Jump to content

ALR's---were they THAT bad?


The Weasel
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

ALRs are gone and have been for some time now. Perhaps it's time to just come to terms with that and move on.
*sniff* *sniff* (wipes away a tear) :lol:

 

but what about virtuals?

 

;)

Virtuals are not gone.

Of course the comment about virtuals was meant as a joke. But my reaction to sbell's comment was the same. ALRs, virtuals, caches that solicit, cache rating systems, search for archived caches, etc. are always good topics to discuss, regardless of what comments TPTB made in the past. They provide an opportunity to:

  1. understand the reasons behind Groundspeak's decisions
  2. understand the nuaces of the guidelines as to what may or may not be acutally allowed
  3. discuss alternatives that are within the guidelines or the capabilities that are currently available
  4. propose some version of the feature with restrictions that might overcome the objections of TPTB

With regard to item 4, we cannot say that a decision of TPTB is final and irreversible. Remember the 200 and the Google Earth KML link.

Link to comment
What about ALR virtuals? ;)
All virtuals are ALRs. The guideline only affects physical caches.
AH HA!

 

ALRs are still around! I feel much better! :lol:

Virtuals had Additional Logging Requirements? I thought they had Alternative Logging Requirements. You know, because virtuals didn't have a logbook.

 

The only virtuals I did had either a variant of (generally) "email me X information about the location" or "post a picture of yourself" at the location. Not ever any mention of signing the logbook. It was only a verification scheme. I don't recall ever coming across a phooning-style* virtual.

 

*Any virtual that made you do anything but verify your visit.

Link to comment

I think I am confused about what defines ALR. A cache was recently published in which the CO indicated that one must present evidence of having previously found at least 100 "small" caches. They could be any 100, but one had to provide a list of the caches, a link to one's profile or other evidence of finding 100 smalls. Isn't that against the ALR rules?

Link to comment
I think I am confused about what defines ALR. A cache was recently published in which the CO indicated that one must present evidence of having previously found at least 100 "small" caches. They could be any 100, but one had to provide a list of the caches, a link to one's profile or other evidence of finding 100 smalls. Isn't that against the ALR rules?

 

that's a challenge cache. challenge caches are the only allowed cases for ALRs.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

I knew that if I kept reading the thread, someone would put it better than I could. Well said, scape goat. You know, this is a hobby, it's supposed to be fun--sometimes you just gotta let stuff go. The ratings are so inexact anyway, I don't see that it really matters. There are plenty of 1-difficulty and 4-difficulty caches that just have me scratching my head. I guess I can understand a cache owner putting in a lot of work making their cache a 5-difficulty for terrain and then being a bit disappointed with 20 finds for 4 folks who climbed up to get it. But--that's the kind of thinking that gives you ulcers and heart attacks. Just let it go.

Link to comment

There were some ALRs which were very easy to get into arguments over. I mean to FORCE someone to attach a picture to a traditional cache, how is that fair? Putting your entire log in pirate speak may be fun but if you did not want to, should your log be deleted? I think ALRs were fine if everyone was jovial and easy natured about it, but there have been examples of them not being so. Thus, ALRs are now optional and I am thankful for it.

 

Well, minus challenge caches of course.

Link to comment

ALR's on caches made things more fun. No valid reason exists that They should not be allowed.Give them their own cache type.

 

Many ALRs were not fun. Someone on the feedback site wants to delete logs that are written in a foreign language. Other cache owners want to deny group finds. Deleting logs over arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with geocaching isn't conducive to fun.

 

The ALRs that were genuinely fun can still be part of a suggested theme. Those who want to participate can, those who just want to geocache without the frills can do so as well.

Link to comment

It's a very old argument, and now that the change has been made to remove ALR caches I don't expect it to be changed back.

 

But people are still talking about them and how ALR cache owners must have been on power trips to FORCE someone to do something, and it still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

I honestly don't see the difference in someone FORCING a finder to log their find like a pirate (or in a poem, or with a picture of a hat, or standing on their head) and:

someone FORCING a finder to go on a long hike in order to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to open a micro container if the finder only likes ammo cans,

or FORCING a finder to solve a puzzle (or do something other than look at the coordinates at the top of the page) to get the right coordinates to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to find all the possible D/T combinations in order to qualify to find a cache,

or FORCING a cacher to find the 3 stages before finding the final cache,

or FORCING the finder to stand in a parking lot to find a LPC when they prefer to hike in the woods,

or FORCING a finder to use special equipment (scuba, climbing gear, a boat, etc) to find a cache when they'd rather just walk,

etc.

