Why aren't cache series allowed anymore?

[+niraD]

Without getting into an argument about whether the prohibition on daisy-chained mystery/puzzle caches should be allowed, here's an idea that may help implement the concept ladder concept within the prohibition.

 

Around here there is a series of mystery/puzzle caches. These caches use a series of online puzzles. Within the online puzzles, you have to solve puzzle n before you get access to puzzle n+1. The sequential nature of the online puzzles is unavoidable.

 

However, the caches themselves do not enforce the sequence. You're free to find the level-9 cache without having found the level-1 or level-5 caches. Of course, to find the level-9 cache, you need to solve the 9th puzzle in the series of online puzzles, which means you needed to solve the 1st and 5th puzzles in the series of online puzzles.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure this concept can be adapted to the karate-themed ladder, but it shows that it is possible to build a sequence of puzzles into a series of mystery/puzzle caches, without having the caches themselves daisy-chained.

[+t4e]

i have read this whole thread and i still don't see a logical explanation for:

1. denying the publishing of this series

2. how is it any different than a multi

3. why should it be a multi?

 

afaic maintenance concerns are not valid, the same concerns apply to any multi, a stage is gone you can't finish it

in fact the set up proposed by the CO deals with any maintenance issues better than a multi, if one cache in this series is archived, and for some reason can't be replaced, the rest can be changed to allow people to finish the series, not so easy if a stage in a multi is gone

 

does it save bandwidth by having one listing instead of 10?

 

please someone "in the know" provide such logical explanation, other than pointing to the very loosely worded leading to "i will apply them based on which side of the bed i got up this morning" guidelines and "because i say so"

[+Frank Broughton]

redacted... not my argument... bowing out!

Edited September 11, 2011 by Frank Broughton

[+rjb43nh]

Wrong. It’s like you agreeing to abide by all traffic laws and then you are charged with violating an actual law that you didn’t know about, or thought didn’t apply to you. As they say, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Nope. You're twisting my example around. The second set of things are not "laws". The knowledge books are not guidelines. I nor anyone else has indicated anywhere when submitting a cache that we agreed to the knowledge books.

Perhaps you missed Keystone's explanation that the Knowledge Books ARE part of the guidelines. It makes no difference where they are located (or hosted) as long as they are official and there is a reference leading to them so any open-minded reasonable person can find them. For example, if you read a synopsis of a course, it doesn't mean you have completed the entire course. Or using your logic one could do the first stage of this proposed "multi" and claim to have done the entire cache because the waypoints aren't physically in the same location as the first and therefore not related.

 

 

So you admit that these stages are all a continuation of the main part and not separate caches?

I did no such thing. I said they're not a bonus. A continuation doesn't mean it's the same cache. Just like a sequel to a movie is not the same movie.

A sequel to a movie is one in a series and you are not required to see the first before you see the final in the series. This cache series was denied because you have to do previous specific caches to get the final.

 

 

Simple answer-a power trail is a collection of caches that stand on their own and can be done in any order, one or more, without relying on other caches. A multicache requires other caches to be done to get to the final and the logbook. As you described this multicache in your post #1, “...a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other”

Again, I can create a multicache where the stages can be done in any order without relying on the other caches just like a power trail. Since multicaches are in the guidelines and power trails are not therefore a power trail should be listed as a multicache.

You must be trying really hard to misread what others are posting to misconstrue pertinent points. Show me one multicache you've created where you can find the final WITHOUT doing the waypoints. Please only list published caches, not some hyporthetical off the wall example you dream up. As I pointed out (but you choose to ignore), a power trail has separate caches that can stand on their own and no other cache is required to do any one cache, your "multi" has linked waypoints and none of the waypoints can stand on their own. Even if you're not required to do the waypoints in an exact order, you still have to do the waypoints before geting the final so there is a required order. Oh, and power trails don't need a separate category because they are traditional caches that are clearly covered by the guidelines (and Knowledge Books) and just happen to be close together. They meet all the guidelines where your 'multi" clearly does not, as has been pointed out by Groundspeak by denying it and Keystone here in his good explanation of the rules, guidelines, laws, and Knowledge Books.

