Jump to content

No more Curse of the FTFs?!


Recommended Posts

How ridiculous!

 

I believe I may have been the first to set a Curse of the FTF cache in the UK (unless of course you know differently :lol: ) with this cache Curse of the FTF Dorset #1 ~ Upton Heath some 18 months ago.

 

I had heard about this type of cache series on the Podcacher Podcast. There were several series of them in USA.

 

As first setter I took an interest in the finders and offered help to anyone who would like to set and had not done so before, helping / mentoring them to set their first cache if they wished.

 

The series ran for 12 months and was very well received across the county.

 

Several other cachers wrote to me asking if I minded if they set up a similar series, all well and good, it shares the FTF love around and gives some new setters a slight nudge and an offer of help.

 

In our area it brought people together in ways they may not normally have done.

 

It seems very peculiar for Dalesman to refuse such a cache when I know jolly well other Curse style caches have been published elsewhere very recently.

Link to comment
How ridiculous!

 

I believe I may have been the first to set a Curse of the FTF cache in the UK (unless of course you know differently :lol: ) with this cache Curse of the FTF Dorset #1 ~ Upton Heath some 18 months ago.

 

I had heard about this type of cache series on the Podcacher Podcast. There were several series of them in USA.

 

As first setter I took an interest in the finders and offered help to anyone who would like to set and had not done so before, helping / mentoring them to set their first cache if they wished.

 

The series ran for 12 months and was very well received across the county.

 

Several other cachers wrote to me asking if I minded if they set up a similar series, all well and good, it shares the FTF love around and gives some new setters a slight nudge and an offer of help.

 

In our area it brought people together in ways they may not normally have done.

 

It seems very peculiar for Dalesman to refuse such a cache when I know jolly well other Curse style caches have been published elsewhere very recently.

 

Sorry please do not castigate dalsmanX for being the First UK Reviewer to apply a instruction the Reviewers have been given by Groundspeak!

 

If you have a complaint about Curse caches no longer being Published, please start a Get Satisfaction Topic, using the Feedback tab available on all cache pages.

 

The UK Reviewers are just doing as instructed. Someone's cache was always going to be the First one refused after the Instruction was given!

 

Deci

Link to comment

 

The UK Reviewers are just doing as instructed. Someone's cache was always going to be the First one refused after the Instruction was given!

 

Deci

 

It was not a castigation on Dalesman in particular, but surely if a popular type of cache series is now banned, to prevent exactly one person being singled out, the Reviwers (collectively) or Groundspeak should have made a public statement ... maybe they did and it is on another part of the forum, if it is, I apologise for not having seen it, however, if it is not, it is just another rule creeping up on us, again.

 

Perhaps a note from your good self might have helped us all understand why such a popular type of series is now unacceptable, especially when similar caches have been published elsewhere very recently?

Link to comment

<snip>... Groundspeak should have made a public statement ... <snip>

 

Seconded.

 

When Groundspeak decide on changes (or new interpretations) to the Guidelines and issue them to their reviewers it would be so much better if they declared them in the Geocaching Topics forum, giving their reasoning behind them instead of leaving the reviewers to take the flak.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

Hello Folks.

 

I agree with others who have said that the reviewers are not to blame for this decision: it is a Groundspeak guideline.

 

My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published.

 

Quite simply, and we all should already know this: requiring a new cache hide in order to log a find is simply an Additional Logging Requirement, which we no longer allow. Read all about it in the published guidelines. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

I have edited GC2A8NZ because posting a reviewer note to the cache description was not a nice thing to do AND fills the cache with it's owner's agenda. Does the cache owner want me to archive the cache because of placing the agenda? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#solicit Or leave the reviewer note off so that the cache can remain? It seems to me that having the cache active is what we would want. Right?

Link to comment

What a shame i hid cache #1 on both the Leeds and Anglesey Curses and both have become popular as have the ones around Bradford (which i was FTF on #1),Calderdale etc. I have enjoyed hunting these and they kept a steady flow of new caches coming over the winter months.

 

Certainly none of the curse series that i have followed have had many bad uns placed indeed the Leeds and Bradford ones seem to have got more twisted and interesting as they have evolved with simple multis and puzzles becoming the order of the day:sad:

Edited by G7HRP
Link to comment

I've recently placed my first geocache, which was a Curse of the FTF in the Plymouth area.

 

I did have to make it clear in the listing that there was no requirement, but it does add to the fun. Basically the statement was copied and pasted from previous listings since they were published.

