ALR?

[+TerraViators]

Is requiring a cacher to write a fictional story in a traditional cache log an ALR?

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes.

[+addisonbr]

Encouraging could be fun. Requiring is an ALR.

[+TerraViators]

Yes.

OK, my log was deleted from a cache with that requirement. I'm not opposed to writing a story. In fact, I've been writing it, just haven't logged it. I logged the smiley with a note that a story was pending. I just want it to be really good. I've emailed the CO. Any opinions on how this should be handled. I don't want to report it to GS, but I am a little PO'd that a cacher is enforcing an ALR.

Edited September 15, 2010 by TerraViators

[+dfx]

report it to the reviewer.

[+TerraViators]

report it to the reviewer.

Well, I really want to avoid a conflict with the cacher, but I think I may have no choice. The cache description even notes that writing the story is an ALR and is optional. However, my log was deleced and I have had no response from the CO.

[GOF and Bacall]

You have two choices. You can write a story and log the find with it or you can contact Groundspeak and report the ALR.

[GOF and Bacall]

Actuall there is a third. You can also move on and forget it.

[+TerraViators]

Actuall there is a third. You can also move on and forget it.

There's probably many more options than 3, but I think I'll do the first one, then number 3. Thanks.

[GOF and Bacall]

Actuall there is a third. You can also move on and forget it.

There's probably many more options than 3, but I think I'll do the first one, then number 3. Thanks.

 

Well, probably. But at least most of them would include one or more of the first three.

[+Chewy_06]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

[+SwineFlew]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

[+TerraViators]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

Yes, it's a liar's cache. I wrote something really lame just to fulfill the ALR.

[GOF and Bacall]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

[GOF and Bacall]

From the guidelines.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

[+SwineFlew]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

[+t4e]

Actuall there is a third. You can also move on and forget it.

There's probably many more options than 3, but I think I'll do the first one, then number 3. Thanks.

 

there's the 4th, keep logging a find every time it gets deleted, see who's got the stronger nerves

[GOF and Bacall]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

 

Putting an ALR on a traditional does not make it a mystery/puzzle cache. It is a traditional with an ALR and is in violation of the guidelines.

[+TerraViators]

Actuall there is a third. You can also move on and forget it.

There's probably many more options than 3, but I think I'll do the first one, then number 3. Thanks.

 

there's the 4th, keep logging a find every time it gets deleted, see who's got the stronger nerves

HAHA!

[+dfx]

for clarification: when ALRs were still allowed, caches which were located at the posted coordinates had to be listed as mystery if they had any ALRs. then the guidelines were changed, and all such caches either had to be archived, or changed to traditionals with the ALRs removed or at least made optional.

Edited September 15, 2010 by dfx

[+SwineFlew]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

 

Putting an ALR on a traditional does not make it a mystery/puzzle cache. It is a traditional with an ALR and is in violation of the guidelines.

 

Your agreement is full of holes. So, who said that putting an ALR doesnt make it a mystery/puzzle cache? Groundspeak or you?

Edited September 15, 2010 by SwineFlew

[+Too Tall John]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

So what is the correct cache type?

Putting an ALR on a traditional does not make it a mystery/puzzle cache. It is a traditional with an ALR and is in violation of the guidelines.

Your agreement is full of holes. So, who said that putting an ALR doesnt make it a mystery/puzzle cache? Groundspeak or you?

Groundspeak. Someone needs to re-read the guidelines.

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Too Tall John

[GOF and Bacall]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

 

Putting an ALR on a traditional does not make it a mystery/puzzle cache. It is a traditional with an ALR and is in violation of the guidelines.

 

Your agreement is full of holes. So, who said that putting an ALR doesnt make it a mystery/puzzle cache? Groundspeak or you?

 

There is nothing wrong with my agreement. My argument is fine to. Read the passage I quoted from the guidelines. Here, I'll post it again.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

[+SwineFlew]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

So what is the correct cache type?