 

ALL caches are optional. If you read the description and don't like what you see, you don't have to find the cache, and are not FORCED to find it.

 

If you don't read the description and try to find the cache anyway, you could just as easily be looking at the bogus coords of a puzzle as you can be finding a cache without knowing you have to take a picture. Who's fault is it that you didn't read the description?

Link to comment

ALR's on caches made things more fun. No valid reason exists that They should not be allowed.Give them their own cache type.

 

Many ALRs were not fun. Someone on the feedback site wants to delete logs that are written in a foreign language. Other cache owners want to deny group finds. Deleting logs over arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with geocaching isn't conducive to fun.

 

The ALRs that were genuinely fun can still be part of a suggested theme. Those who want to participate can, those who just want to geocache without the frills can do so as well.

 

Exactly, it's not that ALRs have completely gone away, you can just make the choice whether or not to do the ALRs in the grandfathered caches. Me, I always choose to do them. I think they are fun (usually).

Link to comment

It's a very old argument, and now that the change has been made to remove ALR caches I don't expect it to be changed back.

 

But people are still talking about them and how ALR cache owners must have been on power trips to FORCE someone to do something, and it still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

I honestly don't see the difference in someone FORCING a finder to log their find like a pirate (or in a poem, or with a picture of a hat, or standing on their head) and:

someone FORCING a finder to go on a long hike in order to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to open a micro container if the finder only likes ammo cans,

or FORCING a finder to solve a puzzle (or do something other than look at the coordinates at the top of the page) to get the right coordinates to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to find all the possible D/T combinations in order to qualify to find a cache,

or FORCING a cacher to find the 3 stages before finding the final cache,

or FORCING the finder to stand in a parking lot to find a LPC when they prefer to hike in the woods,

or FORCING a finder to use special equipment (scuba, climbing gear, a boat, etc) to find a cache when they'd rather just walk,

etc.

 

ALL caches are optional. If you read the description and don't like what you see, you don't have to find the cache, and are not FORCED to find it.

 

If you don't read the description and try to find the cache anyway, you could just as easily be looking at the bogus coords of a puzzle as you can be finding a cache without knowing you have to take a picture. Who's fault is it that you didn't read the description?

 

That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes: Caches are required to be found. Just because you had to put one foot in front of the other, while finding the cache does not make "walking" an ALR. ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.

Link to comment

I for one am glad they're gone.

I know a geocacher who would lose their job if it was found out they cache. Pictures aren't worth it for this guy.

 

I was tired of how outrageous they were becoming.

Some weren't so bad, but I still didn't always want to do them.

One was a tribute to the CO's daughter who has lost her life to cancer. Sweet. Nice. Then they want you to write a story about some memories in your life. This one wasn't so bad, and I was happy to do it, but sometimes I just don't want to share that much personal information.

 

Another had you putting on the freaky costumes in the large cache and taking pictures of the camera in the cache. I think the camera got taken, because they never got published as promised. Gee what a shame.

 

Others were starting to get more and more outrageous. It was looking like a power trip. What was it they could make you do to get that smiley?? How much were you willing to pay for it? Let's find out just how much.

 

In one cache you had to make up the ALR for the next person. That just got bad. Could be, "take off your shirt and run around the cache ten times and take a picture" or anything. No reviewer had to review the ideas. Each person left one for the next. Surprised no one put, "Send me 100.00" I guess it was just a matter of time.

Link to comment

It's a very old argument, and now that the change has been made to remove ALR caches I don't expect it to be changed back.

 

But people are still talking about them and how ALR cache owners must have been on power trips to FORCE someone to do something, and it still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

I honestly don't see the difference in someone FORCING a finder to log their find like a pirate (or in a poem, or with a picture of a hat, or standing on their head) and:

someone FORCING a finder to go on a long hike in order to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to open a micro container if the finder only likes ammo cans,

or FORCING a finder to solve a puzzle (or do something other than look at the coordinates at the top of the page) to get the right coordinates to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to find all the possible D/T combinations in order to qualify to find a cache,

or FORCING a cacher to find the 3 stages before finding the final cache,

or FORCING the finder to stand in a parking lot to find a LPC when they prefer to hike in the woods,

or FORCING a finder to use special equipment (scuba, climbing gear, a boat, etc) to find a cache when they'd rather just walk,

etc.

 

ALL caches are optional. If you read the description and don't like what you see, you don't have to find the cache, and are not FORCED to find it.

 

If you don't read the description and try to find the cache anyway, you could just as easily be looking at the bogus coords of a puzzle as you can be finding a cache without knowing you have to take a picture. Who's fault is it that you didn't read the description?