 

I can understand if someone doesn't make a statement, and the listing is sent back to the owner to rectify, or in my first attempt, my cache was too close to a puzzle cache (one that was too hard for me to solve, as I would have easily checked traditional caches in the area for distance) so had to move it somewhere else.

 

However, have these series now been banned altogether, and what about listings that are already active, and the curse was listed ages ago. Does it mean we now have to rename the caches?

Link to comment

How about banning Power Trails again? Some of the ones across America are beyond getting ridiculous. When a group of 4 cachers can find 566 caches in 24 hours They can't all be 'Quality' caches, if indeed any of them are.

 

At least with the Curse of the FTFs there's only one (possibly) poor quality cache hidden at once, not several hundred, and I'm sure there's more effort gone into that one cache than into each cache of some of those power trails.

Link to comment

How about banning Power Trails again? Some of the ones across America are beyond getting ridiculous. When a group of 4 cachers can find 566 caches in 24 hours They can't all be 'Quality' caches, if indeed any of them are...

 

There are quite a lot of people who agree with you:

 

Reinstate the No Power Trails Guideline.

 

 

Meanwhile, back at this ranch...

 

Hello Folks.

 

I agree with others who have said that the reviewers are not to blame for this decision: it is a Groundspeak guideline.

 

My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published.

 

 

Thanks to MissJenn for clarifying Groundspeak's reasoning behind this matter.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

 

My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published.

All cachers who have at least one cache hidden must be considered to be at fault...

 

What about the new cachers, registered yesterday, found their first cache, and now -today- want to hide their first cache... :anibad:

 

The 'Curse of...' caches I've seen, have always stipulated that hiding another cache in the series was not part of the logging requirement...

Link to comment

Words like castigated and flak are unnecessary here - my post was about dismay!

 

Why, when Groundspeak has a perfectly good mode of communication with members, via the weekly bulletin, could not something be announced there? Maybe on the Groundspeak Facebook, Twitter, homepage, or even a forum, but to just change it and then ask the Reviewers to implement it is not right in my opinion.

 

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this decision I really do not agree with it.

 

I also wonder about these major trails where people can find phenomenal amounts of caches in a short space of time.

 

Around here we are suffering from the "hey I found five caches and I'm gonna set one" phenomenon.

 

Take these as examples:

 

This cache Set without permission in a country park, owner has 5 finds, and then declared they didn't have time to maintain it. Published April 8th, no time to maintain anymore April 23rd

 

and this one, set on a SSSI without permission, defaced a footbridge in the process, cache was never actually there to be found.

 

Another example, cacher for 5 days, cache published and then found once before it was declared an inappropriate location. Oh, not forgetting leaving his business cards in the cache thus arguably making it commercial.

 

Now this is not directed at those cachers and reviewers concerned, but I offer these as examples as I see this as a far bigger problem in terms of poor cache quality than Curse series caches.

Link to comment

Pah..

I have recently been FTF on 2 of these caches.. (Wakefield and Leeds) and now I cannot place the next in the series as a thank you.. :anibad:

Maybe I should do some miss spelling and word changing at cache placement or will I still have the cache bounced..

Or place under a defferent name and re name on approval..?

I understand the problem that the wording places pressure on the initial FTF cacher to place a new cache, maybe the wording could be changed to something like "initially the FTF victim was persuaded to place a new cache in the series. This is not now a required"

Thoughts? :lol:

Link to comment

 

Around here we are suffering from the "hey I found five caches and I'm gonna set one" phenomenon.

 

Take these as examples:

 

This cache Set without permission in a country park, owner has 5 finds, and then declared they didn't have time to maintain it. Published April 8th, no time to maintain anymore April 23rd

 

and this one, set on a SSSI without permission, defaced a footbridge in the process, cache was never actually there to be found.

 

Another example, cacher for 5 days, cache published and then found once before it was declared an inappropriate location. Oh, not forgetting leaving his business cards in the cache thus arguably making it commercial.

 

Now this is not directed at those cachers and reviewers concerned, but I offer these as examples as I see this as a far bigger problem in terms of poor cache quality than Curse series caches.

 

Absolutely agree! The south-east is being bombarded by rubbish micros hidden in grotty places by cachers with one or two (probably equally trashy) finds and often feature descriptions with poor spelling and bad grammar. These are perfectly acceptable by GS standards. :anibad:

Link to comment

Sorry, not understanding what's happened? Clicked on the link on the orignal post and just got a cache page for GC2A8NZ, says nothing that explains why/if Curse of FTF is no longer acceptable. Is there some further information somewhere that we have missed? :anibad:

 

Yes - read the whole of this thread - particularly Miss Jenns post, where she explains that she removed the relevant text from the cache page :lol::lol:

Link to comment

Shame!