Putting an ALR on a traditional does not make it a mystery/puzzle cache. It is a traditional with an ALR and is in violation of the guidelines.

Your agreement is full of holes. So, who said that putting an ALR doesnt make it a mystery/puzzle cache? Groundspeak or you?

Groundspeak.

 

Link please, No agreement is good without a backup.

[GOF and Bacall]

You calling me a liar? It is in the listing guidelines. You have read them, right? I'm sure you know where to find them, but here is the link anyways.

 

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

[+Too Tall John]

There ya go.

 

If I hadn't already made the edit before you asked for the link, I'd have told you to go look it up yourself.

 

It is your responsibility, after all, as a cache hider (11 hides, I see) to be familiar with the guidelines.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Too Tall John

[Keystone]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

The correct cache type is "ARCHIVED."

 

To avoid that classification, the owner should edit the cache description to remove the additional logging requirement (or softening it to a fun "request") and to remove any threats about logs being deleted.

[+SwineFlew]

Nice way to back out of an agreement and say, go look for it when I asked you to find it for me and you keep going around and around. And now you are saying I am calling you a liar when I wasnt. This is a sign of human behavior that they know their agreement is weak.

 

The reason I ask you to point it out is because I want to see if you can prove me wrong. Instead, you start playing a game with me.

[+SwineFlew]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

No. It is an ALR. Usine the wrong cache type doesn't make it ok.

 

So what is the correct cache type?

The correct cache type is "ARCHIVED."

 

To avoid that classification, the owner should edit the cache description to remove the additional logging requirement (or softening it to a fun "request") and to remove any threats about logs being deleted.

 

Thank you, that the answer I was looking for.

[+brslk]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[+SwineFlew]

So here a cache that is ALR and someone just pls hit the needed Archived. The ALR statement is not on the cache page, but in the cache itself. I forgot what it all said, but it say you need to make up a story to count it as a found.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-444500bc2fae

[+Too Tall John]

Nice way to back out of an agreement and say, go look for it when I asked you to find it for me and you keep going around and around. And now you are saying I am calling you a liar when I wasnt. This is a sign of human behavior that they know their agreement is weak.

 

The reason I ask you to point it out is because I want to see if you can prove me wrong. Instead, you start playing a game with me.

What agreement? Do you mean argument?

 

We have no responsibility to hold your hand as you read the guidelines, but I quoted the pertinent part for you anyways. Here it is again:

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Both GOF & I gave you the link you need to find this, too.

[+jeffrae]

You coud write a fictional story about a cache hider that got his cache archived because of an ALR

[GOF and Bacall]

Or a fictional story about the person who claimed to have read the guidelines and yet proved he hasn't by his lack of knowledge of their contents.

[Andronicus]

report it to the reviewer.

Well, I really want to avoid a conflict with the cacher, but I think I may have no choice. The cache description even notes that writing the story is an ALR and is optional. However, my log was deleced and I have had no response from the CO.

Bolded section is exactly why this should be brought up to GC.com. This should be fixed to prevent other cachers from falling victim to this CO, but it is not your fight. Let GC.com handle it.

 

You coud write a fictional story about a cache hider that got his cache archived because of an ALR

 

Or a fictional story about the person who claimed to have read the guidelines and yet proved he hasn't by his lack of knowledge of their contents.

 

+1

 

That would be funny.

[Clan Riffster]

The reason I ask you to point it out is because I want to see if you can prove me wrong.

They have. Several times. At this stage, the appropriate response would be, "Oops! Sorry. I misunderstood. Mea culpa"

[+briansnat]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

Same here, but its a mystery cache or a puzzle cache so it isnt ALR.

 

If you are required to do anything beyond signing the log in order to log an online find find it is an ALR. The cache type is irrelevant.

