is it vast diversity of people. There is probably a middle ground to be found somewhere, but someone will always push the limits.

[+bittsen]

Here is the problem with ALR's

 

Most of them involved taking a picture. Not everyone who owns a GPS owns a digtal camera.

Not all who have a digital camera will carry it with them everywhere.

Some people like to remain anonymous and don't want their picture on the internet.

Some people just want to FIND caches, not act out a play.

ALR's weren't in the spirit if the activity (Get coords, find cache, sign log, get smiley)

ALR's gave the CO too much control over who could and could not claim a find on their cache.

Some people don't have access to the cache description and have no idea there is an ALR.

Some people would get their logs deleted because they didn't know there was an ALR.

Some ALRs were actually dangerous.

Some people were physically incapable f performing the ALR.

 

I'm sure there were a lot more reasons but the point is that ALR's are gone. Get over it!

[+tozainamboku]

Here is the problem with ALR's

 

Most of them involved taking a picture. Not everyone who owns a GPS owns a digtal camera.

Not every body Scuba dives, yet Scuba caches are allowed.

Not all who have a digital camera will carry it with them everywhere.

I often have to come back to cache becuase I wasn't carrying the right TOTT to retrieve it.

Some people like to remain anonymous and don't want their picture on the internet.

They are free to not seek the ALR cache if they don't want to comply

Some people just want to FIND caches, not act out a play.

They are free to not look for the ALR cache

ALR's weren't in the spirit if the activity (Get coords, find cache, sign log, get smiley)

Some people like a little extra with their geocaching. They may like puzzle caches, or ones involving long hikes or Scuba. They may like EarthCaches. They may like caches in historic areas. ALRs were just another way to add a bit to a cache and make it more interesting or more fun.

ALR's gave the CO too much control over who could and could not claim a find on their cache.

Probably true about the ALRs that ultimately led to the decision to not allow them. Most people had ALRs that were really requests. They didn't intend to delete logs if someone didn't do the ALR. But once TPTB recognized ALRs, some people felt a need to enforce silly ALRs. For most cache owners, deleting someone's log is not fun. I agree that cache owners who had ALRs solely so they had an excuse to delete some logs have a control problem.

Some people don't have access to the cache description and have no idea there is an ALR.

This was solved by requiring ALRs to be listed as Unknown cache type. You have to read the description before hunting an unknown cache type - after all it may be a puzzle and not be at the posted coordinates

Some people would get their logs deleted because they didn't know there was an ALR.

They should've read the description. The difference between this and puzzle might be that if you didn't read the puzzle description you weren't going to find the cache. With ALRs, people who didn't read the description find the cache and then found out they couldn't log the cache. This was the objection to ALRs as being something you did after you had found the cache.

Some ALRs were actually dangerous.

Some caches are actually dangerous. You may have a point if you were to say some ALRs were actually illegal, but then I don't think these got approved. Some ALRs did go over some line according to Groundspeak and some reviewers. These were not approved. Describing this line in the guidelines in a way that is easily understood was deemed too difficult, so ALRs were eliminated altogether.

Some people were physically incapable f performing the ALR.

Some people are physically incapable of finding some caches. If they had read the description they would know not to try this ALR cache or at least not to log a find on it.

 

I'm sure there were a lot more reasons but the point is that ALR's are gone. Get over it!

The big issue with ALR caches was not the things bittsen listed. The big issue is that people foolishly believed that unless they get their online find they haven't found a cache. In truth anyone could go and find an ALR cache and either not log online or log it with a note. You found the cache, you had fun doing it, you didn't think doing the ALR was going to add to fun, so you don't do it. The problem is that both the cache owners who enforced ALR and the cachers who complained about them looked at it as if doing the ALR was some value put on the smiley. If the smiley was worth it you did the ALR, if the smiley was not worth the effort, embarrassment, or risk then you didn't do the ALR and you complained that the cache owner was preventing you from getting a "legitimate" find. If the smiley has no value, the ALR becomes an optional request. You can do it if it adds to your enjoyment of the cache or you can skip it and not care that you can't log it as a find.

 

For me the end of ALRs is good simply because it removes one reason to argue over the value of a smiley. Now your Found It log is a record that you found the cache if you want to use it for that. You can find the cache and choose either to do or not do the additional optional task. Then you can decide to log a Found It, or note, or nothing at all.

