ALR's---were they THAT bad?

[Mushtang]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

On the one single ALR that I found, I wasn't even aware of what an ALR was. I went out and found a bunch of caches, logged them all with nice messages about my experience, only to find one of the day's logs deleted. When I emailed the cache owner, he said, "Read the instructions and relog your find". So, instead of the nice wordy description of my experience, I had to log the words, "Ding dong, the witch is dead". Brilliant! Just what caching is all about to me.

Did you not read the description before going to find the cache? Maybe you did this before they were required to be listed as Puzzle caches. I totally agreed that they needed to be, specifically to keep people from finding them without knowing what the ALR was.

[4wheelin_fool]

Why couldn't the owners of the ALRs simply ignore the logs of cachers that found the cache, but didn't perform the silly task? Why is the log deletion drama necessary? Why the punishment for not reading the cache page? Why couldn't Groundspeak simply ignore all of the angst, and just order mass amounts of antacids?

 

When the DOT recognizes a dangerous intersection where there are frequent accidents from people who ignore signs, despite repeated law enforcement presence, they change the signs, rather than expecting the police to continually monitor the area. Yes, the drivers are wrong, but when it occurs in numbers higher than normal, that indicates that the design is wrong.

 

A 'found' log is a form of communication, nothing more, nothing less.

[+Max and 99]

If I saw a cache with a listed ALR that I didn't like, I chose to not find the cache.

 

We had some fun ones here:

1) if you are a girl, just find the cache and sign the log. If you're a boy, you have to dress like a girl (in a dress or skirt), and post a photo of yourself at the cache.

2) you have to find this cache ON your birthday, or find the cache naked (and attach photographic proof to the online log).

[+narcissa]

Only white people may log a find on my cache. Discuss.

[+WRASTRO]

Only white people may log a find on my cache. Discuss.

 

Too ridiculous and a wild attempt at trolling to be worth a real response. You are better than this tripe.

 

Or did I miss something in the previous 150+ posts that I didn't read that could possibly make this relevant?

[+tozainamboku]

Only white people may log a find on my cache. Discuss.

 

Too ridiculous and a wild attempt at trolling to be worth a real response. You are better than this tripe.

 

Or did I miss something in the previous 150+ posts that I didn't read that could possibly make this relevant?

Sure. The reviewers were stuck with the sorry task of deciding what ALRs were reasonable and what weren't. I don't think they had trouble with some that was racist but cleary you could think of examples that are not quite so bad but still questionable. A well known example (which is still not allowed for challenge caches) was that you had to have hidden a certain number of caches. For whatever reason, TPTB decided that asking people to hide caches in order to log a find wasn't permitted.

 

As soon as it wasn't "You can put whatever additional requirements you want so long as you make the cache a mystery/unknown type", the reviewers had to evaluate what was allowed and what wasn't. Groundspeak and the reviewers attempted to come up with guidelines to indicate what was an acceptable ALR but whatever they tried left too much room for people to push the envelop and bog down the review process. Instead the solution was to tell cache owner that they could request simple tasks from the cache seeker either close to the cache site or when writing their online log, but they could no longer delete logs based solely on these optional tasks.

 

TPTB recognized that ALRs were often fun and could add to cache. But some cache owners were adding ALRs that added no enjoyment to cache and were being used solely to give cache owners an excuse to delete logs. Many people already had stopped deleting logs because of an ALR. If the requested task was fun, people would do it. The threat of log deletion should not be necessary to get people to participate in something that is fun.

 

I think what really killed ALRs was paperless caching. People would not have the description so they would look for the cache not knowing it had a ALR. The next step was to make these caches mystery/unknown, ostensibly so people would read the cache page before looking. This may have worked, but by officially recognizing ALRs, the level of abuse increased and reviewer were reluctant to enforce subjective guidelines as to what was a permissible ALR.

 

My guess in that people still don't read the cache page till they log. With field notes they might not even read the page then. So I suspect that there isn't much compliance even with fun optional tasks. Perhaps with more cachers using smartphone apps we will get more people participating the optional tasks. Not only do smartphone users have the cache descriptions but they have a camera to take that picture of themselves phooning.

[+sbell111]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

 

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

Prior to ALRs going away, I had found and logged many of them, performing the cache owner's silly task every time. I can't think of a single time that this performance increased the fun for me. It was just something stupid that I had to do. Now that I have the choice to perform the silly task or not, my enjoyment of the same cache would be increased. Ironically, since the task is now an option, I may choose to do the task and feel happier about it.

[+narcissa]

I don't think my example is so off the mark - just this week someone was complaining about foreign language logs and wanted to be allowed to delete them.

 

I think Groundspeak needed to set a benchmark for what constitutes a find - physically retrieving the container and signing the log. Putting up an arbitrary barrier between the physical find and recording the find online doesn't make sense. The find log is a record of finding the cache, not an award that needs to be guarded or authorized. The challenge to the cacher should be in getting to, finding, and retrieving the cache, not recording the experience online.

 

Unless you're using non-standard definitions of "find," in which case, you'll need to create a better case for such definitions than "because I want to."

[+Sol seaker]

Only white people may log a find on my cache. Discuss.