 

That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes: Caches are required to be found. Just because you had to put one foot in front of the other, while finding the cache does not make "walking" an ALR. ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.

 

Yeah, no one FORCES me to go geocaching, but I'd like to do it.

If people do things that keep me from being able to do it, I'm not happy about it.

Caches are meant to be found. Putting requirements on them that keep people from finding them is not in the spirit of the game.

 

So the way they were getting out of hand, soon I could have 20 caches in a 5 mile radius around me that had ALR's that I didn't like. That in addition to the tree climbing ones I don't do and ones I don't do for other reasons.

 

I'm in this to play the game and have fun. So I would have to start filtering all the caches to see if they're ALR's and whether they are something I want to do or not?? Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

I'd like to be able to find caches. That's what the game is about. I don't want to quit playing because people are making it too difficult for me to play.

Link to comment

Caches are meant to be found. Putting requirements on them that keep people from finding them is not in the spirit of the game.

 

That's just the thing- ALRs didn't keep you from putting your hands on the container and signing the physical log, they put an obstacle between you and the logging of the cache at the website- things that had nothing to do with geocaching at all. You could find them all day long and if you didn't do some other non-caching activity then the CO could dispute your on-line log.

 

That might have been fine to a certain extent, but people being people it got out of hand and the ALRs deviated further and further into the realm of sillytude and ridiculosity.

 

Why do I have a feeling this has been explained somewhere in this very thread...?

Link to comment
It's a very old argument, and now that the change has been made to remove ALR caches I don't expect it to be changed back.

 

But people are still talking about them and how ALR cache owners must have been on power trips to FORCE someone to do something, and it still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

I honestly don't see the difference in someone FORCING a finder to log their find like a pirate (or in a poem, or with a picture of a hat, or standing on their head) and:

someone FORCING a finder to go on a long hike in order to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to open a micro container if the finder only likes ammo cans,

or FORCING a finder to solve a puzzle (or do something other than look at the coordinates at the top of the page) to get the right coordinates to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to find all the possible D/T combinations in order to qualify to find a cache,

or FORCING a cacher to find the 3 stages before finding the final cache,

or FORCING the finder to stand in a parking lot to find a LPC when they prefer to hike in the woods,

or FORCING a finder to use special equipment (scuba, climbing gear, a boat, etc) to find a cache when they'd rather just walk,

etc.

 

ALL caches are optional. If you read the description and don't like what you see, you don't have to find the cache, and are not FORCED to find it.

 

If you don't read the description and try to find the cache anyway, you could just as easily be looking at the bogus coords of a puzzle as you can be finding a cache without knowing you have to take a picture. Who's fault is it that you didn't read the description?

That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes:
Talk about missing the point! No cache has ever forced you to breathe while finding it, because no cache has ever FORCED you to find it. If you didn't want to find a cache, ANY cache, for ANY reason, you don't have to. If you don't like caches that need special equipment, don't search for those that do. If you feel that you MUST get to that cache at the bottom of the lake, you'd better bring scuba gear. Of course, the cache owner isn't FORCING you to use scuba gear on his cache, you've chosen to do it.

 

Caches are required to be found.
No. Never. Not one. No cache has ever been required to be found. I think I'm beginning to understand your problem.

 

Just because you had to put one foot in front of the other, while finding the cache does not make "walking" an ALR.
I agree. Unless, of course, the cache owner had stated (when they were allowed) that you must walk to his cache or you'd get your log deleted. In that case, it would be.

 

ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.
ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

Link to comment

While I was not a fan of the ALR that required you to trade McToys, there was the one that involved being able to put a golf ball on a tee (encased in a snow globe) that made the cache unique - or my own cache that made your log dependent on a walk down an unmaintained trail to one of the nicest "hidden" waterfalls you will find in my area, that just happened to be a half mile or so into NPS land where I could not place a cache. They had their uses. And abuses.

 

I suppose if the McToy cache had been labeled a mystery It would have been easier to avoid, but running into an ALR when you were caching with just the coordinates was never pleasant.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
It's a very old argument, and now that the change has been made to remove ALR caches I don't expect it to be changed back.

 

But people are still talking about them and how ALR cache owners must have been on power trips to FORCE someone to do something, and it still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

 

I honestly don't see the difference in someone FORCING a finder to log their find like a pirate (or in a poem, or with a picture of a hat, or standing on their head) and:

someone FORCING a finder to go on a long hike in order to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to open a micro container if the finder only likes ammo cans,

or FORCING a finder to solve a puzzle (or do something other than look at the coordinates at the top of the page) to get the right coordinates to find a cache,

or FORCING a finder to find all the possible D/T combinations in order to qualify to find a cache,

or FORCING a cacher to find the 3 stages before finding the final cache,

or FORCING the finder to stand in a parking lot to find a LPC when they prefer to hike in the woods,

or FORCING a finder to use special equipment (scuba, climbing gear, a boat, etc) to find a cache when they'd rather just walk,

etc.