[+bittsen]

I get so tired of seeing people use the "scuba" argument.

 

In fact, I think I demonstrated that in one of my pet pieves.

 

 

Let's just take an EXTREME example, you know, like comparing the theft of a candy bar to murder.

It's a lame argument now and always has been.

 

To address the scuba example though. You use scuba gear to get to a scuba cache, sign the log and get a smiley. Easy enough to fit that into the geocaching spirit. Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, get smiley.

 

How is that the same as Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, perform some stupid extra task, maybe get smiley.

 

It's not the same

[4wheelin_fool]

For me the end of ALRs is good simply because it removes one reason to argue over the value of a smiley. Now your Found It log is a record that you found the cache if you want to use it for that. You can find the cache and choose either to do or not do the additional optional task. Then you can decide to log a Found It, or note, or nothing at all.

 

Yes, some of the ALRs were converting simple communication about a find into inflated value. You signed the logbook, but didn't find it?

 

Some of the ALRs were to promote creativity, and some were just meant to be funny, others were to insure that each finder actually found it.

 

The humorous ones became not-so-funny when a log was deleted and a source of angst, which was the opposite of what was intended. Other people started creating ones that were only intended to punish people who just downloaded the coords and did not read the page. I suppose that the site just became tired of being the referee of log deletion battles, and did what was best. The authority of cache owners to delete logs was only initially meant for obscene or bogus logs anyway, not to be used as a means of controlling cachers in passive ways. Abuse anything and it goes away.

 

I had one, but I don't think I ever deleted anyone's log. It was a little fun to threaten on the page. A few people deserved it, but I really wasn't into enforcement. I suppose that by being a bogus ALR, I was violating some odd guidelines somewhere by not actually deleting logs.

Edited February 4, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+The Weasel]

I still don't think asking a person to take their pic, or have their pic taken at a cache is THAT bad of a ALR.

 

I guess everybody plays the game differently. I just wouldn't feel right logging a 5-5 cache if I just stood on the ground while some other brave so tackled the cache. That is why I think requesting each person's pic at the cache in it's general hiding location isn;t that bad.

 

Not EVERYBODY is cracked up to do the harder terrain caches and they shouldn't get "rewarded" for being a cheerleader is all I was getting at.

[GOF and Bacall]

I still don't think asking a person to take their pic, or have their pic taken at a cache is THAT bad of a ALR.

 

Probably not, unless you don't have a digital camera with you. Still, that leaves the question of where do you draw the line? TPTB chose to eliminate all ALRs instead of making the job harder for their volunteer reviewers.

[+RobDJr]

I don't think ALR's were a problem until some people started going off the deep end with them.

 

Caches that can't be logged by anyone who has ever found a cache before, those that can't be logged by premium members, can only be found by those who have no weekday finds for twelve weeks, those that can only be logged after satisfying a complicated list of requirements, and so on.

 

I'd like to see ALR's brought back in a simplified form where they are allowed for use in verifying a find but not in making people jump through hoops. Asking for a photo at the cache site or a code word from the logbook would be fine. Requiring user to wear a bearskin hat and do a Russian folk dance in public, not so much.

[knowschad]

..Don't pet the sweaty things...

All depends on what things are sweating and why.

Would you mind elaborating on that a bit?

[knowschad]

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff.

Exactly. The more I think about it then less I like the present scheme of keeping track of activity.

Nothing says you have to use the frog's system of keeping track. It's a bit of work but I have almost got all my finds converted to my own system. Hang the numbers!

OT: Unless you stopped logging online for quite some time, it should be pretty easy to start your own system. Just export your My Finds PQ from GSAK into .CVS and import to a spreadsheet.

[+northernpenguin]

I don't think ALR's were a problem until some people started going off the deep end with them.

 

Caches that can't be logged by anyone who has ever found a cache before, those that can't be logged by premium members, can only be found by those who have no weekday finds for twelve weeks, those that can only be logged after satisfying a complicated list of requirements, and so on.

 

I'd like to see ALR's brought back in a simplified form where they are allowed for use in verifying a find but not in making people jump through hoops. Asking for a photo at the cache site or a code word from the logbook would be fine. Requiring user to wear a bearskin hat and do a Russian folk dance in public, not so much.