 

Sure. The reviewers were stuck with the sorry task of deciding what ALRs were reasonable and what weren't. I don't think they had trouble with some that was racist but cleary you could think of examples that are not quite so bad but still questionable. A well known example (which is still not allowed for challenge caches) was that you had to have hidden a certain number of caches. For whatever reason, TPTB decided that asking people to hide caches in order to log a find wasn't permitted.

 

<snip>

 

I think what really killed ALRs was paperless caching. People would not have the description so they would look for the cache not knowing it had a ALR. The next step was to make these caches mystery/unknown, ostensibly so people would read the cache page before looking. This may have worked, but by officially recognizing ALRs, the level of abuse increased and reviewer were reluctant to enforce subjective guidelines as to what was a permissible ALR.

 

<snip>

 

Actually what i really think killed the ALR's were people getting more and more outrageous with the requirements.

I think that Groundspeak saw that this was getting out of hand, and was headed downhill.

Some were really ridiculous and they were getting more outrageous as time went on. Someone would see a crazy one and would want to out-do it. That is the nature of a lot of the cache placers. They want to out-do the crazy caches they've seen. While that may make for some really good caches, it also started to make some out-of-control ALR's.

[+cx1]

 

I think Groundspeak needed to set a benchmark for what constitutes a find - physically retrieving the container and signing the log.

 

As a proponent of Earth caches, virtual caches and event caches I take exception to your statement.

[+narcissa]

 

I think Groundspeak needed to set a benchmark for what constitutes a find - physically retrieving the container and signing the log.

 

As a proponent of Earth caches, virtual caches and event caches I take exception to your statement.

 

As a fellow proponent of Earthcaches, virtual caches, and event caches, I take exception to your deliberate misinterpretation of my comment and your attempt to derail the thread. The ALR guideline applies to physical caches, and we are discussing it as it applies to physical caches. If you're looking to pick fights about the legitimacy of non-physical cache types, there are several other active threads where that is more appropriate.

[Mushtang]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

Prior to ALRs going away, I had found and logged many of them, performing the cache owner's silly task every time. I can't think of a single time that this performance increased the fun for me. It was just something stupid that I had to do. Now that I have the choice to perform the silly task or not, my enjoyment of the same cache would be increased. Ironically, since the task is now an option, I may choose to do the task and feel happier about it.

For some reason you STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

In the bold words above you're clearly implying that there was something you HAD TO DO. You felt before that you didn't have THE CHOICE, and only after the ban is it NOW AN OPTION. But you're wrong about all three. If you'd taken option 2 and just skipped the cache, you would have avoided all that you felt forced to do.

 

Or are you suggesting that you made the choice to participate, but want to complain about your participation anyway?

[+cx1]

 

As a fellow proponent of Earthcaches, virtual caches, and event caches, I take exception to your deliberate misinterpretation of my comment and your attempt to derail the thread. The ALR guideline applies to physical caches, and we are discussing it as it applies to physical caches. If you're looking to pick fights about the legitimacy of non-physical cache types, there are several other active threads where that is more appropriate.

First where was it stated that ALRs can only apply to physical caches?

Am I allowed to create an event cache which specifies that all logs for this cache must be written in a poem? NO

Am I allowed to create an earth cache that specifies that left handed people can only log this cache on odd numbered days? NO

Will I be allowed to specify a pose a cacher must execute, photograph and post on-line to claim a 'find' on my future virtual? Doubt it.

You made the specific statement to what should constitute a 'find'. You did not preface that statement anywhere that it only applies to a physical cache.

 

Non-physical caches are covered under the same basic 'no ALR rules' as caches with physical containers other then some very limited exceptions. You made a blanket statement of what a 'find' is and stated it has to have a container. You made this statement under a topic about ALRs which can and do apply to all cache types (physical or not). Why would a reader of your statement only apply it to physical caches?

[+Castle Mischief]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

 

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

 

What's so bad about letting people that want to find the cache do so and those that want to find the cache and put on the silly hat also do so. Was the requirement really that darned important? That's what you keep reinforcing, that the requirement was more important that the cache. That the requirement somehow "made" the cache.

 

I don't get that. Some other people have said that they don't get that. Groundspeak didn't get that. Get it?

Edited January 22, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+Team GPSaxophone]

For some reason you STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

And you still can't wrap your mind around the fact that those that were willing participants would do the ALR whether "R" stood for "Requirement" or "Request."

[Mushtang]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

What's so bad about letting people that want to find the cache do so and those that want to find the cache and put on the silly hat also do so. Was the requirement really that darned important? That's what you keep reinforcing, that the requirement was more important that the cache. That the requirement somehow "made" the cache.

It's because that's what the cache owner wanted the cache to be, and it was within the guidelines at the time. If the cache owner wanted to make wearing the silly hat optional for the participants, he could. If he wanted to make it mandatory for the willing participants, he could. It's just the way he wanted his cache to be.

 

If you hide a puzzle cache you're doing so because that's what you want to hide. If someone thinks your puzzle is too hard and they want you to make it optional by posting the actual coordinates on the cache page, you don't have to because puzzle caches are allowed.