[+dfx]

Why would there be a cache listing? Would it not just be an "Additional Waypoint"?

 

oh oh oh *raises hand* I can answer that! *shakes raised arm*

 

Because the "stages" aren't just stages containing information to find the final cache and nothing else, but are rather complete caches containing at least a log book (complying to the guidelines), and possibly larger containers, swag etc. And as such, they would be deserving of a cache listing each. Amirite?

[+Avernar]

I would define this arrangement as a Multi-Cache.

Looks like you haven't read any of my posts in here. Just because it fits the pattern of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be listed as a multicache.

 

A bunch of traditionals with a bonus also fits the patter of a multicache where all the stages have visible coordinates.

 

If there was a requirement to solve a puzzle in order to obtain coordinates, I would then define this as a single Mystery/Puzzle cache.

As a reviewer you should know the Unknown/Mystery/Puzzle category is a catch all type. A cache can by listed as an Unknown at the CO discretion if they feel something warrants it. It's even been suggested in these forums to list caches as an Unknown for the sole purpose of getting people to read the listing.

 

In my example above, it would also appear that any separate cache listings for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th stages would be moot; they aren't used.

The coords for these stages would only available by physically visiting the preceding stages.

Why would there be a cache listing? Would it not just be an "Additional Waypoint"?

The same can be said for the bunch of traditionals and a bonus. Why do they need to be seperate caches. Acording to you nobody reads the listings. Just list them all as an "Additional Waypoint" of a Multi.

 

If that is the case... would this still not give folks an the same "quest" and also allow any thematic elements to be maintained?

 

Except now I have to pour through a humongous listing to find the relevant section I'm working on. Assuming it all fits on a single listing.

 

Since Team Goju's series is geographically diverse, I will have to force the multi to load on my GPSr if I'm far away from the posted coordinates. Even with it loaded, finding it on the GPSr will be difficult as it won't show up near the top of the list.

[+Avernar]

Perhaps you missed Keystone's explanation that the Knowledge Books ARE part of the guidelines.

No. Some of the pages of the guidelines are hosted in the same spot as the knowledge books. This is unfortunate as it's hard to determine where the guidelines end and the knowledge books begin.

 

It makes no difference where they are located (or hosted) as long as they are official and there is a reference leading to them so any open-minded reasonable person can find them.

That's the problem. I couldn't find a direct or sequence of links to get from the guidelines to that section that restricted bonus caches.

 

A sequel to a movie is one in a series and you are not required to see the first before you see the final in the series. This cache series was denied because you have to do previous specific caches to get the final.

No I don't. I don't have to do the previous specific caches to get to the final. I can get the coordinates from a friend and start anywhere I want.

 

You must be trying really hard to misread what others are posting to misconstrue pertinent points. Show me one multicache you've created where you can find the final WITHOUT doing the waypoints.

It's funny that you're accusing me of misreading what others are posting when you are misreading what I'm posting. I never said you didn't have to do the waypoints. Read the following very carefully:

 

You can create a multi where the coordinates to all the stages except the final are not hidden on the cache page. The finder can see all the coordinates as additional waypoints. They can visit the stages in ANY order to collect the clues for the final.

 

The guidelines have this as a possible way to set up a multicache. Since a bunch of traditionals with a bonus matches this layout exactly, by the logic presented by many in here, they should be forced to list those caches as a single multi.

 

Even if you're not required to do the waypoints in an exact order, you still have to do the waypoints before geting the final so there is a required order.

No you don't. Here's one where if you make a good guess you can skip some or all the stages: Dex's Get a Clue Cache REVISED

 

Notice that all the stages are visible? Assuming no proximity issues, this one could have been listed as 18 traditionals and 1 unknown bonus.

 

The CO has a choice how he wanted it listed.

[Team Goju]

 

 

 

Player visits Stage #1

Within Stage #1 they find the coords for Stage #2

Player visits Stage #2

Within Stage #2 they find the coords for Stage #3

Player visits Stage #3

Within Stage #3 they find the coords for Stage #4

Player visits Stage #4

Within Stage #4 they find the coords for Stage #5 (Final)

 

The first analogy that springs to mind is "climbing a ladder" -- however in this case I have to start at the bottom rung and work my way up, rung by rung, without skipping any, to get to my goal.