 

Frankly, I'm already seeing the "challenge cache" trending this way in a hurry. Lots of caches popping up that have requirements involving travel to far away places and doing things like "find every terrain 5 cache in the Province" and such. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar anvil dropped on the Challenge Cache class of caches too, although the guidelines are a bit more established. Not good for the radius slaves.

 

Reminds me, I'll need to publish a "visit all terrain 5 caches in Nova Scotia" cache to generate some traffic for the International Space Station cache

[CoyoteRed]

I'd like to see ALR's brought back in a simplified form where they are allowed for use in verifying a find but not in making people jump through hoops. Asking for a photo at the cache site or a code word from the logbook would be fine. Requiring user to wear a bearskin hat and do a Russian folk dance in public, not so much.

I tend to agree with the idea of a little more proof than a simple "I said so." I wouldn't mind seeing an ALM (Alternative Logging Method) implemented and base solely on photographs.

 

First, let me address codewords. On first blush codewords look like it might be a good idea. The problem comes from folks believing that providing a codeword becomes some sort of authority. It's far from it. If a codeword became a method for authentication then you'd have folks logging cache with full authorization who never visited any stage of the stage, much less attempted it. You'd be setting yourself up for a much bigger problem than the one you're trying to fix.

 

How? It would be little different than folks sharing solutions, phone-a-friend networks, or cheat sites. One person attempts the cache and starts passing the codeword around. Folks then could log with authority that cache having never attempted it.

 

Okay, so you need a name in the logbook. yeah, what's to stop you from checking the logbook with no other means of verification? If you require verification via the logbook and added codewords, then the only thing you've added is a layer of complication with no benefit.

 

Photographs on the other hand are a bit different. Some issues:

• Photoshop. Sure, there's photoshop, but it takes real skill to create an undetectable 'shopped photo.
  
• Some folks don't like to have their pictures taken. True, I'm one. I'm just waiting for someone to snap my photo and hear that little *crink* when the camera breaks. Signature Familiars. Sure, it's going to be hard for those folks who refuse to have their photos taken to find some little fuzzy animal, action figure, or other object that is their photo representative, but that's the trade off for being camera shy.
  
• Not everyone has a camera. True. Not everyone carries around the cache's logbook either. It would be the responsibility of the cache owner to provide the camera. If they want alternative proof, then they're the ones that's gonna have to do the work. I don't know when I saw the last cache camera. I remember threads on tips for using a film cache camera in freezing conditions. Now, I don't even see the cameras.
  
• The cache gets stolen. …or the camera breaks. The in-cache photo proof goes missing for whatever reason is no different than with the logbook. The proof is gone. No different.
  

If proof-in-finding-ALRs are to come back I would think the prudent way to handle them is use photographs. The rules for a photo ALR could be:

• The cache owner has to provide a camera in the cache. This would be for folks who don't bring their own camera. (Save the film for folks who don't bring a camera and save maintenance issue for the cache owner.)
  
• The cache owner has to provide some sort of cache familiar to make the cache unique in some way. It could be a unique container, a card with large text with cache name or waypoint, or a fuzzy stuffed animal. It would be good to have it large enough to be recognizable in the photo.
  
• Finders should have their face in the picture or some sort of familiar unique to them. (Personal TB, anyone?) Folks will just have to learn how to do the hand-held self portrait thing.
  
• Folks who use the in-cache camera can log a find pending verification of the cache camera. This is no different than checking the logbook.
  
• subject to reviewer approval. Only for caches requested and approved by management due to difficulty in checking the cache's logbook. Should be reasonable. 1/1's no. 5/5's yep. In between, depends. How hard is it for the owner to retrieve the cache? 10 mile hike, yep. Park-n-grab? Nope. (Not to say a request of the finders can't be made.)
  
• Mystery caches could be handled with a photo of the signed logbook and a small unique cache card. This way the surrounding area is not in the photo and thus no spoilers.
  

This photo-ALR (ALM, whatever) puts the onus on the cache owner. Is the difficulty in checking the logbook more difficult than maintaining a cache camera? This type of find verification is a lot more work than ALR's of the past where it could be no work on the cache owner part and they'd simply slap one on just because. Also, cache owners will have to realize there would be a higher possibility of spoiler pictures posted unless the photos are sent privately.

 

Also, this is different than the banned ALRs in that this is a method in which the find is verified, not a silly action that had nothing to do with finding the cache or verifying the logger was ever there.