 

If you hide a cache on a rope up a tree and people have to climb up to get it, someone may decide it's not worth it just for a smiley and leave it on the ground for the next hider. What's wrong with that? The next hider still has the option to climb the tree if they want.

 

Doesn't the puzzle "make" the cache? Doesn't the tree climb "make" the cache?

 

I don't get that.

That's been obvious for a long time.

 

Some other people have said that they don't get that.

A lot of people have trouble with simple concepts like "choice", and "skip".

 

Groundspeak didn't get that.

Which is a pity.

 

Get it?

Completely.

[Mushtang]

For some reason you STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

And you still can't wrap your mind around the fact that those that were willing participants would do the ALR whether "R" stood for "Requirement" or "Request."

So?

 

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

 

Would you place a cache in the parking lot of a trail up to a great view, and then tell the finders they could skip the hike if they didn't want to make the trip? No. And you wouldn't because a parking lot is not the type of view you'd want to show the finders.

 

As a cache owner, you have the option to hide the kinds of caches you want, unless that cache gets banned. The finders always had the option to find it or not, but now you no longer have the option to hide it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I've noticed that some people cannot wrap their mind around the fact that ALRs are gone and not coming back.

 

It's not really about seeing another person's point of view, but rather about winning a debate.

[Mushtang]

I've noticed that some people cannot wrap their mind around the fact that ALRs are gone and not coming back.

 

It's not really about seeing another person's point of view, but rather about winning a debate.

 

If you're talking about me then it's clear that you haven't been reading. I've said at least twice that I'm not here to try and get ALRs back. I've said that I realize they're gone and there's nothing that's going to change that. I've completely wrapped my mind around it. Thanks though.

 

The OP asked if ALRs were that bad, so I'm saying no and others are saying yes. I'm enjoying the discussion. If you're not, you have a choice.

[4wheelin_fool]

The OP is gone. This is a zombie thread.

 

Perhaps they were discontinued because of snarky replies using words posted in ALL CAPS during discussions.

[+cx1]

 

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

 

However as the owner of a puzzle cache I cannot require that a cacher solve the puzzle to get credit for the find.

I know for a fact that some of the finders of my two mystery caches did not solve the puzzle. They have told me they didn't solve it. Yet I would not be allowed to delete their logs (nor do I have a desire to) based on the fact they didn't solve the puzzle.

Would I prefer people solve my puzzles on their own before claiming a find? Yes, but I realize that due to the difficulty level of the puzzles that it is not always going to happen they way I desire. I can only request a person solves a puzzle just like the person who wants people to wear a funny hat at a traditional can only request it.

 

But overall I don't see the harm in ALRs if that is what a cache owner wanted. It is pretty easy not to find a cache if something about that cache makes me not want to find it.

[Mushtang]

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

However as the owner of a puzzle cache I cannot require that a cacher solve the puzzle to get credit for the find.

True, but that wasn't the point of my post. I suggested that people hide puzzle caches because that's what they want to hide. Someone else had suggested that what the finders wanted should be more important than what the cache owner wanted as far as the reason the cache was created.

 

A: I want you to wear a silly hat if you find my cache

B. I don't want to wear the hat, but I want to find your cache anyway

A. But that's not why I hid the cache, if you don't want to wear the hat find another cache

B. I don't care what you want, I'll find your cache, refuse to wear the hat, and complain until the guidelines get changed.

 

I know for a fact that some of the finders of my two mystery caches did not solve the puzzle. They have told me they didn't solve it. Yet I would not be allowed to delete their logs (nor do I have a desire to) based on the fact they didn't solve the puzzle.

Correct.

 

Would I prefer people solve my puzzles on their own before claiming a find? Yes, but I realize that due to the difficulty level of the puzzles that it is not always going to happen they way I desire. I can only request a person solves a puzzle just like the person who wants people to wear a funny hat at a traditional can only request it.

That's also true, now that the guidelines for ALRs have been changed.

 

But overall I don't see the harm in ALRs if that is what a cache owner wanted. It is pretty easy not to find a cache if something about that cache makes me not want to find it.

DING DING DING!!! Hey, at least someone out there see's the point I've been making!! I appreciate your post.

[+niraD]

Were ALRs really that bad? Yes, and no.

 

No, the ones that were published weren't that bad.

 

Yes, the unpublishable ones the volunteer reviewers had to deal with every day were that bad.

 

IIRC, what killed ALRs was that the volunteer reviewers were fed up with the hassle of dealing with cache owners who wanted to publish caches with more and more extreme ALRs.

[+Team Dromomania]

To those that think the log page should be read before attempt a hide I must assume they've never took a long trip with 1000 caches in their GPSr not knowing exactly when or where they may be able to search for one of them. I got stung by ALR's in the past when I went to log the find when I returned home. I logged these as notes but after the rules changed I went back and changed my notes to finds.

 

One other observation: It seems that this whole argument revolves around "Guilty until proven innocent" thinking. Why not just enjoy the game and trust the other players? I don't think there were any cheaters on any of my hinds over the past 7 years and if there were then the guilt rides with the cheater - not me. I'm trying to make my hides fun and interesting. I'm not going to worry over what other players may or may not be doing with logging my hides. I truely trust the cachers.