 

What a disappointing outcome.

 

Anybody had the bully boys round to force them to place a new cache? Easy, if you don’t want to place a cache either don’t FTF the cache (turn up more than 10 minutes after it’s been published) or pop a note on and say so.

 

It was a fun idea and though I can only speak from personal experience; there was nowt wrong with the caches I found. Unlike some other series of caches that come to mind like the motorway mayhems and off your trolley.

 

Did the reviewers have any say in this? What brought the attention of Groundspeak to this (I could take a guess at a few people throwing toys out of the cot).

 

I guess an announcement of the application of the guideline would have saved some angst.

 

No big deal at the end of the day, plenty of caches around to do (Mongers wanders off to find a leaky film can by the rat trap in the supermarket car park)

Edited by mongoose39uk
Link to comment

What about the new cachers, registered yesterday, found their first cache, and now -today- want to hide their first cache... :anibad:

 

Quite. I started in March, and I've been thinking about hiding a cache since then but I've spent all that time researching as it has to be done right!

Link to comment

What about the new cachers, registered yesterday, found their first cache, and now -today- want to hide their first cache... :anibad:

 

Quite. I started in March, and I've been thinking about hiding a cache since then but I've spent all that time researching as it has to be done right!

 

The restriction is not stopping anyone from placing a cache! Just not one which "Strongly Encourages" the placing of other caches, ie: The Curse and Alphabet series.

 

At the moment I'm a Floating Reviewer [providing cover for colleagues] and yesterday published around 100 caches over 6 Regions and the IoM. Not a single one was a Curse or Alphabet series cache. So that shows that caches will continue to be submitted and published in huge numbers.

 

and for taking the time to

 

I started in March, and I've been thinking about hiding a cache since then but I've spent all that time researching as it has to be done right!

 

I'd like to thank markhewitt1978 who has shown it does not need a series to get some one to place a cache. But a bit of time and patience does get appreciated by the community, as it shows the person has put effort into that cache.

 

Curse and Alphabet Series have gone, but the Hobby carries on. I'm sure someone will soon come along with another popular idea.

 

Deci

Link to comment

I only know of one Alphabet Series, in West Wales, and it has been slowly building up over some months now, all the caches are single placements. The ones I've found are good hides. There are two series, one A-Z and one Alpha-Omega. Is it this series which has gone, or is there another Alphabet Series I don't know about?

 

(Apologies for not being able to check myself, I can't access geocaching.com because I'm at work and the site is classed as a sport, but for some reason I can access the forums).

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, I don't think any 'Alphabet' or 'Curse of FTF' caches which have already been published have been archived by the reviewers.

 

There's nothing to stop any cacher putting out an "Alphabet" series if it's 26 caches and they're going to place them all themselves.

 

This new guideline is instructing reviewers not to publish caches where the cache page encourages the First to Finder to go out and place the next similar cache in an self-perpetuating series. Sometimes these caches are also referred to as "Seed caches" - The sort of cache where you find a large container filled with other smaller cache containers and the suggestion that you take one of them to use for another cache placement.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

I have to agree with the reviewers here to the extent that requiring placement of a further cache is an ALR (which, whether it is liked or not, is a clear guideline).

 

However, in the US it appears that a slightly softer line has been taken recently (unless there is advice which indicates it has been hardened), such that COTFTF caches can be placed, can include text referring to the "curse" but which also makes it clear that logs won't be deleted if the theme isn't played along with.

 

For example, this text from GC22F1Q:-

Notes: To log this cache on-line, there is no requirement other then finding the physical container and signing logbook. Everyone who physically signs the logbook may log their find on-line; hopefully the FTF person will play along and place another cache, but it is in no way a requirement for logging your find.

When placing your FTF. Cache, remember that all rules set by Groundspeak regarding any cache placement apply. Caches that have a requirement to place additional caches as a condition of logging the find will not be approved. You can make a suggestion that the person do so, but it can't be required. Please include this note in your decription or your cache may not get approved!

It is our intention to encourage well placed and thoughtful caches that will be fun to hunt. This concept has been implemented and is successful in Iowa, Nebraska, Northern Virginia and various other places. We hope that this series will be at least as good or better than other series.

