mresoteric Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I was googling for geocaching blogs and came across this blog post by a reviewer. http://iowaadmin.blogspot.com/2010/08/churning.html The topic was about churning, but his most recent post is about seed caches. If I read that blog right it seems that not only are caches which require hiding another cache (ALR) are being denied but also any caches which encourage hiding other caches. The first one is covered by the guidelines. The second isn't. I was wondering if there is a hidden rule book that we don't get to see. If so, how are we supposed to follow those guidelines? Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I'm not sure about it, but we've got a TB in the area that is "Curse of the FTF" and if you take the bug you are supposed to plant a new cache (with the TB in it) within the next month. If you don't want to take the bug, then you don't. Each cache in the series is "Curse of the FTF #X" X here being a stand in for whatever number is next in the series. Not sure how long the TB has been travelling or anything like that, this one is supposed to stay in the Four Corners area. Link to comment
+wv-yen Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The way I read it its just referring to 'mother-seed' caches. One's that have a bunch or micros in the main cache. They tend to lead to lots of lame micros with little thought or after-care. Link to comment
+Too Tall John Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It is no secret that the reviewers have a set of instructions (for lack of a better way to say it) that is not covered in the Guidelines. Geocaching is a game that is ever evolving, and if they had to rewrite the Guidelines every single time a new issue popped up, nobody'd ever know what they say. I've only heard of this being an issue a small handful of times, and in each case, the reviewers have been quite up front about the situation. Link to comment
+t4e Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure about it, but we've got a TB in the area that is "Curse of the FTF" and if you take the bug you are supposed to plant a new cache (with the TB in it) within the next month. If you don't want to take the bug, then you don't. Each cache in the series is "Curse of the FTF #X" X here being a stand in for whatever number is next in the series. Not sure how long the TB has been travelling or anything like that, this one is supposed to stay in the Four Corners area. not the same thing, caches that require people to place another cache in order to log a find are not being published and it is an ALR your TB setup is a bit of a different story, you are not imposing anything, its purely left at the cacher's discretion to take the bug or not having said that still leads to the same reason why the above are not published...encourages poor cache placements, and how exactly you enforcing this requirement, what if someone takes the TB and there's no room to place a big enough cache? It is no secret that the reviewers have a set of instructions (for lack of a better way to say it) that is not covered in the Guidelines. i think is more a case of personal judgment based on the each particular area, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for those that cache outside of certain boundaries can be quite frustrating when they come home and try to publish something similar to what they found in say another country and it gets denied also, seems that reviewers are allowed to make their own rules, anyone remember the Swiss Cheese rules? Edited April 11, 2011 by t4e Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I'm not sure about it, but we've got a TB in the area that is "Curse of the FTF" and if you take the bug you are supposed to plant a new cache (with the TB in it) within the next month. If you don't want to take the bug, then you don't. Each cache in the series is "Curse of the FTF #X" X here being a stand in for whatever number is next in the series. Not sure how long the TB has been travelling or anything like that, this one is supposed to stay in the Four Corners area. our TB setup is a bit of a different story, you are not imposing anything, its purely left at the cacher's discretion to take the bug or not having said that still leads to the same reason why the above are not published...encourages poor cache placements, and how exactly you enforcing this requirement, what if there's no room to place a big enough cache? I'm not sure. I've never seen the bug (actually hadn't heard of it until one was published closer to me), although I did go looking for the current cache it is in but it was a DNF so I'll have to get back to you on that. I agree, it may lead to the same problem as seed-caches, but it might not. I think that seed-caches probably encourage poor caches- just because people don't want to seed a cache with quality containers (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions). Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 Geocaching is a game that is ever evolving, and if they had to rewrite the Guidelines every single time a new issue popped up, nobody'd ever know what they say. If they were posted on the internet like the other ones we would. Link to comment
+palmetto Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 The "hidden guidelines" are mostly "hidden" behind links in the Knowledge Books articles on Geocaching. Many of these are now linked from the guidelines expanded pages hosted on http://support.Groundspeak.com The particular "hidden" language you're looking for is found in 4.3. Getting Your Cache Listed Quickly Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda. Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If a cache requires hiding a cache (or strongly encourages it), this is covered under the guideline section for Additional Logging Requirements: "For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the geocache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional." Encouraging geocachers to hide a cache when they otherwise wouldn't be inclined to do so can also be considered an "agenda" under the guideline section on Solicitation and Commercial Content. One type of cache where Additional Logging Requirements are allowed is the "Challenge Cache." Because of this, there is a need to make special mention of this "no hiding a cache" principle in the guideline section for Challenge Caches: "Challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache as a logging requirement." Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 The "hidden guidelines" are mostly "hidden" behind links in the Knowledge Books articles on Geocaching. Many of these are now linked from the guidelines expanded pages hosted on http://support.Groundspeak.com The particular "hidden" language you're looking for is found in 4.3. Getting Your Cache Listed Quickly Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda. Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Solicitation and Commercial Content Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. I admit that I don't fully understand seed caches. But what I have seen doesn't seem that they solicit. They defitely don't have anything to do with religion, politics, charitable or social agendas. They seem to be geared solely towards geocaching, which is why we're all here. Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. Link to comment