[+narcissa]

 

As a fellow proponent of Earthcaches, virtual caches, and event caches, I take exception to your deliberate misinterpretation of my comment and your attempt to derail the thread. The ALR guideline applies to physical caches, and we are discussing it as it applies to physical caches. If you're looking to pick fights about the legitimacy of non-physical cache types, there are several other active threads where that is more appropriate.

First where was it stated that ALRs can only apply to physical caches?

Am I allowed to create an event cache which specifies that all logs for this cache must be written in a poem? NO

Am I allowed to create an earth cache that specifies that left handed people can only log this cache on odd numbered days? NO

Will I be allowed to specify a pose a cacher must execute, photograph and post on-line to claim a 'find' on my future virtual? Doubt it.

You made the specific statement to what should constitute a 'find'. You did not preface that statement anywhere that it only applies to a physical cache.

 

Non-physical caches are covered under the same basic 'no ALR rules' as caches with physical containers other then some very limited exceptions. You made a blanket statement of what a 'find' is and stated it has to have a container. You made this statement under a topic about ALRs which can and do apply to all cache types (physical or not). Why would a reader of your statement only apply it to physical caches?

 

Read the guidelines. The ALR rule we're discussing pertains to physical cache types. I did not mean to undermine the legitimacy of non-physical cache types, so please stop the attack.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

If you hide a puzzle cache you're doing so because that's what you want to hide. If someone thinks your puzzle is too hard and they want you to make it optional by posting the actual coordinates on the cache page, you don't have to because puzzle caches are allowed.

 

If you hide a cache on a rope up a tree and people have to climb up to get it, someone may decide it's not worth it just for a smiley and leave it on the ground for the next hider. What's wrong with that? The next hider still has the option to climb the tree if they want.

 

Doesn't the puzzle "make" the cache? Doesn't the tree climb "make" the cache?

 

Solving the puzzle is done to obtain the coordinates, climbing the tree is done to obtain the container and sign the physical log.

 

Putting on the silly hat was done after the cache was found and after the log was signed. It had nothing to do with caching, it was some little silly thing, that while harmless, had nothing to do with hunting for the cache. It wasn't actually part of or somehow magically woven into the fabric of geocaching like you want to believe it was.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+narcissa]

 

If you hide a puzzle cache you're doing so because that's what you want to hide. If someone thinks your puzzle is too hard and they want you to make it optional by posting the actual coordinates on the cache page, you don't have to because puzzle caches are allowed.

 

If you hide a cache on a rope up a tree and people have to climb up to get it, someone may decide it's not worth it just for a smiley and leave it on the ground for the next hider. What's wrong with that? The next hider still has the option to climb the tree if they want.

 

Doesn't the puzzle "make" the cache? Doesn't the tree climb "make" the cache?

 

Solving the puzzle is done to obtain the coordinates, climbing the tree is done to obtain the container and sign the physical log.

 

Putting on the silly hat was done after the cache was found and after the log was signed. It had nothing to do with caching, it was some little silly thing, that while harmless, had nothing to do with hunting for the cache. It wasn't actually part of or somehow magically woven into the fabric of geocaching like you want to believe it was.

 

This.

[+tozainamboku]

The distinction that an ALR is something you do after (or in addition to) signing the log and not something that needs to be done in order to get the coordinates of cache or in order to retrieve the cache or sign the physical log is important but is probably not the reason that ALRs were banned.

 

The online log is not really necessary in order to geocache. When Dave Ulmer hid the first cache he didn't even imagine online logs. Bur Geocaching.com enhanced geocaching into an online social network by adding the capability to write about your experiences geocaching online. They came up with the idea of a smiley face log for when you found the cache and a frowny face one for when you looked but could not find the cache. They eventually added the capability to hide the caches you had found from a search - as the numbers of geocaches grew and a large part of the community adopted the convention that one would not "find" the same geocache more than once. They also began to display the number of found logs a cacher had entered on the site, promoting a simple way to keep track of one's progress.

 

Of course, in any online logging site, they was the nuisance of people who post phony logs or logs with a purpose other the intend one of sharing a cache experience. TPTB took care of this problem by giving cache owners the power to delete logs and telling them to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Perhaps it was that last phrase - "within the stated requirements" - that signaled to cache owners that they could add requirements to the cache page and then delete logs that were not within those stated requirements. For the most part cache owners added requirements that they thought were fun and added to the experiences of the cache. Most owners of these cache gave a lot of leeway, in many cases the requirement was defacto optional (even if the cache page didn't say so).

 

What happened was that more and more cachers went paperless. These cacher would find caches unaware that they had an ALR. At that point they would get upset that they couldn't log a find online because the ALR required they do something at the cache site. Even if the requirement was simply to write your online log in a particular style they felt they were being forced to do something to get their smiley.

 

TPTB responded to these complaints by requiring cache owners who had additional logging requirements that they intended to enforce, to list these caches a mystery/unknown type.

 

That should have been the end of it. Those who didn't want to do the ALR had no excuse. Since the cache type was the same as used for puzzles that are not at the posted coordinates, cachers would need to read the page. They would know if the cache had and ALR and could decide if they wanted to hunt it or not.