I would define this arrangement as a Multi-Cache.

 

If there was a requirement to solve a puzzle in order to obtain coordinates, I would then define this as a single Mystery/Puzzle cache.

To use my "climbing a ladder' analogy again, that would be the same as me having to answer a question before I took my next step.

 

In my example above, it would also appear that any separate cache listings for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th stages would be moot; they aren't used.

The coords for these stages would only available by physically visiting the preceding stages.

Why would there be a cache listing? Would it not just be an "Additional Waypoint"?

 

If there was a need to have separate cache listings published for each "Stage" an option would be if Stage #1, Stage #2, Stage #3 and Stage #4 could be visited by a Player independently (i.e. in any order).

During those visits by the Player, information could be gathered and used to find the fifth/final Mystery/Puzzle Bonus cache.

 

If each of the containers has a puzzle that can be solved to give the coords of the next -- would it not be possible for someone to find the first container and "keep going" until they reach the final container?

If that is the case... would this still not give folks an the same "quest" and also allow any thematic elements to be maintained?

 

CacheShadow

 

As I have tried to explain, the series does not work in the manner as above. Each stage (or in my case, each separate cache) the coords are not in the previous cache. The Cache page has either a puzzle where information is needed from the previous caches to complete the puzzle, or the puzzle is in the previous cache, but the information needed to complete it is in the following cache's page. The purpose being is to engage the cacher and have them read the info on the cache pages and learn something besides how to follow a GPS to a particular point.

 

Each cache page in the series has alot of educational information, such as in an earthcache listing. To satisfy your recommendation of turning the entire series into a multi-cache, I would have to work all that info into the physical placement somehow. The stages (each cache) are so geographically distant from each other that it would likely serve as a deterrent to it's completion. I have seen Ontario-wide and even larger multis in the past, and they never lasted long, getting archived by the owner before they were ever found.

 

To change the entire series into a multi, would require reworking/redesigning the entire series, something I already spent 18 months already doing. I do not relish the thought of starting all over because of an interpretation of the guidelines that this thread has already shown is fuzzy; especially considering a series was published only months ago that has a similar structure. It would seem that a cache that may get denied by one reviewer, may in fact get approved by a different reviewer, depending on their interpretation of the guidelines, and/or understanding of the cacher's intent with the listing(s) submitted.

 

The cache series I am submitting does not fit neatly into the guideline definitions, so I am being told to alter it in such a way as to make it fit. Yet as arguments presented in this thread show, there is nothing that explicitly prohibits the series as it is. The guidelines and knowledge books seem to be written in such an ambiguous way as to enable some flexibilty and creativity, so why is there no flexibilty in this case? There certainly was enough flexibility to get this series published. The arguments against my series would work against this one as well. The difference with that one, as stated earlier in the thread, is that a group of caches rather than one is needed to enable the finding of the next group, and so on. By simply adding one extra cache to a level in the "daisy chain" now makes it workable?? Should those caches not be a large multi? Or a series of separate caches that can be found in any order, that lead to a final? The argument would suggest that if those listings were presented to you, they would be denied as well. If that is not the case, please explain so that I can understand why the difference between the two. I am of the opinion that the only difference is one's interpretation the guidelines.

[+Sagefox]

Every guideline limits creativity.

 

Limiting creativity is a long way from "stifling" the entire game. But, then too, that post (not yours) was the most common of overreactions: Cache denied therefore Groundspeak has ruined the game. My error was in responding to it.

 

The OPs long, drawn out, I'll fight you on any point of logic you can present (which I read 76.3% of) was not selling the point for me.

 

The problem here is that... ...This guideline has ended up banning caches it probably wasn't meant to...

 

But your concise example makes sense. I think I might go ahead and cast a vote.

[+Rainbow's Connections]

I see a way to make everyone happy (well, those who choose to be unhappy for the sake of being unhappy don't count):

 

With a few simple guidelines, GC.com could make "cache series" a new viable cache type that is clearly distinct from the "multi-cache" cache type.