 

It does seem to me that there are perfectly sensible ways of managing the ALR guidelines which still allow people to have a degree of fun with it. We already know that reviewers are not required to audit quality of caches, so any comments which take the line of "the COTFTF series encourages bad caches" are not helpful. Why spoil the fun of the series - we all appreciate the intentions of the reviewers to follow the guidelines, and I certainly accept that we should accept that GS can and do make the rules of this game (hopefully after listening to their participants though). And I know that a line has to be drawn somewhere to give clarity and avoid confusion. But sometimes it does feel like the "rules" overtake the "fun", and if geocaching is a game, shouldn't it be a fun one?

 

Matt

Link to comment

 

There's nothing to stop any cacher putting out an "Alphabet" series if it's 26 caches and they're going to place them all themselves.

 

 

Or series caches set by individual cachers but overseen by one person such as the Church Micros caches :anibad:

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, I don't think any 'Alphabet' or 'Curse of FTF' caches which have already been published have been archived by the reviewers.

 

There's nothing to stop any cacher putting out an "Alphabet" series if it's 26 caches and they're going to place them all themselves.

 

This new guideline is instructing reviewers not to publish caches where the cache page encourages the First to Finder to go out and place the next similar cache in an self-perpetuating series. Sometimes these caches are also referred to as "Seed caches" - The sort of cache where you find a large container filled with other smaller cache containers and the suggestion that you take one of them to use for another cache placement.

 

MrsB

 

Thanks, now I understand. I guess the same ban applies to "The Small Trail" which in fact seems to have died a natural death after #10 anyway. I don't get many FTF's so it's not been an issue for me :anibad:

Link to comment

By the way, I agree with the sentiment that guidelines issued to reviewers should be available to members to see too - in a similar way that if the FA publishes a new rule for referees to implement, the text of the rule is shared with all footballers so that they know what to expect too.

 

I think I shall share that on the feedback site.

 

Edit - link here

 

Matt

Edited by teamhillside
Link to comment

1) To log a traditional cache I HAVE to get in my car and drive to the area and I HAVE to put the co ordinates in my GPSr to find it I HAVE to sign the log book and I HAVE to log it online, so let's ban those... :D

 

2) To log a puzzle cache I HAVE to do all the above plus work out the puzzle to find the cache, so let's ban those too.. :lol:

 

3) To log an earth cache I HAVE to do all of number one plus normally I HAVE to answer a question, so those can be banned too... :signalviolin:

 

4) To go to an event I HAVE to meet people, so let ban that one too... :wacko:

 

5) To go to a CITO I HAVE to pick up rubbish, ban them... :(

 

6) To go caching at all, HAVE to put petrol in my car, I HAVE to make a flask of coffee, I HAVE to make sandwiches and when I fall down in the mud (which is quite regular!!!) I HAVE to wash my clothes...so lets ban geocaching altogether..... :P

 

All the above is tongue in cheek and pulling the p*ss, but I am sure you know where I am coming from, this was supposed to be a fun game/hobby/sport with no rules just guidelines to help keep us on the right path, now the rules are spoiling it for many and stopping us from enjoying what we do.

 

The "curse" caches have just started around the Durham area, and I must say the ones I have found have all been decent caches, I understand you can not make a person place a cache, but if they don't feel able to place a cache just yet then leave the FTF for another person, or just a simple note on the cache page saying "if you do go for the FTF we would appreciate you setting another cache to keep the series going"

 

Off to find those bullet proof knickers again!!!

 

Mandy :lol:

 

(I like thousands of other cachers receive a Groundspeak email every week, if there is a change of rules/guidelines why can't these be announced in that? Why do we always have to find out by others having caches refused or through the forums? Is this email not meant to keep us up to speed with what is going on in the geo world?)

Edited by Us 4 and Jess
Link to comment

 

However, in the US it appears that a slightly softer line has been taken recently (unless there is advice which indicates it has been hardened), such that COTFTF caches can be placed, can include text referring to the "curse" but which also makes it clear that logs won't be deleted if the theme isn't played along with.

 

Matt

 

It never had been a hard requirement to set another cache ... I believe I set the very first COTFTF cache in the UK, 19 months ago, that cache page at publication had this

 

"By way of clarification, there is no requirement besides the standard signing of the cache log to prevent you from logging this cache when found. Everyone should log their find, and hopefully the FTF person will play along and place another cache, but it is in no way a requirement for logging your find."

 

...and it still does.

 

Many of the COTFTF caches in the UK were spawned from this idea, and the text was used verbatim on countless occasions, I do not believe it has ever been suggested here that logs would be deleted or anything else.

 

It seems to me that this may be a knee jerk reaction to a complaint - not taking into account the countless amount of setters involved and the fun people have had with these series.