 

This type of ALR/ALM is something I could get behind. It could be implemented with just a policy change.

 

EDIT: Fix'n dang tags.

Edited February 4, 2010 by CoyoteRed

[+Renegade Knight]

ALR's---were they THAT bad?

No they weren't that bad. You could read the cache page (like you should) and decide to do them or skip them. The real problem with ALR's is all the whining the site had to deal with from finders who could not be bothered to read the cache page, exercise adult discretion and skip the cache or do it. Those whiners would log a find and demand that it stand anyway.

 

That said, owning one before they were banned was not any fun. Deleting logs is not fun. Explaining to finders about the ALR's that they don't want to follow isn't fun, and having them demand their find anyway and threaten to kick your a** if they ever see you on the trail isn't fun. The job of being fair is hard work and this is our hobby we do to get away from that kind of crap at work and other aspects of life.

 

Thankfully most ARL's can be converted to additional work to find caches. Those aren't against the rules and whiners tend to either avoid them or actually do the work to find them. Everybody wins.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I get so tired of seeing people use the "scuba" argument.

 

In fact, I think I demonstrated that in one of my pet pieves.

 

 

Let's just take an EXTREME example, you know, like comparing the theft of a candy bar to murder.

It's a lame argument now and always has been.

 

To address the scuba example though. You use scuba gear to get to a scuba cache, sign the log and get a smiley. Easy enough to fit that into the geocaching spirit. Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, get smiley.

 

How is that the same as Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, perform some stupid extra task, maybe get smiley.

 

It's not the same

Ironic...I am tired of seeing people use the "Digital Camera" argument...go figure...

 

ALR got out of hand...TPTB dropped them...enough said...

[+tozainamboku]

To address the scuba example though. You use scuba gear to get to a scuba cache, sign the log and get a smiley. Easy enough to fit that into the geocaching spirit. Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, get smiley.

 

How is that the same as Follow GPS, find cache, sign log, perform some stupid extra task, maybe get smiley.

 

It's not the same

The argument that an ALR is different because is something you do after you find the cache while another obstacle such as scuba is something you must do in order to find the cache has some validity. However, it does not, in itself, amount to a real reason for not having ALRs. If this was the case one could easily turn most ALRs into non-geocaching related challenges - e.g. After posting a picture of yourself in a funny hat as a note on the cache page, you may then hunt the cache and log a find.

 

Prior to the rule that ALRs be listed as mystery/unknow type caches, there was a valid argument to be made that some people would find a cache and only when they went to log it online discover there was an ALR that they couldn't or didn't want to do. The guidelines were first changed to handle this situation. At that time nobody should have looked for an ALR without reading the cache page. Sure it was still possible to find the cache without knowing there was an ALR, but you had a warning based on the cache type that an ALR was possible, and it was a risk you took if you looked for a mystery/unknown cache without reading the cache page.

 

The main difference between a scuba cache and a silly ALR task is whether or not one sees it as a measure of what a person is willing to do to get a smiley. Rarely will you see a cache owner use the argument that people who find a high terrain or high difficulty cache are willing to do more for a smiley than people who avoid these caches. In fact, it is often the opposite, where people who skip difficult caches are accused of being numbers driven and those who find these caches are the ones not interested in numbers but instead are in it for the adventure. On the other hand if you had a particularly difficult ALR, the cachers who did the ALR would be accused of being willing to do anything for a smiley and the ones who got their find log deleted would be accused of trying to claim a smiley without doing the cache as intended by the hider. If you wanted to show off that numbers didn't matter, you would find the cache and post a note on the page saying that you didn't think the smiley was worth doing the ALR for.

 

The end of ALRs means that some cachers won't be accused of doing anything for a smiley and others won't be accused of cheating by claiming a smiley while not meeting the requirements of the cache. The new guidelines prevent a cache owner from using an ALR as a way to measure what a smiley is worth to other caches. By limiting challenges to reasonable geocaching related accomplishments and to tasks that are directly involved with determining the coordinates, navigating to the cache site, and retrieving the cache in order to sign the physical log; the odds are that people won't see these as a measure of how far someone is willing to go to get a smiley.

 

Some reasonable ALRs were eliminated by these guidelines. TPTB determined that the problem ALRs were not always easily distinguishable from reasonable ALRs. They felt that it was in the best interest of geocaching to adopt the new guidelines and eliminate almost all ALRs.