Edited September 15, 2010 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

So here a cache that is ALR and someone just pls hit the needed Archived. The ALR statement is not on the cache page, but in the cache itself. I forgot what it all said, but it say you need to make up a story to count it as a found.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-444500bc2fae

 

It appears that the story is optional. There is no evidence the CO is deleting logs that don't comply. In fact there are several on the page that don't seem to be in line with the rest of the logs and the CO left them.

[+terrkan78]

So here a cache that is ALR and someone just pls hit the needed Archived. The ALR statement is not on the cache page, but in the cache itself. I forgot what it all said, but it say you need to make up a story to count it as a found.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-444500bc2fae

 

It appears that the story is optional. There is no evidence the CO is deleting logs that don't comply. In fact there are several on the page that don't seem to be in line with the rest of the logs and the CO left them.

It raises an interesting question, though. SwineFlew said that the ALR demand is in the cache itself. The cache page alludes to that, saying "Be sure to read the info in green on the log sheet..." So, if you come across a cache that has a note inside saying you must write a story or your online log will be deleted (I'm assuming it says something like that), but the CO doesn't appear to be enforcing the rule because there are online logs which don't comply but haven't been deleted, and someone were to report that to TPTB, would they do anything? Would they make a CO delete an unenforced ALR? Or has the ALR, by it's unenforced status, become "optional"?

[Pup Patrol]

You calling me a liar? It is in the listing guidelines. You have read them, right? I'm sure you know where to find them, but here is the link anyways.

 

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

 

It's sooo much easier to read the answers from folks in a thread than to actually do the research yourself.

 

Oh, wait....he didn't do that either.

 

At least 3 people posted the guidelines, or link to the guidelines, or an explanation of the guideline change.

 

[+tozainamboku]

You calling me a liar? It is in the listing guidelines. You have read them, right? I'm sure you know where to find them, but here is the link anyways.

 

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

 

It's sooo much easier to read the answers from folks in a thread than to actually do the research yourself.

 

Oh, wait....he didn't do that either.

 

At least 3 people posted the guidelines, or link to the guidelines, or an explanation of the guideline change.

 

Originally there were no guidelines regarding ALRs. Cache owners were free to put whatever additional requirements they wanted on any cache. As paperless caching became more common, cachers complained when they found a cache and when they went to log it discovered that there was an additional requirement that they either could not do or did not want to do. They complained that ALRs were "unfair" and were not good for geocaching. The initial reaction was to change the guidelines to say that if you wanted to enforce an ALR you need to list it a a mystery/unknown type. The idea was that finders would read the page before looking and decide whether or hot they wanted to do the ALR.

 

The problem with this change was that now ALRs were officially recognized in the guidelines. More importantly, it officially recognized a cache owner could delete find logs for silly reasons so long as the cache was listed as the right type. For some reason, some cache owners decided to make it a contest as who could come up with the silliest or most extreme requirements and see just what people would do for a smiley. Reviewers were given the task to decide what was a reasonable ALR and what wasn't. This subjective guideline would soon break. To fix the problems with reviewers needing to decide what was a reasonable ALR, the guidelines changed again to say that cache owners could no longer delete Found logs to enforce ALRs. Instead cache owners could make an optional request of the finder. TPTB recognize that some good ALRs would no longer be allowed. Exceptions were made for certain ALRs that had to do with meeting a geocaching related goal before the cache could be logged (challenge caches).

 

When the first change was made, ALRs became very popular. Geocachers discoverd the new guideline and knew that if going to delete finds you needed to list your ALR cache as a mystery/unknown type. When the second change was made, most people probably didn't even notice. People continued to comply with ALRs (thinking that the owner could still delete logs) and ALR cache owners continued to delete logs since most people figured they still could. Only if a finder complained to Groundspeak did the log get reinstated and the cache owner get informed of guideline change. Only when someone tries to submit a new mystery/unknown with and ALR and gets told by the reviewer that they are no longer allow, do they find out the guidelines have changed. So it is not suprising that that some cachers still think that ALRs are allowed so long as you use the mystery/unknown type.