 

1. As Badlands said, each cache in the series would be bound by the 528' proximity rule.

 

2. Each cache in the cache series would have to be logged - in the logbook AND online - before each subsequent cache is logged. (Some might argue that GC.com would be forced to write code to ensure this, but it is not necessary. Let the cache owners police their own series. It is not that important. People who want to cheat will try to cheat. People who choose to do the caches, sign the logbook, but not log online, can do so. Who cares. The gist of this guideline is to keep people from simply sharing clues that are hidden in series/multi caches, and gives the cache owner the authority to delete logs of those who do not comply. Again, in the end, it doesn't matter. Just play the game.)

 

Now here comes the bit that is going to stir the pot, BUT it is the most important (and easiest) way to make a "cache series" totally distinct from a "multi-cache" AND worthy of an entirely new cache type.

 

3. Each cache in a "cache series" should be of "regular" size or larger (as defined on the GC.com site).

 

 

Let the flaming begin.

[+rjb43nh]

Avernar-“They are separate documents. They're even hosted on different domains.”

Avernar-“That's the problem. I couldn't find a direct or sequence of links to get from the guidelines to that section that restricted bonus caches.”

Avernar-“...Some of the pages of the guidelines are hosted in the same spot as the knowledge books. This is unfortunate as it's hard to determine where the guidelines end and the knowledge books begin.”

So are they in different domains where you can't find them or are they together in the same spot where they confuse you? If you can’t find the connection or links, ask someone who possesses more knowledge, like Keystone, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.

 

I think you’re starting to get the point. There is no division, they are all part and parcel of the rules and guidelines that determine whether a cache gets published, or in the example in your post #1, gets denied. You’re never going to convince Groundspeak of your misinterpretation of the guidelines no matter how you try to twist them to fit into your own universe.

 

Avernar-“ It's funny that you're accusing me of misreading what others are posting when you are misreading what I'm posting. I never said you didn't have to do the waypoints.”

Avernar-“…The theme of the series requires you to "advance" from one stage to the next.”

Avernar-“(post #1)Avernar-“ My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc.”

Avernar -“I don't have to do the previous specific caches to get to the final. I can get the coordinates from a friend and start anywhere I want.”

Avernar-“Here's one where if you make a good guess you can skip some or all the stages.”

So which is it? Does the 1st cache lead to the 2nd, 3rd , etc., as you said in one post or are the waypoint cords listed and can be done in any order; or can you get the final cords via PAF and only do the final. If all previous daisy chained caches aren’t signed will the final log be deleted? Please make up you mind.

 

Avernar -“Just because it fits the pattern of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be listed as a multicache.”

Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers……..

[+Avernar]

So are they in different domains where you can't find them or are they together in the same spot where they confuse you? If you can’t find the connection or links, ask someone who possesses more knowledge, like Keystone, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.

That's a chicken and egg problem. How is someone supposed to ask for help finding something in the knowledge book if they don't know that they missed something.

 

I think you’re starting to get the point. There is no division, they are all part and parcel of the rules and guidelines that determine whether a cache gets published, or in the example in your post #1, gets denied.

And your still missing the point. Not all of the knowledge books are the guidelines. This makes it difficult for people to figure out how much they're expected to read and follow.

 

You’re never going to convince Groundspeak of your misinterpretation of the guidelines no matter how you try to twist them to fit into your own universe.

I'm not trying any such think. I'm telling Groundspeak that the guidelines are a mess and if they want people to stop getting tripped up by them they should create one concise document listing all the rules. One link to where it all is so people don't have to hunt and gather all the rules.

 

So which is it? Does the 1st cache lead to the 2nd, 3rd , etc., as you said in one post or are the waypoint cords listed and can be done in any order; or can you get the final cords via PAF and only do the final. If all previous daisy chained caches aren’t signed will the final log be deleted? Please make up you mind.