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, I don't think any 'Alphabet' or 'Curse of FTF' caches which have already been published have been archived by the reviewers.

 

There's nothing to stop any cacher putting out an "Alphabet" series if it's 26 caches and they're going to place them all themselves.

 

MrsB

Does it now mean that uncompleted Alphabet series , similar to Curse of F.T.F. serries ,

can not have further caches/letters published to complete the alphabet ?

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, I don't think any 'Alphabet' or 'Curse of FTF' caches which have already been published have been archived by the reviewers.

 

There's nothing to stop any cacher putting out an "Alphabet" series if it's 26 caches and they're going to place them all themselves.

 

MrsB

Does it now mean that uncompleted Alphabet series , similar to Curse of F.T.F. serries ,

can not have further caches/letters published to complete the alphabet ?

 

 

The restriction is not stopping anyone from placing a cache! Just not one which "Strongly Encourages" the placing of other caches, ie: The Curse and Alphabet series.

 

Deci

 

I presume that if there's an "Alphabet Series" somewhere which has only got up to 'P' (or wherever) then any individual cachers can choose to continue the sequence and complete it by placing regular traditional caches. What they can't do is put something on the cache page that implies, or suggests, that whoever finds a cache should try and place the next in sequence. That would be how I'd read it anyway.

 

When in doubt, consult your local reviewer directly. :signalviolin:

 

MrsB

Link to comment

As Groundspeak are so keen to prevent anybody from ever having any possibility of getting upset by something as heinous as an implied obligation to hide a cache after finding one, can we hope to soon see a Groundspeak ban on 35mm film pots - as they seem to be upsetting far more people than Curse series caches ever did? :signalviolin::wacko::(

Link to comment

As Groundspeak are so keen to prevent anybody from ever having any possibility of getting upset by something as heinous as an implied obligation to hide a cache after finding one, can we hope to soon see a Groundspeak ban on 35mm film pots - as they seem to be upsetting far more people than Curse series caches ever did? :signalviolin::wacko::(

 

Seconded!

 

Also, let's make sure that before they hide a cache, newbies have found at least a few QUALITY caches.

Link to comment

Can we expect a change to the guidelines to explicitly spell out that seed caches are not OK in Groundspeak's eyes?

 

I refer particularly to this bit of MissJenn's post:

 

"My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published."

 

The emphasis is mine but is this Groundspeak policy or personal opinion? If so, when can we expect to see it specifically mentioned under 'guidelines that apply to all cache types' that seed caches are now verboten?

 

FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

Link to comment

I was able to take part in the Curse of the FTF in my local area of Plymouth.

 

Usually the FTF people were regular cachers with premium membership, and people who already have good quality hides. After all, a newbie cacher with no premium membership and likely to set bad caches is unlikely to become a FTF. Also, there are plenty of people who were chasing the FTF, so that previous FTF people in the series could take a back seat until the cache was found, and still only wait about a day at the most for that first log to appear.

 

Although officially there was no logging requirement, most people have been willing to play along with the spirit of the game, even if it is only waiting for someone else to be FTF, after which it just becomes a normal cache.

Link to comment

Can we expect a change to the guidelines to explicitly spell out that seed caches are not OK in Groundspeak's eyes?

 

I refer particularly to this bit of MissJenn's post:

 

"My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published."

 

The emphasis is mine but is this Groundspeak policy or personal opinion? If so, when can we expect to see it specifically mentioned under 'guidelines that apply to all cache types' that seed caches are now verboten?

 

FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

 

I think this is the part that is actually most upsetting - debates happen actively about "quality of caches", and reviewers quite rightly point out that they have no remit to police quality (which is subjective), instead they apply objective rules.

 

But MissJenn's post implies that the reason COTFTF caches won't be published is because they create poor quality caches. Following that logic, I would hope that MissJenn refuses to publish other poor quality caches, and lets the community know what criteria are applied to ensure high quality is maintained.

 

Matt

Link to comment

Maybe Groundspeak should stop encouraging new cachers to hide caches, by removing the Hide & Seek on the front page...

 

4779828869_4c678af4c8.jpg

 

Change it to 'Seek a cache' and leave the 'Hide a cache' well hidden to discourage people from wanting to hide them, unless they are really serious about caching, and are prepared to search around the website, or ask on the forums! :)

 

 

:)

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

...is this Groundspeak policy or personal opinion? If so, when can we expect to see it specifically mentioned under 'guidelines that apply to all cache types' that seed caches are now verboten?