[+Cuddlefish]

I've come across a few like this that are either "liar's caches" - "demanding" you write a GOOD story that isnt true, or caches that require you to post a picture.

 

My response has been to write the story, but to be very creative with my use of capitals - which to the astute reader tells the story of what I really think.

 

And nO, theRe's no ceatIve uSe of inapprorpriaTe capitalization HERE.

 

Not exactly subtle is it? LOL

 

OMG Chewy - I am so going to go and read your logs now!

[+TerraViators]

report it to the reviewer.

Well, I really want to avoid a conflict with the cacher, but I think I may have no choice. The cache description even notes that writing the story is an ALR and is optional. However, my log was deleced and I have had no response from the CO.

Bolded section is exactly why this should be brought up to GC.com. This should be fixed to prevent other cachers from falling victim to this CO, but it is not your fight. Let GC.com handle it.

 

You coud write a fictional story about a cache hider that got his cache archived because of an ALR

 

Or a fictional story about the person who claimed to have read the guidelines and yet proved he hasn't by his lack of knowledge of their contents.

 

+1

 

That would be funny.

From my actual log (2nd log)

 

I was on my way to this cache but was immediately turned around because a log on another cache was deleted for not following an ALR. So after I reported it to the reviewer and dismissed the CO, I made my way over here. I was concerned about the safety of other cachers having to search for this cache in the moat of crocs (there are hundreds of those ugly shoes in the moat), so I called the bomb squad and reported the cache as suspicious.

[+scaramedic]

From my actual log (2nd log)

 

I was on my way to this cache but was immediately turned around because a log on another cache was deleted for not following an ALR. So after I reported it to the reviewer and dismissed the CO, I made my way over here. I was concerned about the safety of other cachers having to search for this cache in the moat of crocs (there are hundreds of those ugly shoes in the moat), so I called the bomb squad and reported the cache as suspicious.

 

 

[+addisonbr]

Originally there were no guidelines regarding ALRs. Cache owners were free to put whatever additional requirements they wanted on any cache. As paperless caching became more common, cachers complained when they found a cache and when they went to log it discovered that there was an additional requirement that they either could not do or did not want to do. They complained that ALRs were "unfair" and were not good for geocaching. The initial reaction was to change the guidelines to say that if you wanted to enforce an ALR you need to list it a a mystery/unknown type. The idea was that finders would read the page before looking and decide whether or hot they wanted to do the ALR.

 

The problem with this change was that now ALRs were officially recognized in the guidelines. More importantly, it officially recognized a cache owner could delete find logs for silly reasons so long as the cache was listed as the right type. For some reason, some cache owners decided to make it a contest as who could come up with the silliest or most extreme requirements and see just what people would do for a smiley. Reviewers were given the task to decide what was a reasonable ALR and what wasn't. This subjective guideline would soon break. To fix the problems with reviewers needing to decide what was a reasonable ALR, the guidelines changed again to say that cache owners could no longer delete Found logs to enforce ALRs. Instead cache owners could make an optional request of the finder. TPTB recognize that some good ALRs would no longer be allowed. Exceptions were made for certain ALRs that had to do with meeting a geocaching related goal before the cache could be logged (challenge caches).

 

When the first change was made, ALRs became very popular. Geocachers discoverd the new guideline and knew that if going to delete finds you needed to list your ALR cache as a mystery/unknown type. When the second change was made, most people probably didn't even notice. People continued to comply with ALRs (thinking that the owner could still delete logs) and ALR cache owners continued to delete logs since most people figured they still could. Only if a finder complained to Groundspeak did the log get reinstated and the cache owner get informed of guideline change. Only when someone tries to submit a new mystery/unknown with and ALR and gets told by the reviewer that they are no longer allow, do they find out the guidelines have changed. So it is not suprising that that some cachers still think that ALRs are allowed so long as you use the mystery/unknown type.

This is a very well-written history. Thanks.