 

ALL caches are optional. If you read the description and don't like what you see, you don't have to find the cache, and are not FORCED to find it.

 

If you don't read the description and try to find the cache anyway, you could just as easily be looking at the bogus coords of a puzzle as you can be finding a cache without knowing you have to take a picture. Who's fault is it that you didn't read the description?

 

That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes: Caches are required to be found. Just because you had to put one foot in front of the other, while finding the cache does not make "walking" an ALR. ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.

Yeah, no one FORCES me to go geocaching, but I'd like to do it.

If people do things that keep me from being able to do it, I'm not happy about it.

And so what do you do when someone places a cache near you now that you cannot do, such as a SCUBA cache, or a really hard puzzle you can't solve (you can always cheat and phone a friend I suppose), or a cache in a sticker bush that you really don't want to stick your arm in? Do you feel forced to find those, or do you feel like someone is doing something that is keeping you from caching?

 

Caches are meant to be found.
Yes, but not every cache is meant to be found by every cacher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Putting requirements on them that keep people from finding them is not in the spirit of the game.
So if someone puts a cache in a tree that you won't do, is that someone keeping you from caching?

 

So the way they were getting out of hand, soon I could have 20 caches in a 5 mile radius around me that had ALR's that I didn't like. That in addition to the tree climbing ones I don't do and ones I don't do for other reasons.
And you feel like you have to do every cache within your 5 mile radius for some reason. I'm not sure why you can't skip the ones you don't like, or can't do.

 

I'm in this to play the game and have fun. So I would have to start filtering all the caches to see if they're ALR's and whether they are something I want to do or not?? Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.
How do you handle puzzle caches, or caches in trees? If filtering them is too much of a buzz kill I don't know how you're able to cache now that ALRs are gone.

 

I'd like to be able to find caches. That's what the game is about. I don't want to quit playing because people are making it too difficult for me to play.
It sounds like you're suggesting that you were likely to quit caching because of ALR caches. Yet somehow you're able to suck it up and keep caching when there are plenty of tree caches out there. Seems more like you're just playing the victim here.
Link to comment
That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes:
Talk about missing the point! No cache has ever forced you to breathe while finding it, because no cache has ever FORCED you to find it.

 

No, you are missing the point. ALRs were not about being forced to do anything to FIND the cache they were about doing things that weren't caching to LOG the cache. Before the removal of ALRs you could find the caches all day long, but you had to do something that wasn't caching to LOG it.

 

If you didn't want to find a cache, ANY cache, for ANY reason, you don't have to. If you don't like caches that need special equipment, don't search for those that do. If you feel that you MUST get to that cache at the bottom of the lake, you'd better bring scuba gear. Of course, the cache owner isn't FORCING you to use scuba gear on his cache, you've chosen to do it.

 

Apples and oranges. If I want to find the scuba cache I'd have to bring scuba gear to FIND it. If a cache is two feet down a trail then I have to walk two feet to FIND it. Nobody is forcing me to do either thing, but for practical reasons, I would have to either bring the scuba gear or walk the two feet. I have never felt that I was forced to do anything to FIND a cache.

 

This is ridiculous. Under your definition, ALL caches are ALRs because you have to have a pulse to find them.

 

Caches are required to be found.
No. Never. Not one. No cache has ever been required to be found. I think I'm beginning to understand your problem.
TO BE LOGGED. The only requirement is that they have to be found TO BE LOGGED.

 

ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.
ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.
The part in bold is were your logic falls apart. ALRs had NOTHING to do with finding.

 

I would ALWAYS want to log my find online. Because I ALWAYS want to log my find online, I would have been FORCED to complete the ALR. FIND = LOG.

 

The very basic structure of the website is about logging your finds once you have made them. ALRs allow COs to create silly non-caching requirements to hold the "Found It" log hostage. Want to use the website in the way it was intended? Well, you've got to put on a silly hat.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

 

Again, these are all things that you would have to do BEFORE FINDING. These are not ALRs. These are the necessary steps of FINDING the actual caches.

Link to comment

 

I know a geocacher who would lose their job if it was found out they cache. Pictures aren't worth it for this guy.