 

 

From the Knowledge Book (clicky linky)

 

"Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda."

 

Hope this helps,

 

Andalusite.

Link to comment

 

I think this is the part that is actually most upsetting - debates happen actively about "quality of caches", and reviewers quite rightly point out that they have no remit to police quality (which is subjective), instead they apply objective rules.

 

But MissJenn's post implies that the reason COTFTF caches won't be published is because they create poor quality caches. Following that logic, I would hope that MissJenn refuses to publish other poor quality caches, and lets the community know what criteria are applied to ensure high quality is maintained.

 

Matt

 

This picture shows my first COTFTF cache, set on January 1 2009 ... off the top of my head I can think of plenty that would not live up to this quality ...

 

8dc46391-08c7-4c2f-84fc-4957bc6c5457.jpg

 

...oh and for the record, it is set on a SSSI (with specific permission) overlooking the second largest natural harbour in the world.

Link to comment

When I prepare Details

 

GC1NA65 ▼

 

Curse of the FTF Greater London #2

 

I was told by a reviewer that I could not require a finder to hide another cache I could only request it. That is different from an outright ban which does seem unjustified and ashame.

 

I hope Groundspeak reconsidered this policy.

Link to comment

...is this Groundspeak policy or personal opinion? If so, when can we expect to see it specifically mentioned under 'guidelines that apply to all cache types' that seed caches are now verboten?

 

 

From the Knowledge Book (clicky linky)

 

"Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda."

 

Hope this helps,

 

Andalusite.

 

Where did you find that page, as it`s not immediatly visible when you click on the Hide or seek a cache link from the home page?

By the by, when did the dictionary definition of a guideline change to become a rule?

Link to comment

From the Knowledge Book (clicky linky)

 

"Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda."

 

Hope this helps,

But again, that doesn't set a guideline per se. There's no explicit mention that seed caches are verboten in the actual guidelines (aside from the ALR bit, and whether seed caches are an ALR seems to be the subject of debate). When we submit caches, we tick a box that says we agree to the guidelines. The knowledge base and forum posts from Groundspeak higher-ups are obviously important but if they're to become binding rules (sorry, guidelines :)) then they need to be mentioned in the actual guidelines, otherwise, you've just got a recipe for cachers getting annoyed with the reviewers when their caches are knocked back for violating 'invisible rules' and for angsty, popcorn-filled forum threads.

Link to comment

As the OP on this thread, I have sat back and viewed the discussion as it has progressed. This topic is certainly a popular one judging by the amount of views and reply posts that it has generated. The one post that still astonishes me though is from MissJenn, especially from someone whose signature is Giving Some Latitude:

 

Hello Folks.

 

I agree with others who have said that the reviewers are not to blame for this decision: it is a Groundspeak guideline.

 

My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published.

 

Quite simply, and we all should already know this: requiring a new cache hide in order to log a find is simply an Additional Logging Requirement, which we no longer allow. Read all about it in the published guidelines. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

I have edited GC2A8NZ because posting a reviewer note to the cache description was not a nice thing to do AND fills the cache with it's owner's agenda. Does the cache owner want me to archive the cache because of placing the agenda? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#solicit Or leave the reviewer note off so that the cache can remain? It seems to me that having the cache active is what we would want. Right?

 

 

No-one ever "blamed" the reviewers for anything. Personally, I always respect and act upon any note placed by a reviewer on a cache page and am sincerely gratefull when I have a new cache published, and although I can't speak for Pandamonium Kitty, I can't believe that there was ever an "agenda" behind the cache placing. I can't see how adding the reviewers note to the cache page can in any way be considered "not nice"; additionally if this note had not been added to the cache description no-one would ever have known that Curse of the FTF caches are now banned. Unless, of course, they submitted one for publication.

 

Obviously, I have an interest in this as I was FTF on Rotherham CotFTF #9 and have #10 set up and almost ready for submission. I think that it is a good cache placing and will now submit this as a stand-alone, which it technically always was because there was never a requirement for anyone to place a follow-up cache, merely a request. I have considered the various Curse of the FTF caches that I have found and I disagree that "this often results in poorly planned new cache placements". Is your opinion based on actual complaints?

 

Overall, I feel that the Curse of the FTF series of caches were a good idea. Several cachers placed their first hides as part of this series of series, usually after more experienced cachers had placed the first handfull, and they felt a closer part of their geocaching community because of this.

 

If a cacher now wishes to place a cache as part of a series with other cachers, what is now the protocol? Am I correct in presuming that it is something similar to the Church Micro series where a cacher overviews the series to ensure that numbers are not duplicated?