 

The problem now was a new problem. Clearly there were some ALRs that Groundspeak didn't beleive should be listed at all. narcissa gave the example of the racial requirement. But there were many that are less obvious. Many people wanted to hid breeder caches with a requirement that in order log a find you had to hide a cache. Groundspeak felt that using a smiley to encourage a poorly placed cache that wasn't going to be maintained wasn't an appropriate use of an ALR. Then there were requirements that your log would be deleted if you didn't say something positive about the cache or if your log wasn't some minimum length. Many people rely on what is written in t logs to decide what caches to find. And ALR that was meant to promote the cache was deemed inappropriate. Imagine today an ALR that says you have to "favorite" a cache in order to log a find on it. And there were plenty of ALRs that became nothing more that burdensome complex requirements that were meant either for a cache owner to be able to delete any logs they wanted or to be able to laugh behind the backs of the people who did the ALR as being so desperate for the smiley that they would do something silly or gross instead of just ignoring the cache.

 

The volunteer reviewers were tasked with the job of evaluating ALRs to decide if they were fun additions to the cache or some unacceptable request. While the number of these caches were small this wasn't a problem. But over time, more and more geocachers felt they had own an ALR cache, and there was a competition among some cache owners to out do one another with more ridiculous ALRs. It became too much work for the reviewers to turn down these caches and then explain to the cache owner where the line was between what was an acceptable ALR and what wasn't. After much discussion between the reviewers and Groundspeak, the guideline were changed. ALRs would be allowed but only if they were optional requests. They would no longer have to be listed as mystery/unknown since cachers who didn't want to do them wouldn't have to. Since the cache owner could no longer use ALRs as an excuse for deleting logs, there was no longer any point in making the extreme kinds of requests that some owners had tried making. TPTB recognized the loss of ALRs that were fun and added to the cache. The compromise was that cache owners could still make these optional requests and if they truly are fun and add to the cache, many finders will still do them.

[+sbell111]

EDIT: Honestly, at this point I can't tell were the fun was to be had from the CO's POV, as you tell it. Was it fun to see pictures of people in funny hats or was it fun to REQUIRE people to take pictures in funny hats?

For some reason you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

What is so bad about that?

 

What is so bad for those folks that didn't want to wear the hat to have a cache out there that they have chosen not to do?

Prior to ALRs going away, I had found and logged many of them, performing the cache owner's silly task every time. I can't think of a single time that this performance increased the fun for me. It was just something stupid that I had to do. Now that I have the choice to perform the silly task or not, my enjoyment of the same cache would be increased. Ironically, since the task is now an option, I may choose to do the task and feel happier about it.

For some reason you STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that the finders were willing participants. A cacher could either 1) find the cache and wear the silly hat, or 2) skip the cache and not be bothered. There was never any force. Nothing was ever required for those that didn't want to play. The only requirement was for the people that were willing to play along.

 

In the bold words above you're clearly implying that there was something you HAD TO DO. You felt before that you didn't have THE CHOICE, and only after the ban is it NOW AN OPTION. But you're wrong about all three. If you'd taken option 2 and just skipped the cache, you would have avoided all that you felt forced to do.

 

Or are you suggesting that you made the choice to participate, but want to complain about your participation anyway?

I suspect that you are deliberately misconstruing my post just to make your argument.

 

I deliberately chose to participate in the ALRs that I logged prior to the ban. Mostly, I did so either because I didn't realize that the cache had an ALR prior to finding the cache or because I wanted to find a cache in a specific area and that one was the most practicle for me to do so, given my schedule.

 

You are wrong about me complaining about these caches. In fact, I never did so as I knew (and know) that it was my choice to log them online. The fact that I didn't complain about them does not take away my right to mention in appropriate threads that I did not enjoy doing the ALRs and that I did feel forced into doing them.

[+sbell111]

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone solves your puzzle. I could get the answer from a friend or just tag along with him when he makes the find. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

Would you place a cache in the parking lot of a trail up to a great view, and then tell the finders they could skip the hike if they didn't want to make the trip? No. And you wouldn't because a parking lot is not the type of view you'd want to show the finders.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone parks where you want and takes a specific route to a cache. I am free to find a close place to park my Jeep so I can make the find without a long hike. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

As a cache owner, you have the option to hide the kinds of caches you want, unless that cache gets banned. The finders always had the option to find it or not, but now you no longer have the option to hide it.

You can hide whatever you want, but if a cacher signs the logbook, it's a find.

[Mushtang]

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone solves your puzzle. I could get the answer from a friend or just tag along with him when he makes the find. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

True. But that wasn't the point.

 

Would you place a cache in the parking lot of a trail up to a great view, and then tell the finders they could skip the hike if they didn't want to make the trip? No. And you wouldn't because a parking lot is not the type of view you'd want to show the finders.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone parks where you want and takes a specific route to a cache. I am free to find a close place to park my Jeep so I can make the find without a long hike. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

True. But that wasn't the point.

 

As a cache owner, you have the option to hide the kinds of caches you want, unless that cache gets banned. The finders always had the option to find it or not, but now you no longer have the option to hide it.

You can hide whatever you want, but if a cacher signs the logbook, it's a find.

True, now that ARLs aren't allowed. When they were this was not true.