 

 

I'm curious how someone could lose their job from caching. If someone is out caching on company time and he is cheating his employer, then he doesn't lose his job because he caches. He loses it because he is not honest and is stealing from the company. Once he is on his own time how can his company can't fire him for caching?

Link to comment
That's just silly. ZOMG, this cache FORCED me to breath while finding it. :rolleyes:
Talk about missing the point! No cache has ever forced you to breathe while finding it, because no cache has ever FORCED you to find it.
No, you are missing the point. ALRs were not about being forced to do anything to FIND the cache they were about doing things that weren't caching to LOG the cache. Before the removal of ALRs you could find the caches all day long, but you had to do something that wasn't caching to LOG it.

Before the removal of ALRs you still had to solve a puzzle in order to log the puzzle cache online. You still had to know how to scuba dive to log the scuba cache online.

 

If you didn't want to find a cache, ANY cache, for ANY reason, you don't have to. If you don't like caches that need special equipment, don't search for those that do. If you feel that you MUST get to that cache at the bottom of the lake, you'd better bring scuba gear. Of course, the cache owner isn't FORCING you to use scuba gear on his cache, you've chosen to do it.
Apples and oranges. If I want to find the scuba cache I'd have to bring scuba gear to FIND it. If a cache is two feet down a trail then I have to walk two feet to FIND it. Nobody is forcing me to do either thing, but for practical reasons, I would have to either bring the scuba gear or walk the two feet. I have never felt that I was forced to do anything to FIND a cache.

 

This is ridiculous. Under your definition, ALL caches are ALRs because you have to have a pulse to find them.

It's not my definition. It's the definition that this site used to define what an ALR was. It was a cache that you could CHOOSE to do, and if you wanted to log it then you needed to do the requirement. They also defined puzzle caches, and if you wanted to log those online you either had to solve the puzzle or cheat in order to get the actual coordinates. I suppose you could cheat at some of the ALRs too, and maybe have someone else write your pirate speak log for you. People have mentioned photoshop if you didn't actually take your picture on top of the pylon.

 

So nobody is forcing you to find a scuba cache, you're choosing to do that one and then log it, but the cache owner IS forcing you to do the ALR cache and log it online. Strange how you're offended at being FORCED to do something only at one section of the process and not at another.

 

Caches are required to be found.
No. Never. Not one. No cache has ever been required to be found. I think I'm beginning to understand your problem.
TO BE LOGGED. The only requirement is that they have to be found TO BE LOGGED.
But to find the cache up in the tree you're required to climb it. To find the cache on top of the mountain you're required to log it. If you object to either of these you're free to ignore them, so why aren't people also free to ignore the ALR caches if they object to the additional requirement? Why must EVERY cache be an option for EVERY finder when it comes to ALRs but not when it comes to other caches?
Link to comment
ALRs where things you were FORCED to do AFTER you've found the cache, not on the way to the cache.
ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.
The part in bold is were your logic falls apart. ALRs had NOTHING to do with finding.
I wonder why you didn't also bold the 6 words following the part that you did bold? Hmm... because then your counter argument doesn't work.

 

I would ALWAYS want to log my find online. Because I ALWAYS want to log my find online, I would have been FORCED to complete the ALR. FIND = LOG.
You read the description, you know that there's something to object to in the process, so you skip that cache. How hard is this to understand? This holds true for all caches that you don't like or cannot do.

 

The very basic structure of the website is about logging your finds once you have made them. ALRs allow COs to create silly non-caching requirements to hold the "Found It" log hostage. Want to use the website in the way it was intended? Well, you've got to put on a silly hat.
Holding hostage? I think you're really trying too hard to crank up the drama here. So if ALRs weren't what the website was originally intended to be used for, shouldn't you also insist that all caches be limited to 5 gallon containers buried flush with the ground just a few feet from the side of the road? That's what the original cache was. Or maybe you can accept that every once in a while something new comes along in the game, and if a lot of people like it then it has a place. A lot of people liked ALRs, but for people like you this wasn't acceptable.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

Again, these are all things that you would have to do BEFORE FINDING. These are not ALRs. These are the necessary steps of FINDING the actual caches.
Again, what difference does it make where in the process you find something that you object to? If you don't want to do it, don't do it. If you don't want to take a picture wearing a hat in order to log the cache, then don't find it. It really IS that simple, although you keep trying to make it something more.
Link to comment

ALRs are gone and have been for some time now. Perhaps it's time to just come to terms with that and move on.

 

I dunno about that. This is the entire text from a mystery cache that just got published less than 2 weeks ago:

 

There are 41 ways to make a dollar without using pennies. I've started the cache with a $1 bill inside.