 

If this is correct, then I am quite prepared to oversee the Curse of the FTF Nottinghamshire series and will keep track of the numbers. I know that the latest attempted placement in the Nottinghamshire series has been rejected for publication, but if the prospective Cache Owner removed all of the Curse rules and added something along the lines of "If any body would like to expand to this series please do, I would just ask that you could let Slightly Tall Paul know first so he can keep track of the Curse numbers and names to avoid duplication" would this be acceptable?

 

I'm not trying to cause trouble or get on anyone's wrong side, just wondering if there is any way that the Curse series of series can continue within the new guidelines/rules.

 

Happy caching, STP

Link to comment

If the wording is changed to something similar to that of the Church Micro series, and all mention of the FTF placing the next in the series is removed. Then personally I will be happy to publish the caches.

 

As I do not see how the Church Micro series can be considered to

 

" requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches "

 

This is of course subject to Groundspeak's opinion of this, and is my own opinion as a Reviewer.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

Edited by Deceangi
Link to comment
...snip... FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

 

I am not sure I agree with this. This idea that "the easier it is to acquire the cache, the more likely the resulting hide will be shabby", I believe, is flawed logic. The quality of a hide is a direct function of the personality and experiences of a hider.

 

We can rip on inexperienced hiders with lower quality hides all we want. But the fact is that it is hiders, not finders, that make the world go round. Unlike other phenomena, there is no chicken-and-the-egg paradox here. Every find, without ever an exception, is the result of a hider hiding a hide. Hiders sould be cultvated, coached, and held in high esteem by all of us, and the idea of "let's not encourage people to hide" is counter productive.

 

A poorly hidden, improperly rated, poorly sealed cache by a new hider is our opportunity to coach, cultvate, and develop a great future hider. If we as a community aren't willing to do this, then the fault lies with us, not with the hider. And instead the logs aways flame the "ne'er do well" as if they were an axe murderer, discouraging the new hider from ever trying again.

Edited by Sky King 36
Link to comment

Oh lordy, I've been drawn into a darkside thread :ph34r::)

 

...snip... FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

 

I am not sure I agree with this. This idea that "the easier it is to acquire the cache, the more likely the resulting hide will be shabby", I believe, is flawed logic. The quality of a hide is a direct function of the personality and experiences of a hider.

It is, of course, generally accepted by most cachers that new members should find a fair few caches before considering hiding one of their own. We already have enough cases of people with low single-digit finds submitting caches that are poorly thought out and we shouldn't encourage more by pinning a requirement (sorry, recommendation) to a smiley. That's not a criticism of new cachers, it's common sense - you need to find some to understand how this game works, how there are rules we all follow and requirements we aim to meet. For example, in the UK there are several guidelines in addition to the Groundspeak guidelines, violation of which will see your cache knocked back at review, temped or archived. Cache placements in dry stone walls, for example. Point is that you need to take time to learn about the game before you dive into the hiding side of things.

 

Caches that pressure people to place a cache to validate their smiley (and which use weasel words like "requested" or "recommended" to get around the ALR rule) are a bad idea simply because they discourage people from taking time to carefully plan a good cache location, seek/ensure proper permission and place a quality hide. This applies to people with 10,000 finds but applies even more to people who are new to the game. There will be exceptions to the rule, great caches from seed caches, even many but there is absolutely no reason why those caches couldn't have been placed anyway, regardless of their 'parentage'.

 

But that's not my biggest objection to seed caches. The single most important reason I don't think seed caches are appropriate is that, to use a British-ism, pressuring other people to hide a cache in any way, shape or form is just not cricket. People will say that 'it's just for fun' or that 'it's just a request, they don't have to do it' but that's nonsense because there's peer pressure - the finder won't want to be the one to break the chain and will feel under pressure to place a cache. People will also say that 'they don't have to do the seed cache in the first place.' This is also invalid because people shouldn't have to consider having obligations after finding the cache when deciding whether they'd like to visit it or not. The only considerations when choosing a cache to find should be "do I want to visit this area?" and "does this look like a hide I'd enjoy?" When a cache comes with obligations, that's an agenda in my eyes, something that's been against guidelines since the year dot.

 

[edited for d'oh! typo]

Edited by JeremyR
Link to comment

Oh lordy, I've been drawn into a darkside thread :ph34r::)

 

Fancy meeting you here :)

 

I'm taking no sides on the "seed caches are a bad idea" debate. I do think that the ALR rationale *can* potentially be applied to COTFTF caches by applying the "letter of the law", but but the point is that the "requirement" (if it does exist) only applies to that individual who has (arguably!) purposely headed out to get a FTF. So the requirement (if it does exist!) is only in relation to someone who has actively sought out the cache in the first place, and therefore acquiesced.