 

The above quotes of mine were examples of ways that a cache owner designs his cache. He doesn't put out a cache based on what other people ask for, or vote on, he puts out a cache that he wants, in the way he wants, and let's people find it if they decide to. It was an answer to the question of "WHY would an owner want to put an ALR on a cache", and the answer is "because that's what he's decided to do". It's that simple.

 

But I suspect that you are deliberately misconstruing my post just to make your argument.

[+sbell111]

Would you place a puzzle cache with the answer on the page, and give the finders the option to solve the puzzle? No. And you wouldn't because that's not the type of cache you'd want to hide.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone solves your puzzle. I could get the answer from a friend or just tag along with him when he makes the find. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

True. But that wasn't the point.

 

Would you place a cache in the parking lot of a trail up to a great view, and then tell the finders they could skip the hike if they didn't want to make the trip? No. And you wouldn't because a parking lot is not the type of view you'd want to show the finders.

As a cache owner, you cannot require that someone parks where you want and takes a specific route to a cache. I am free to find a close place to park my Jeep so I can make the find without a long hike. If I sign the logbook, it's a find.

True. But that wasn't the point.

 

As a cache owner, you have the option to hide the kinds of caches you want, unless that cache gets banned. The finders always had the option to find it or not, but now you no longer have the option to hide it.

You can hide whatever you want, but if a cacher signs the logbook, it's a find.

True, now that ARLs aren't allowed. When they were this was not true.

 

The above quotes of mine were examples of ways that a cache owner designs his cache. He doesn't put out a cache based on what other people ask for, or vote on, he puts out a cache that he wants, in the way he wants, and let's people find it if they decide to. It was an answer to the question of "WHY would an owner want to put an ALR on a cache", and the answer is "because that's what he's decided to do". It's that simple.

 

But I suspect that you are deliberately misconstruing my post just to make your argument.

I was actually using your examples to point out why your position was incorrect. In the examples, the cache owner is free to hide a cache deep in the woods or high in a tree, or include a difficult puzzle. However, if the cache seeker signs the logbook, the cache owner may not delete the log regardless of whether the logger made a long hike, a tough climb, or solved a puzzle. Just like the cache owner who would like everyone to phoon cannot require anything beyond a sig in the logbook. Edited January 24, 2011 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I was actually using your examples to point out why your position was incorrect. In the examples, the cache owner is free to hide a cache deep in the woods or high in a tree, or include a difficult puzzle. However, if the cache seeker signs the logbook, the cache owner may not delete the log regardless of whether the logger made a long hike, a tough climb, or solved a puzzle.

Nope, my position is very much correct. Nice try though. Go re-read the post of mine that you quoted and you'll see you think I'm trying to make one point when I'm making a completely different one.

 

Again, my posts were not examples of ALR equivalents, they were examples of owners hiding caches a certain way because that's the way they wanted to hide. I wasn't saying that a puzzle cache HAD to have the puzzle solved to be found, I was saying the puzzle is there (without the answer) because the owner wants the puzzle as opposed to a regular cache.

 

The ALR was hidden, as opposed to a regular cache with a request, because the owner wanted an ARL.

 

The question was asked: why would an owner want to place a requirement instead of a request? The answer is, because he wants to.

 

Why does an owner place a puzzle cache instead of a multi cache? Because he wants to.

 

Just like the cache owner who would like everyone to phoon cannot require anything beyond a sig in the logbook.

That's true now, but wasn't when ALRs were allowed.

[+Sol seaker]

I've noticed that some people cannot wrap their mind around the fact that ALRs are gone and not coming back.

 

It's not really about seeing another person's point of view, but rather about winning a debate.

 

If you're talking about me then it's clear that you haven't been reading. I've said at least twice that I'm not here to try and get ALRs back. I've said that I realize they're gone and there's nothing that's going to change that. I've completely wrapped my mind around it. Thanks though.

 

The OP asked if ALRs were that bad, so I'm saying no and others are saying yes. I'm enjoying the discussion. If you're not, you have a choice.

 

So my choice is to avoid the whole topic because you have filled up the pages with snarky replies?

You replied to half of a previous post that suggested you were snarky.

You are enjoying the argument, not the discussion.

I prefer to discuss. When you start getting snarky about people not agreeing with you then it's an argument. By your tone (and words) you insist others "don't get it" when they don't agree with you. You obviously don't get the other side either. Why do you have to make everyone wrong who doesn't agree with you?

 

This may seem off-topic, when in fact it is not.

It's the same idea. Some cache owners were filling up the map with snarky caches that were obnoxious. It made the game not fun anymore.

Just like this thread is filled with snarky remarks from one person making the thread not fun anymore.

Yes I will avoid this thread in the future. I'm glad I don't have to constantly weed out snarky caches anymore too.

[Mushtang]

So my choice is to avoid the whole topic because you have filled up the pages with snarky replies?

Or to avoid my posts, or to avoid whatever you want. That's a very good analogy to the ALRs before the ban.

 

You replied to half of a previous post that suggested you were snarky.

You are enjoying the argument, not the discussion.

I prefer to discuss. When you start getting snarky about people not agreeing with you then it's an argument. By your tone (and words) you insist others "don't get it" when they don't agree with you. You obviously don't get the other side either. Why do you have to make everyone wrong who doesn't agree with you?