[+thedeadpirate]

I was fine with ALRs. I simply ignored them.

 

I am fine with the removal of ALRs. I no longer need to ignore them.

 

Life goes on.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache?

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff.

Exactly. The more I think about it then less I like the present scheme of keeping track of activity.

Nothing says you have to use the frog's system of keeping track. It's a bit of work but I have almost got all my finds converted to my own system. Hang the numbers!

OT: Unless you stopped logging online for quite some time, it should be pretty easy to start your own system. Just export your My Finds PQ from GSAK into .CVS and import to a spreadsheet.

 

It isn't just about keeping my own list of found caches. I am changing each found log to a note. The COs of those caches deserve a log on their page. Sometimes that log is several pages long and sometimes the cache only rates a TFTC but the CO hid the cache and deserves to know it is being found.

[+Renegade Knight]

...It isn't just about keeping my own list of found caches. I am changing each found log to a note. The COs of those caches deserve a log on their page. Sometimes that log is several pages long and sometimes the cache only rates a TFTC but the CO hid the cache and deserves to know it is being found.

In the era when I had ALR's before the lack of fun owning them caught up to me. I never had a problem with a note and used them myself when I didn't meet the rule for the ALR because I didn't take my own advice and read the cache page before I got to the site.

[+The red-haired witch]

Frankly, I'm already seeing the "challenge cache" trending this way in a hurry. Lots of caches popping up that have requirements involving travel to far away places and doing things like "find every terrain 5 cache in the Province" and such. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar anvil dropped on the Challenge Cache class of caches too, although the guidelines are a bit more established. Not good for the radius slaves.

 

Reminds me, I'll need to publish a "visit all terrain 5 caches in Nova Scotia" cache to generate some traffic for the International Space Station cache

 

I think this is why they included the following in the "Challenge caches" guideline : If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

Some challenge caches are very difficult, I agree, with requirements very few people can fulfil, but there is a somewhat clear limit in the guidelines at least. That limit is what they couldn't manage to establish for the ALR. Also, from what I've seen at least, only challenges involving doing some specific geocaching are permitted, not challenges involving being/not being something or not doing some geocaching. So you can challenge someone to geocache every day for a month, but not challenge them to not geocache for a month... some ALRs were going in that direction, trying to "encourage" people to not geocache on weekdays, not find the caches of a certain hider, not be a premium member, etc... things we can't expect Groundspeak to approve of.

[+bittsen]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

[+The Weasel]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

 

Or is it being lazy on the cachers part that they didn't climb the hill, climb the ladder or whatever the terrain was to make it a 5? If that is the case, why have diff/terr even listed for a cache. Going by your thought, as long as we described the cache and put a few atributes, then it doesn't matter how they get the cache.

[Mushtang]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

The "power trip" argument is the silliest one ever. Nobody has every forced anyone to find an ALR cache and do the requirement. All of the actions were always voluntary. If the person didn't want to do whatever the logging requirement was, they were certainly free to not do them. They just couldn't log the cache.

 

And not every cache HAS to be able to be found by every cacher, does it?

[+thedeadpirate]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

 

Or is it being lazy on the cachers part that they didn't climb the hill, climb the ladder or whatever the terrain was to make it a 5? If that is the case, why have diff/terr even listed for a cache. Going by your thought, as long as we described the cache and put a few atributes, then it doesn't matter how they get the cache.

 

In my opinion, the difficulty and terrain ratings are there to let the cacher know what to expect prior to setting out on the hunt, not as some kind of point system.

 

I know that a lot of people use it as a point system, but that's not the intended use.

 

If I roll up to the cache in my chair along with a couple of able-bodied people and one of them climbs that ladder and brings the cache down to me, I am going to sign the log and feel just fine considering it a find.

[+bittsen]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

The "power trip" argument is the silliest one ever. Nobody has every forced anyone to find an ALR cache and do the requirement. All of the actions were always voluntary. If the person didn't want to do whatever the logging requirement was, they were certainly free to not do them. They just couldn't log the cache.

 

And not every cache HAS to be able to be found by every cacher, does it?

 

Silliest argument ever? Hardly.

 

If geocaching was all about ALR's I wouldn't be a geocacher.