I getting tired of repeating what I've already wrote because you can't read it properly:

 

1. Team Goju's series is the 1st cache leads to the 2nd, 2nd leads to the 3rd kind.

2. Others said that matches how a multi is and therefore should be forced to be a multi.

3. To disprove #2 I pointed out that a bunch of traditionals with a bonus also matches how a multi is.

4. If #2 was correct then the bunch of traditionals with a bonus should also be forced to be a multi.

5. Since a bunch of traditionals with a bonus are not being forced to be a multi, #2 is false.

 

You however started arguing that #3 was wrong which I pointed out is not the case with quotes from the guidelines and even an link to a cache.

 

Now you're getting confused and thinking that I'm saying that Team Goju's cache is like a bunch of traditionals with a bonus which I'm clearly not.

 

Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers……..

That's the logic that everyone else (see #2) is using to deny the listing. I'm just using that same logic right back at them.

[+Avernar]

Let the flaming begin.

No flaming. I just see the same problems as making it a multi:

 

1) The listing will become too big. While there might not be a limit on the site, GPSr units may have trouble. I wouldn't want to scroll up and down on my GPSr looking for the cache I'm currently working on.

 

2) Your GPSr and the smartphone apps won't show you an icon for the stage you're close to. You'd be constantly searching for that cache page every time you'd switch away to look at another cache.

 

3) People living next to another stage might not realize there's a cache near them and start the series. There's a multicache that starts downtown Toronto and ends up in Mississauga. I had no idea it was there for years as I don't frequent downtown TO that often. I only found out about it when I was with the CO and he had to do maintenance on the final.

[Team Goju]

Avernar -“Just because it fits the pattern of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be listed as a multicache.”

Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers……..

 

 

Just to clear up some confusion here. My cache series cannot be mistaken for a large multi. Simply because there are prerequisite caches, whether those caches need to found in sequence or in any order, does not make it a multi IMO. Many caches exist where the hints/codes are collected in order to find the final. They have not been forced to be a multi. And there are also caches where the prerequisite caches need to found in order as well to find the final in the series, several of which have been referenced in this thread, and one having been published very recently. I have found more such caches still.

 

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis.

 

This issue and the seemingly lack of the Reviewers or Groundspeak to have any flexibility to allow something a little outside the usual manages to shut down creative ideas, that in the past have provided considerable enjoyment within the caching community. Take Challenge caches, and the obvious ALR element to them. ALR's are discouraged elsewhere, but are acceptable with Challenge caches. Isn't this an obvious exception to the accepted rule? Challenge caches have become an unofficial cache type. The game evolves, as the community creates new ideas. My cache series has not come into being without precedence. They exist, just as I have designed mine. And should be recognized perhaps as an unofficial exception. That exception has obviously been granted many times already.

 

The argument given for making a cache series into a multi should not, and does not apply in every case.

[+Avernar]

The OPs long, drawn out, I'll fight you on any point of logic you can present (which I read 76.3% of) was not selling the point for me.

I feel like such a failure.

 

But your concise example makes sense. I think I might go ahead and cast a vote.

I'm glad someone worded it better that I could.

[+BlueDeuce]

Face it. Multies were the origin of the micro. The question now is what is the difference between multiple traditional and a multi.

[+Don_J]

Avernar-“They are separate documents. They're even hosted on different domains.”

Avernar-“That's the problem. I couldn't find a direct or sequence of links to get from the guidelines to that section that restricted bonus caches.”

Avernar-“...Some of the pages of the guidelines are hosted in the same spot as the knowledge books. This is unfortunate as it's hard to determine where the guidelines end and the knowledge books begin.”

So are they in different domains where you can't find them or are they together in the same spot where they confuse you? If you can’t find the connection or links, ask someone who possesses more knowledge, like Keystone, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.

 

I think you’re starting to get the point. There is no division, they are all part and parcel of the rules and guidelines that determine whether a cache gets published, or in the example in your post #1, gets denied. You’re never going to convince Groundspeak of your misinterpretation of the guidelines no matter how you try to twist them to fit into your own universe.

 

 

No one is misinterpreting the guidelines. We are having trouble determining what document is a guidelines and what isn't. This is far more important than a single cache. Most of us are cache owners. Every time we submit a new cache for review, we click a checkbox stating that we have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. I was unaware of KB 4.13 until last night. I click that box in good faith. Now, I'm finding that I have technically lied to the website 169 times.