They're not wrong because they don't agree with me. They're wrong because they make claims that aren't true. When people say that when ALRs existed they were forced to do things they didn't want to do. That's just simply wrong. Nobody ever forced anyone to find any cache. If they meant something else, then they can't expect me to read their mind.

 

If they meant that in order to log the find online they were forced to wear the hat, I don't see it as true either. It was an agreement entered into willingly by both sides. If you want new shoes you need to pay for them on the way out of the store. Nobody forces you to pay for them, you know it's part of the deal when you walk in, and you willingly pay for the shoes. No force. If you don't want to pay then you don't get the shoes. Still no force. It's all voluntary.

 

Than analogy isn't an exact analogy for caching, I realize you don't pay for smileys, I realize money and smileys and logs and all are different. It was simply an example of an agreement where there is an agreed to deal with no force where one person ends up getting something in exchange for doing something else.

 

This may seem off-topic, when in fact it is not.

It's the same idea. Some cache owners were filling up the map with snarky caches that were obnoxious. It made the game not fun anymore.

Just like this thread is filled with snarky remarks from one person making the thread not fun anymore.

Yes I will avoid this thread in the future. I'm glad I don't have to constantly weed out snarky caches anymore too.

I'm sorry if you took my comments as being snarky. I've only ever intended to be in an honest discussion and exchange points of view.

[+tozainamboku]

I was actually using your examples to point out why your position was incorrect. In the examples, the cache owner is free to hide a cache deep in the woods or high in a tree, or include a difficult puzzle. However, if the cache seeker signs the logbook, the cache owner may not delete the log regardless of whether the logger made a long hike, a tough climb, or solved a puzzle.

Nope, my position is very much correct. Nice try though. Go re-read the post of mine that you quoted and you'll see you think I'm trying to make one point when I'm making a completely different one.

 

Again, my posts were not examples of ALR equivalents, they were examples of owners hiding caches a certain way because that's the way they wanted to hide. I wasn't saying that a puzzle cache HAD to have the puzzle solved to be found, I was saying the puzzle is there (without the answer) because the owner wants the puzzle as opposed to a regular cache.

 

The ALR was hidden, as opposed to a regular cache with a request, because the owner wanted an ARL.

 

The question was asked: why would an owner want to place a requirement instead of a request? The answer is, because he wants to.

 

Why does an owner place a puzzle cache instead of a multi cache? Because he wants to.

The guidelines are full of cache types that are no longer allowed. Why would an owner bury a cache? Because he wants to. Why would an owner deface private or public property to provide a hiding place, a hint, or a logging method for his cache? Because he wants to. Why would the cache owner hide a cache that promotes an agenda? Because he wants to. The subject of the thread is whether ALRs were really that bad. The fact that cache owners wanted to hide caches with ALRs is irrelevant.

 

TPTB have stated, "We regret that a few really cool ideas may be lost as a result, and we apologize to the cache owners concerned." Nobody is saying that some ALRs weren't fun and ALRs were not an option that cache owners could use to enhance their cache. The change was made because the number and type of ALRs began detracting from the basis of geocaching - "the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude." Cache reviewers could no longer manage the process of determining which ALRs were appropriate for geocaching and which were not. A compromise was to allow additional request but to tell cache owners they could no longer delete online found logs "because they want to."

Edited January 24, 2011 by tozainamboku

[Mushtang]

I was actually using your examples to point out why your position was incorrect. In the examples, the cache owner is free to hide a cache deep in the woods or high in a tree, or include a difficult puzzle. However, if the cache seeker signs the logbook, the cache owner may not delete the log regardless of whether the logger made a long hike, a tough climb, or solved a puzzle.

Nope, my position is very much correct. Nice try though. Go re-read the post of mine that you quoted and you'll see you think I'm trying to make one point when I'm making a completely different one.

 

Again, my posts were not examples of ALR equivalents, they were examples of owners hiding caches a certain way because that's the way they wanted to hide. I wasn't saying that a puzzle cache HAD to have the puzzle solved to be found, I was saying the puzzle is there (without the answer) because the owner wants the puzzle as opposed to a regular cache.

 

The ALR was hidden, as opposed to a regular cache with a request, because the owner wanted an ARL.

 

The question was asked: why would an owner want to place a requirement instead of a request? The answer is, because he wants to.

 

Why does an owner place a puzzle cache instead of a multi cache? Because he wants to.

The guidelines are full of cache types that are no longer allowed. Why would an owner bury a cache? Because he wants to. Why would an owner deface private or public property to provide a hiding place, a hint, or a logging method for his cache? Because he wants to. Why would the cache owner hide a cache that promotes an agenda? Because he wants to. The subject of the thread is whether ALRs were really that bad. The fact that cache owners wanted to hide caches with ALRs is irrelevant.

Very well put. And I totally agree. But I was only answering a question that someone asked during the discussion. Looking back, when someone asked me why the cache owner wanted to make the action a requirement instead of a request, I wish I'd just answered with, "It's irrelevant why, he could and he did."