[+Castle Mischief]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

The "power trip" argument is the silliest one ever. Nobody has every forced anyone to find an ALR cache and do the requirement. All of the actions were always voluntary. If the person didn't want to do whatever the logging requirement was, they were certainly free to not do them. They just couldn't log the cache.

 

And not every cache HAS to be able to be found by every cacher, does it?

 

It wasn't about finding or not finding all the caches, it was about getting credit on the website for a cache already found. Caching is caching. The ALRs were nothing to do with caching.

 

I guess it hardly matters now.

[+humboldt flier]

I don't think ALR's were a problem until some people started going off the deep end with them.

 

Caches that can't be logged by anyone who has ever found a cache before, those that can't be logged by premium members, can only be found by those who have no weekday finds for twelve weeks, those that can only be logged after satisfying a complicated list of requirements, and so on.

 

I'd like to see ALR's brought back in a simplified form where they are allowed for use in verifying a find but not in making people jump through hoops. Asking for a photo at the cache site or a code word from the logbook would be fine. Requiring user to wear a bearskin hat and do a Russian folk dance in public, not so much.

Agree

[+Renegade Knight]

The argument that ALRs were a way to verify that someone ACTUALLY found the cache is silly.

 

Want to verify that someone found your cache? Get off yer butt and go check the logsheet!

The cacher met the fundamental necessity for claiming a find, they signed the log. Making them do more is just a power trip.

The "power trip" argument is the silliest one ever. Nobody has every forced anyone to find an ALR cache and do the requirement. All of the actions were always voluntary. If the person didn't want to do whatever the logging requirement was, they were certainly free to not do them. They just couldn't log the cache.

 

And not every cache HAS to be able to be found by every cacher, does it?

 

The radius slaves trying to force finds on hapless owners may have been a power trip.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If geocaching was all about ALR's I wouldn't be a geocacher.

 

It takes all kinds to fill up the world. When ALRs were thick, other caches were thicker. People lament urban micros (I dislike them too) but there are more of the others than ever before.

 

ALRs being killed off didn't make geocaching better. It removed a type of cache, and also removed some of the lessons cache owners needed to learn.

[+Opalblade]

Well I like my previously suggested system of having a separate tally of some kind for optional games/tasks/photos completed. Would be a fun side thing for some like trackables or benchmarks with its own little icon, or icons:

 

Photo - pic of camera

Silly -

etc

[+Renegade Knight]

Well I like my previously suggested system of having a separate tally of some kind for optional games/tasks/photos completed. Would be a fun side thing for some like trackables or benchmarks with its own little icon, or icons:

 

Photo - pic of camera

Silly -

etc

I was thinking about this today and I agree. A "bonus find" for ALR completers. You could even call it "ALR". You log normaly you get a find. You log normal and include the photo of yourself in the chicken hat, you get the ALR bonus.

 

There is some potential here for both sides of the debate, plus making it easier to be an owner of these things.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+bittsen]

I was thinking about this today and I agree. A "bonus find" for ALR completers. You could even call it "ALR". You log normaly you get a find. You log normal and include the photo of yourself in the chicken hat, you get the ALR bonus.

 

There is some potential here for both sides of the debate, plus making it easier to be an owner of these things.

 

Sure, I could go with that. Except that TPTB would, rightfully, conclude that dancing like a fool in a chicken suit isn't worthy of a smiley.

[+tozainamboku]

I was thinking about this today and I agree. A "bonus find" for ALR completers. You could even call it "ALR". You log normaly you get a find. You log normal and include the photo of yourself in the chicken hat, you get the ALR bonus.

 

There is some potential here for both sides of the debate, plus making it easier to be an owner of these things.

 

Sure, I could go with that. Except that TPTB would, rightfully, conclude that dancing like a fool in a chicken suit isn't worthy of a smiley.

In fact they have not concluded this. There are probably bonus smiley caches like this being approved right now. In some areas, no doubt, there are puritans who will raise a stink; however it is not against the guidelines; just as a an event owner may allow bonus smileys for finding temporary event caches. TPTB have said that if this type of logging were to get out of hand they might change the guidelines; so I wouldn't encourage people to do this to often. My feeling is that if dancing like a fool in a chicken suit is something that you think makes a cache more fun or more interesting then do it without making it either an ALR or a bonus smiley. I kinda like an honor roll where the cache owner list the names of those that did the optional task on the cache page (or perhaps a roll of shame with the names of those who didn't do the optional task )