 

Here's how it works: You come with change. Take the dollar that is in the cache. Replace it with a different coinage combination.

 

The log sheet will have the 41 coinage combinations listed with a signature line next to each one.

 

Once a line is signed. Nobody can use that combination to put a dollar in the cache. You must use a coinage combination that still has a blank signature line next to it.

 

It'll be easy for those who find the cache early on, but more difficult for later finders.

 

When all 41 combinations have been used, I'll insert a new log sheet and we'll start over.

 

Please: No trade items, and do not post online which coinage combo that you used. Thanks and have fun!

 

ALR or not? It is at the posted coordinates so there's nothing to solve to get to the cache. Making the change has nothing to do with actually finding the cache but does have to do with being able to log it. I don't have a problem with ALRs but this one had me wondering how it got published.

Link to comment
STUFF

 

You keep listing things that are inherent to finding and equating them to things you have to do to log them on-line. The no ALR rule has been long-passed. Your beef is not with me, it's with Groundspeak. If you don't want to accept the decisions they made months ago, the definitions that they laid out and the attempts of other people to explain them to you then that's your choice. Good luck with that.

Link to comment
GOOD STUFF
You keep listing things that are inherent to finding and equating them to things you have to do to log them on-line.
Not true, but again I'm seeing why you're missing the point if that's what you believe. I'm not equating the two, I'm saying that they are both parts of the whole. You seem to only have a problem allowing caches to exist that have a requirement in that one part, whereas I don't have a problem with any cache existing that meets the guidelines. If I don't like it, I'll skip it. It's not that hard.

 

And yes, I'm aware that the ALRs no longer meet the guidelines, but at the time I enjoyed them they did.

 

The no ALR rule has been long-passed. Your beef is not with me, it's with Groundspeak. If you don't want to accept the decisions they made months ago, the definitions that they laid out and the attempts of other people to explain them to you then that's your choice. Good luck with that.
I have no beef with anyone. The topic of this thread is not "Should ALRs be brought back", and I'm not debating that they should come back. The topic is asking if they were really all that bad, and I'm suggesting that they weren't.

 

I'm listing reasons why they weren't that bad, and pointing out that those that didn't like them could always just skip over them, and allow those that did enjoy them to do so. You're suggesting there was FORCE involved, kidnapping, power trips, and other things that just weren't true.

 

I don't expect the ALRs to return and I think that's a real shame. Someday, someone else might have issues with caches that you really enjoy and get them removed from the site. If they do you're going to be in these shoes saying, "If you don't like them you could just avoid them", and you'll be pointing out why you think they're okay. Good luck with that.

Link to comment

ALRs are gone and have been for some time now. Perhaps it's time to just come to terms with that and move on.

 

I dunno about that. This is the entire text from a mystery cache that just got published less than 2 weeks ago:

 

There are 41 ways to make a dollar without using pennies. I've started the cache with a $1 bill inside.

 

Here's how it works: You come with change. Take the dollar that is in the cache. Replace it with a different coinage combination.

 

The log sheet will have the 41 coinage combinations listed with a signature line next to each one.

 

Once a line is signed. Nobody can use that combination to put a dollar in the cache. You must use a coinage combination that still has a blank signature line next to it.

 

It'll be easy for those who find the cache early on, but more difficult for later finders.

 

When all 41 combinations have been used, I'll insert a new log sheet and we'll start over.

 

Please: No trade items, and do not post online which coinage combo that you used. Thanks and have fun!

 

ALR or not? It is at the posted coordinates so there's nothing to solve to get to the cache. Making the change has nothing to do with actually finding the cache but does have to do with being able to log it. I don't have a problem with ALRs but this one had me wondering how it got published.

That one appears to be in clear violation of the guidelines. It may have just slipped by or it may have been changed after publishing. I'm certain that if you were to report it to TPTB that it would be brought in line with the current guidelines (or archived).
Link to comment

 

I know a geocacher who would lose their job if it was found out they cache. Pictures aren't worth it for this guy.

 

 

I'm curious how someone could lose their job from caching. If someone is out caching on company time and he is cheating his employer, then he doesn't lose his job because he caches. He loses it because he is not honest and is stealing from the company. Once he is on his own time how can his company can't fire him for caching?

Given that this thread has become a huge rehash of the 'why ALRs are bad/good' threads that happened right after ALRs went away, I doubt that he will ever notice your post. I'm with you, however, I cannot imagine a scenario where someone could be fired for geocaching on his own time and dime.