 

Additionally, Keystone wrote that parts of the KB that are considered to be part of the guidelines are linked to the main guideline page and they have a disclaimer at the top of them. KB 4.13 has neither. By his very definition, it is not part of the guidelines, yet it is being used to deny certain caches.

 

What is really confusing is that there is a KB titled "Guidelines" and a KB titled "Geocaching". The cache submital page links to "Guidelines", which has three sections. Until last night, most of us considered that to be the article that we were expected to read and understand. Now, we are told that section 4 from the "Geocaching" KB also applies.

 

In my opinion, if we are expected to read and understand section 4 from the "Geocaching" KB, it should be moved or copied in its entirety to the "Guidelines" KB.

 

Now, let's look at the cache in question.

 

1. Cacher has idea.

2. Cacher goes to the Hide and Seek page and clicks the link for Guidelines for hiding a cache. He read all three sections and all of the linked documents, (which comprise the Guidelines KB), particularly 2.2.2 Puzzle Caches.

 

The information needed to solve a puzzle cache (sometimes called a mystery cache) must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

For many caches of this type, the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the appropriate vicinity searches and keeps the mileage of Trackables that pass through the cache reasonably accurate.

 

Give as detailed information as possible to the reviewer when you submit the cache. Report the coordinates for the actual cache location and use the "Additional Waypoints" feature to input any other relevant stages or clues.

 

A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache. This will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. An example is finding a cache in each county of your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, be sure to do your research first.

 

Note that the part about Challenge caches is linked to 4.14 of the Geocaching KB. 4.13, which deals with bonus caches is NOT linked.

 

3. Cacher feels that he has adequately "read the guidelines", purchases materials, makes caches, paddles across lakes and climbs mountains to hide them.

4. Submits the caches.

5. Caches are denied because they violate some obscure guideline that is buried four sections deep in a KB that the cacher was not required to read in the first place.

 

I don't know how anyone can read this and not realize that something is seriously wrong.

[Mr.Yuck]

Avernar -“Just because it fits the pattern of a multicache doesn't mean it has to be listed as a multicache.”

Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers……..

 

 

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts.

 

Don't know if you remember me, but we hiked a couple miles on the Bruce Trail on one of the group hike events. Either way, wishing to "reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts" doesn't usually go over too well around here. Or with the big cheeses at Groundspeak either, apparently.

 

The argument given for making a cache series into a multi should not, and does not apply in every case.

 

Oh, I hear you there. And this is somewhat popuular in Southern Ontario, although it seems unheard of in many other places. I'm sure I'd be asking why now too.

[+baloo&bd]

Just to clear up some confusion here.

 

From reading the thread, no one seems confused.

 

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis.

 

This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc.

 

One of the more wildly popular and discussed caches in our area, Out of Sight, is a mystery cache that has many stages (it takes 6 to 8 hours to complete) and each a cache that would meet the requirements for a single cache on their own and be almost as popular. Cachers do not need to be rewarded like puppies in training. Want to have a solid, popular cache? Concentrate on rewarding via the experience rather than the gold star smiley.

 

Having said that, for the younger cachers that still need to be rewarded, there are caches such as the International series which does precisely what you are trying to do, however in a very novel way.

 

The argument given for making a cache series into a multi should not, and does not apply in every case.

 

While I will not disagree with this statement, I have yet to see a cache where it applies.

[+Avernar]

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts.

 

Don't know if you remember me, but we hiked a couple miles on the Bruce Trail on one of the group hike events. Either way, wishing to "reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts" doesn't usually go over too well around here. Or with the big cheeses at Groundspeak either, apparently.

I think you read that sentence wrong because of that errant comma. Giving extra smilies is not his goal.

[+Avernar]

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis.

 

This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc.

Read my reply to Mr Yuck. That comma should not be in his sentence. It makes it sound like he was trying to reward people with extra smilies.

[+baloo&bd]

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis.

 

This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc.