 

TPTB have stated, "We regret that a few really cool ideas may be lost as a result, and we apologize to the cache owners concerned." Nobody is saying that some ALRs weren't fun and ALRs were not an option that cache owners could use to enhance their cache. The change was made because the number and type of ALRs began detracting from the basis of geocaching - "the act of finding a unique container/location using latitude and longitude." Cache reviewers could no longer manage the process of determining which ALRs were appropriate for geocaching and which were not. A compromise was to allow additional request but to tell cache owners they could no longer delete online found logs "because they want to."

True. They're gone and they're not coming back. No doubt.

[+narcissa]

Because he wants to.

 

This seems to be the crux of all your arguments, and it's not substantive or convincing. Cache owners who choose to list their caches here have never been allowed to do whatever they want. Nor should they.

 

Allowing cache owners to set arbitrary rules about who can log their geocaches leads to confusion, alienation, and conflict - conflict that Groundspeak was forced to step in and mediate on far too many occasions. This was a waste of Groundspeak's resources, so yes, ALRs were "that bad."

 

Some cache owners tried to use ALRs as a backdoor to impose personal/political agendas on their caches. Recent forum example of an ALR someone wanted to put on a cache: You can only find this cache if you've donated blood this year. Others tried to use them to blatantly discriminate against other cachers. You can only find this cache if you write your log in a language I understand. Dealing with this arbitrary and pointless nonsense was a waste of reviewers' time. Yes, ALRs were "that bad."

 

Giving cache owners complete control over find logs is also highly problematic because it lets the cache owner, and not the cacher, decide the value of a find log. Yes, ALR's were that bad.

 

Allowing cache owners to be arbitrary, controlling, and even cruel to fellow cachers really goes against the entire spirit of the game. Yes, ALR's were that bad.

[Mushtang]

Because he wants to.

This seems to be the crux of all your arguments, and it's not substantive or convincing. Cache owners who choose to list their caches here have never been allowed to do whatever they want. Nor should they.

The "because he wants to" wasn't the answer to the not asked question "Why should an owner be allowed to hide a non-guideline meeting cache?"

 

I agree that they should not be allowed to do whatever they want. If you think I'm trying to say they should then I've done a bad job of explaining myself.

 

I believe that if a cache owner wants to make a guideline meeting puzzle cache, then he can. If someone asks him why he didn't make it a regular cache he can answer "Because I wanted a puzzle cache".

I believe that if a cache owner wants to make a guideline meeting SCUBA cache, then he can. If someone asks him why he didn't make it a regular cache he can answer "Because I wanted a SCUBA cache".

I believe that if a cache owner wanted to make a guideline meeting ALR cache - back when they met guidelines, then he could. In this thread people are asking why he didn't make it an option, and my answer is "Because he wanted an ALR cache".

 

Allowing cache owners to set arbitrary rules about who can log their geocaches leads to confusion, alienation, and conflict - conflict that Groundspeak was forced to step in and mediate on far too many occasions. This was a waste of Groundspeak's resources, so yes, ALRs were "that bad."

 

Some cache owners tried to use ALRs as a backdoor to impose personal/political agendas on their caches. Recent forum example of an ALR someone wanted to put on a cache: You can only find this cache if you've donated blood this year. Others tried to use them to blatantly discriminate against other cachers. You can only find this cache if you write your log in a language I understand. Dealing with this arbitrary and pointless nonsense was a waste of reviewers' time. Yes, ALRs were "that bad."

 

Giving cache owners complete control over find logs is also highly problematic because it lets the cache owner, and not the cacher, decide the value of a find log. Yes, ALR's were that bad.

 

Allowing cache owners to be arbitrary, controlling, and even cruel to fellow cachers really goes against the entire spirit of the game. Yes, ALR's were that bad.

I will change my answer a bit. Some were absolutely THAT bad. I agree that there's a line and on one side you have the logs from whites only, caches that require you to hide one first, caches that were cruel. On the other side of the line were poems, silly hats, phooning, etc.

 

Apparently exactly where that line is drawn is different for a lot of us. Vive la difference! Right? And since TPTB moved the line all the way down, there's one fewer option for cache owners.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

And since TPTB moved the line all the way down, there's one fewer option for cache owners.

The option is still there, is has just changed from allowing requirements to only allowing requests. If the request is light-hearted and/or fun enough, most cachers would be inclined to do them. If the request is too heavy-handed/controlling, most will choose not to do them. Either way, the cache can be found by everyone without excluding people that don't agree with the request.

[Mushtang]

And since TPTB moved the line all the way down, there's one fewer option for cache owners.

The option is still there, is has just changed from allowing requirements to only allowing requests.

Correct. Like I said, the option of Additional Logging Requirements has been taken away from cache owners.

If the request is light-hearted and/or fun enough, most cachers would be inclined to do them. If the request is too heavy-handed/controlling, most will choose not to do them. Either way, the cache can be found by everyone without excluding people that don't agree with the request.

Yes, that seems to be the current situation with the current guidelines.

[GOF and Bacall]

[Dinoprophet]

Because he wants to.

 

This seems to be the crux of all your arguments, and it's not substantive or convincing.

Mushtang may be pleased to know that when I read his posts in this thread, I hear the choruses of "Roll the Bones" and "Free Will".