 

It should also be noted that the pic requirement typically only required a pic of your hand and GPSr at the location, so unless his company uses hand vein identification on every photo posted on the internet, he would still be OK. Of course, if he has signed an agreement with his company not to cache or is in some way legally restricted from doing so, then he shouldn't be geocaching and I am not interested in the site making it easier for him to pull off his deception.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
WACKEY STUFF
You keep listing things that are inherent to finding and equating them to things you have to do to log them on-line.
Not true, but again I'm seeing why you're missing the point if that's what you believe. I'm not equating the two, I'm saying that they are both parts of the whole. You seem to only have a problem allowing caches to exist that have a requirement in that one part, whereas I don't have a problem with any cache existing that meets the guidelines. If I don't like it, I'll skip it. It's not that hard.

 

It's not that I saw it as not being two parts of the same whole- Groundspeak saw it that way. That I agree with this is beside the point. That you want to rehash it is... beyond my understanding.

 

And yes, I'm aware that the ALRs no longer meet the guidelines, but at the time I enjoyed them they did.
Happy day! You can still do them. Double happy day! People that don't want to, don't have to. Much rejoicing!

 

The no ALR rule has been long-passed. Your beef is not with me, it's with Groundspeak. If you don't want to accept the decisions they made months ago, the definitions that they laid out and the attempts of other people to explain them to you then that's your choice. Good luck with that.
I have no beef with anyone. The topic of this thread is not "Should ALRs be brought back", and I'm not debating that they should come back. The topic is asking if they were really all that bad, and I'm suggesting that they weren't.

 

I'm sure some may have been pretty innocuous. I'm also sure that the not so bad ones weren't what set the ball rolling on removing them.

 

I'm listing reasons why they weren't that bad, and pointing out that those that didn't like them could always just skip over them, and allow those that did enjoy them to do so. You're suggesting there was FORCE involved, kidnapping, power trips, and other things that just weren't true.

 

I never said kidnapping. Yes, "forced". I don't know what else to call it. If you found an ALR and if you wanted to log the find on-line, there was no choice but to put on a silly hat (or whatever). If you didn't put on the silly hat, your log could be deleted. You seem to think that I'm saying people were forced to find those caches, I'm saying that the on-line log was denied to them because they didn't put on the silly hat. I used the word "held hostage" not in the literal meaning but as a figure of speach. Anybody with any sense knows that you can't literally hold an on-line log hostage.

 

I don't expect the ALRs to return and I think that's a real shame. Someday, someone else might have issues with caches that you really enjoy and get them removed from the site. If they do you're going to be in these shoes saying, "If you don't like them you could just avoid them", and you'll be pointing out why you think they're okay. Good luck with that.

 

Put down the crystal ball, Madam Zorba. :wacko:

Link to comment
That I agree with this is beside the point. That you want to rehash it is... beyond my understanding.
I'm rehashing it because The Weasel started the thread asking if they were really that bad. You can't understand that?

 

And if you can't understand why I'M in here discussing it, what do you have to say about all YOUR posts in here? :laughing::unsure:

 

And yes, I'm aware that the ALRs no longer meet the guidelines, but at the time I enjoyed them they did.
Happy day! You can still do them. Double happy day! People that don't want to, don't have to. Much rejoicing!
That's always been true. The people that didn't want to do the requirement could skip the cache. Nobody was forcing them to go find it.

 

I'm listing reasons why they weren't that bad, and pointing out that those that didn't like them could always just skip over them, and allow those that did enjoy them to do so. You're suggesting there was FORCE involved, kidnapping, power trips, and other things that just weren't true.
I never said kidnapping. Yes, "forced". I don't know what else to call it. If you found an ALR and if you wanted to log the find on-line, there was no choice but to put on a silly hat (or whatever). If you didn't put on the silly hat, your log could be deleted. You seem to think that I'm saying people were forced to find those caches, I'm saying that the on-line log was denied to them because they didn't put on the silly hat. I used the word "held hostage" not in the literal meaning but as a figure of speach. Anybody with any sense knows that you can't literally hold an on-line log hostage.
But for some reason you keep failing to acknowledge that when you read the description BEFORE finding the cache and you see that there was a silly hat requirement, you could just skip that cache. That way you'd never find the cache and feel like you were being held hostage. The finder made the choice to find the cache knowing full well what the deal was, yet chose to complain about the deal after the find. That's the part that always made me shake my head in wonder.
Link to comment

(More stuff about stuff)

 

My spider-sense tells me we have reached an impasse. That or I'm having a stroke.

 

Either way I don't feel that I'll be typing much in the next few months in this thread.