+Nived87 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So seed caches are ok as long as it is optional? If I place a cache that is full of ready-to-place caches and cachers can choose to take one and hide it, is that ok? Link to comment
+popokiiti Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 We have had some of those here, and it isn't mandatory that you place another cache immediately or even take the seed cache. What is good is that some of the caches that are ready to go are neatly camouflaged ones, and are different sizes also... Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So seed caches are ok as long as it is optional? If I place a cache that is full of ready-to-place caches and cachers can choose to take one and hide it, is that ok? Sure - the new containers are just swag. Just don't make a big deal about it in the listing descriptions. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section. I'm not sure why you are trying to smoosh it into that guideline since the one Palmetto cited specifically addressed the issue. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section. I'm not sure why you are trying to smoosh it into that guideline since the one Palmetto cited specifically addressed the issue. Because the knowlege book section she quoted references the agenda guideline as well as keystone's post. I don't believe this is really an agenda issue. And there seems to be confusion among the reviewers as well. IowaAdmin references the ALR guidelines in his blog. However, Groundspeak has instructed reviewers that seed caches constitute an ALR (additional listing requirement) and therefore reviewers should not publish caches that require or even encourage people to hide "spawn" caches. I would agree that it seems to be more of an agenda issue than an ALR issue. But everything about this website is a geocaching agenda so I don't understand that reasoning. Link to comment
knowschad Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I believe that "seed caches" were strongly discouraged for some time before the official ALR guidelines were written because they encouraged placement of mindless caches. You had to take a container and put a new cache out to get the smiley, whether you really wanted to be a cache owner, or not, whether you had a worthwhile place to hide it, or not. When the ALR guidelines came out, I suspect that seed caches fit very neatly into that general category, and so was included. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section. I'm not sure why you are trying to smoosh it into that guideline since the one Palmetto cited specifically addressed the issue. Because the knowlege book section she quoted references the agenda guideline as well as keystone's post. I don't believe this is really an agenda issue. I think that I've located your confusion. When Palmetto used the word 'agenda', she wasn't referring to some other guideline. She was merely quoting the 4.3 guideline. The confusion comes from the fact that most of us often shorthand the 'Solicitation' guideline as the 'agenda' guideline when, in fact, both guidelines discuss inappropriate agendas. Iowa Admin and Keystone both do a good job of explaining how seed caches are in violation of the solicitation guideline by way of the ALR prohibition, but there is no need for them to take this route to explain why these caches are verboten, since they are directly disallowed by 4.1. Edited April 12, 2011 by sbell111 Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 I believe that "seed caches" were strongly discouraged for some time before the official ALR guidelines were written because they encouraged placement of mindless caches. You had to take a container and put a new cache out to get the smiley, whether you really wanted to be a cache owner, or not, whether you had a worthwhile place to hide it, or not. When the ALR guidelines came out, I suspect that seed caches fit very neatly into that general category, and so was included. Makes perfect sense if you are required to hide another cache. It doesn't make sense if you are just encouraged to hide another cache. I think that I've located your confusion. When Palmetto used the word 'agenda', she wasn't referring to some other guideline. She was merely quoting the 4.3 guideline. The confusion comes from the fact that most of us often shorthand the 'Solicitation' guideline as the 'agenda' guideline when, in fact, both guidelines discuss inappropriate agendas. Iowa Admin and Keystone both do a good job of explaining how seed caches are in violation of the solicitation guideline by way of the ALR prohibition, but there is no need for them to take this route to explain why these caches are verboten, since they are directly disallowed by 4.1. I am really confused now. Are the guidelines the same as the knowledge book or is the knowledge book supposed to help explain the guidelines? What Palmetto quoted is in a different place than what I quoted. Maybe that is what is really confusing me. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I believe that "seed caches" were strongly discouraged for some time before the official ALR guidelines were written because they encouraged placement of mindless caches. You had to take a container and put a new cache out to get the smiley, whether you really wanted to be a cache owner, or not, whether you had a worthwhile place to hide it, or not. When the ALR guidelines came out, I suspect that seed caches fit very neatly into that general category, and so was included. Makes perfect sense if you are required to hide another cache. It doesn't make sense if you are just encouraged to hide another cache. I think that I've located your confusion. When Palmetto used the word 'agenda', she wasn't referring to some other guideline. She was merely quoting the 4.3 guideline. The confusion comes from the fact that most of us often shorthand the 'Solicitation' guideline as the 'agenda' guideline when, in fact, both guidelines discuss inappropriate agendas. Iowa Admin and Keystone both do a good job of explaining how seed caches are in violation of the solicitation guideline by way of the ALR prohibition, but there is no need for them to take this route to explain why these caches are verboten, since they are directly disallowed by 4.1. I am really confused now. Are the guidelines the same as the knowledge book or is the knowledge book supposed to help explain the guidelines? What Palmetto quoted is in a different place than what I quoted. Maybe that is what is really confusing me. The knowledge books have become a natural extension to the guidelines. Essentially - they are one and the same. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 The knowledge books have become a natural extension to the guidelines. Essentially - they are one and the same. In that case this thread can be closed. I might not agree with it but it's not hidden. Maybe someone else learned something too. Link to comment
Recommended Posts