 

I thought that the rationale behind the ALR guidelines was to get back to first principles - caching is about finding something and writing in a little book contained therein.

 

It does seem a little mean to apply the ALR guidelines to the COTFTF caches as the FTF'er has readily participated in the (optional!) requirement in the first place.

 

It seems to me that the debate about the guideline has turned into a debate about the quality, and (like it or not) Groundspeak doesn't vet the quality.

 

I'm sure there would be plenty of support for measures taken to improve cache quality, with varying opinions from individuals on:-

-micros

-nanos

-circulars

-film pots

-drive-bys

-minimum no of finds before you can become a hider

-no hiding from non-premium members

etc etc

 

It just feels to me that a backdoor has been opened here which allows the application of a (controversial but) clear guideline in order to improve cache hiding quality, and to me that feels objectionable!

 

As ever, though, I enjoy the debate!!!

 

Matt

Link to comment
But that's not my biggest objection to seed caches. The single most important reason I don't think seed caches are appropriate is that, to use a British-ism, pressuring other people to hide a cache in any way, shape or form is just not cricket. People will say that 'it's just for fun' or that 'it's just a request, they don't have to do it' but that's nonsense because there's peer pressure - the finder won't want to be the one to break the chain and will feel under pressure to place a cache. People will also say that 'they don't have to do the seed cache in the first place.' This is also invalid because people shouldn't have to consider having obligations after finding the cache when deciding whether they'd like to visit it or not. The only considerations when choosing a cache to find should be "do I want to visit this area?" and "does this look like a hide I'd enjoy?" When a cache comes with obligations, that's an agenda in my eyes, something that's been against guidelines since the year dot.

I think that this is the best argument against this type of cache. Really, they are just a hangover from Additional Logging Requirements. Some of those were fun, but others were frankly manipulative, and I don't regret their removal for one minute.

 

At the time, wording was left in the guidelines to allow for the cache owner to suggest a light, fun extra activity which could be done at the cache site ("why not post a picture of yourself under the waterfall?"), in an attempt to preserve the spirit of some of the more "fun" ALRs. "Curse" caches don't fall into the "light, fun" category because there is implicit pressure on the finder (in this example, the FTF) to conform to the challenge or risk the "disappointment" of the cache owner. Newer cachers, in particular, will tend to find this off-putting.

 

I don't have a particular issue with seed caches as such. It doesn't seem that they are much less likely to become lame micros than any other lame micros, and they might at least have decent logs and perhaps even a pencil.

Link to comment

How stands the One Degree of Separation project - the ultimate in seed caches!

Are these now banned?

 

Re: the Curse series, I would have thought the impact was fairly minimal as the 'requirement' (suggestion) only applies to the FTF, so not an ongoing requirement on all finders, so not a huge disincentive etc. etc.

 

It's a shame Groundspeak don't discuss these changes before they arbitrarily implement them. And when they do make them, they seem to still be open to interpretation and there's confusion of what is allowed by the new rules and what isn't. When is a requirement an invitation, or a suggestion, or a requirement? I guess we won't know unless you try and submit a cache.

 

Maybe the new feedback site thing will help, but why not start a forum thread now and again with ideas they are considering? No shortage of opinions! :)

Link to comment

A copy of what I sent to Dalesman

 

Hi

I noticed you recently published GC2A8NZ, but the cotftf series are no longer to be allowed. I do not understand the reasoning behind this, as nobody forces a cacher to go be the ftf of the series, and therefore having to place a cache, it is down to the individual cacher to make the choice.

I was ftf on one of the caches in the series, and had already made the decision I would place a cache if I got the so called curse. once I had the ftf, it then fell on me to find a suitable location for a cache, as it would with anyone who places a cache

I do not see how this type of series could damage caching, as I would think that because the caches are placed by seperate individuals, there is more variety. although I do enjoy a good series, I would be more cautious over a particular area being flooded with a series of a high number of caches, or the fact that archived caches are not removed, as for instance I was out on a walk, and found a cache that was archived four months ago

I hope the cotftf type of series can be resurected, and allowed to go on

regards

eddie

 

his reply

 

Many thanks for your comments which would have more impact if placed on the relevant thread of the Forum.

 

if anyone knows where else to post this please contact me or feel free to copy and paste it

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...
×
×
  • Create New...