 

Maybe by that time somebody else will resurrect it and we can do this again. Until that day comes, and I hope to goodness it never does, remember this: you can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to wear a silly hat in order to log a find because there are no ALRs anymore, neener, neener, neener.

 

Have a great Thursday and I'll tell Neil you said "hi".

Link to comment
(More stuff that CM is ignoring)

My spider-sense tells me we have reached an impasse. That or I'm having a stroke.

 

Either way I don't feel that I'll be typing much in the next few months in this thread.

 

Maybe by that time somebody else will resurrect it and we can do this again. Until that day comes, and I hope to goodness it never does, remember this: you can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to wear a silly hat in order to log a find because there are no ALRs anymore, neener, neener, neener.

Anymore? You never could. But of course your horse will endorse your course that the cache was forced.

 

Have a great Thursday and I'll tell Neil you said "hi".
Same to ya.
Link to comment

I don't expect the ALRs to return and I think that's a real shame. Someday, someone else might have issues with caches that you really enjoy and get them removed from the site.

COs can still ask you to do something extra. Why is the threat of log deletion necessary? Because people won't want to do the extra thing? If that's the case, maybe it wasn't as fun as you though it would be then.

Link to comment

ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

Not quite. ALRs were things you had to do in order to log the find online, not to find the cache. That's what sets them apart from puzzles and multis.

ALRs don't really stop you from geocaching, just recording your finds online. Once you find a cache (i.e. sign the physical log), there shouldn't be extra hoops to jump through.

Link to comment

I don't have really strong feelings about this. But...

 

I recently went back through my found caches in order to mark my favorites. I was very disappointed to see that Crossroads of the World was archived because of an ALR.

 

That's just wrong. I occasionally visit that page just to look at the photos.

 

On the other hand, even though the ALR for that cache was pretty easy to accomplish, it looks to me that if the cache owner had only changed "After signing the log, you will have to do the following things" to "After signing the log, I am requesting that you do the following things" the cache would probably not have been archived. The page listing doesn't even say that a log would be deleted if a finder didn't post a photo holding the "Found It" sign.

Link to comment
ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

Not quite. ALRs were things you had to do in order to log the find online, not to find the cache. That's what sets them apart from puzzles and multis.

ALRs don't really stop you from geocaching, just recording your finds online. Once you find a cache (i.e. sign the physical log), there shouldn't be extra hoops to jump through.

 

Back when ALRs were allowed did you read the description, realize it was an ALR, and go find the cache anyway - even if you were unwilling to do the additional requirement?

Link to comment
ALRs were things you were required to do IF you choose to find the cache and wanted to log it online, after you've found the cache. There was never any FORCE involved. It was always always always a choice. And if you didn't want to do the ALR, you didn't have to find the cache.

 

If you didn't want to solve the puzzle, you didn't have to find the puzzle cache.

If you didn't want to cache in a parking lot, you didn't have to find the LPC.

If you didn't want to hike a long ways, you didn't have to find the cache located on the mountain top.....

Not quite. ALRs were things you had to do in order to log the find online, not to find the cache. That's what sets them apart from puzzles and multis.

ALRs don't really stop you from geocaching, just recording your finds online. Once you find a cache (i.e. sign the physical log), there shouldn't be extra hoops to jump through.

 

Back when ALRs were allowed did you read the description, realize it was an ALR, and go find the cache anyway - even if you were unwilling to do the additional requirement?

No, and I still don't read descriptions unless I can't find the cache.

 

I also hate puzzles that are mis-listed as multis. If there isn't a container/tag/something at the posted coordinates, it should have the "?" icon to tell me to read the page first.

Link to comment

 

I also hate puzzles that are mis-listed as multis. If there isn't a container/tag/something at the posted coordinates, it should have the "?" icon to tell me to read the page first.

 

The "getting started with geocaching" page disagrees with you. It describes a multi thusly:

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. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

 

It says "a hint," not "the coordinates."

Link to comment

 

I also hate puzzles that are mis-listed as multis. If there isn't a container/tag/something at the posted coordinates, it should have the "?" icon to tell me to read the page first.

 

The "getting started with geocaching" page disagrees with you. It describes a multi thusly:

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. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

 

It says "a hint," not "the coordinates."

I never said the coordinates should be at the starting spot, go back and read my post again.

 

There are multis out there that have no information at the posted coordinates. When you read the cache page, it says something like, "To find the first stage, solve this puzzle..." Those should be listed as puzzle caches.

 

ALR caches are neither. You don't have to figure out a puzzle or visit multiple locations to get to the cache (unless they are also multi or puzzle caches). You have to do something after finding the cache in order to post it online.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...