Read my reply to Mr Yuck. That comma should not be in his sentence. It makes it sound like he was trying to reward people with extra smilies.

 

There is no ther way to read it,comma or not.

 

However... Team Goju, is one of your intents to reward cachers doing this "series" with a smiley for each stage?

[+Avernar]

There is no ther way to read it,comma or not.

 

I read it this way:

 

"I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed separate caches that look like a multi for the purpose of rewarding the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts."

 

However... Team Goju, is one of your intents to reward cachers doing this "series" with a smiley for each stage?

I've sent him an email letting him know of the confusion.

[Team Goju]

I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis.

 

This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc.

Read my reply to Mr Yuck. That comma should not be in his sentence. It makes it sound like he was trying to reward people with extra smilies.

 

Yes, forgive my bad grammar. The intent in the series is NOT to break a multi down into individual caches, to "reward" extra smileys. Quite the opposite. Each Cache in the series is a separate multi and each in it's own right a significant challenge. If this entire series was to be turned into a multi, even the most avid cacher would likely take a year or more to complete it.

 

@ Mr. Yuck & Baloo&bd: Go back in the thread and read my first post in this thread on the details of the series. It is not unlike other series that HAVE been approved and DO exist.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Team Goju

[+baloo&bd]

If it is not your int3nt, make it a multi. All is good and everyone is happy.

 

Wish they were all this easy to solve.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As I have tried to explain, the series does not work in the manner as above. To change the entire series into a multi, would require reworking/redesigning the entire series, something I already spent 18 months already doing. I do not relish the thought of starting all over because of an interpretation of the guidelines that this thread has already shown is fuzzy; especially considering a series was published only months ago that has a similar structure. It would seem that a cache that may get denied by one reviewer, may in fact get approved by a different reviewer, depending on their interpretation of the guidelines, and/or understanding of the cacher's intent with the listing(s) submitted.

 

Ah! Here we have the crux of the argument! "I wasted my time because I didn't read the guidelines." Or "I didn't bother checking with the reviewer, even though what I am trying to do has never been done before. So I wasted my time and shoud be rewarded."

This thread has not shown anything to be fuzzy. That is your misinterpretation. A bonus cache is not a daisy-chain series. Two entirely different things, which you have misinterpreted. (BTW, reviewers do not seem to be too happy with bonus caches, but they are allowed.)

A bonus cache runs on the concept of 'find two (or more) caches, and receive the coordinates for the final (or the next series)'. That is an entirely different concept than 'I'm hiding a multi, but want each step to be a separate cache.'

If you wish to hide a multi, then hide a multi! Seems simple enough. But don't compare apples to oranges. "He hid an apple cache. I want to hide an orange cache, but call it an apple cache." Just doesn't work that way.

[+hikerT]

If it is not your int3nt, make it a multi. All is good and everyone is happy.

 

Wish they were all this easy to solve.

 

I think you missed pages 1 and 2.

[+Avernar]

Ah! Here we have the crux of the argument! "I wasted my time because I didn't read the guidelines." Or "I didn't bother checking with the reviewer, even though what I am trying to do has never been done before. So I wasted my time and shoud be rewarded."

Sorry, but you're wrong. Even after being shown the relavent section of the knowlege books, the language there says "should not" and not "can't". On top of that, that section doesn't have the text indicating it's part of the guidelines.

 

This thread has not shown anything to be fuzzy. That is your misinterpretation.

A supposed guideline that uses the words "shouldn't" in a section not marked as part of the guidelines is not fuzzy to you? Wow.

 

A bonus cache is not a daisy-chain series. Two entirely different things, which you have misinterpreted.

I'm glad you think so because the reviewers and Groundspeak are using the bonus cache rule to deny his "daisy-chain" series.

 

(BTW, reviewers do not seem to be too happy with bonus caches, but they are allowed.)

A bonus cache runs on the concept of 'find two (or more) caches, and receive the coordinates for the final (or the next series)'. That is an entirely different concept than 'I'm hiding a multi, but want each step to be a separate cache.'

And nothing in the guidelines prohibits listing a multi as a series of unknowns.

 

If you wish to hide a multi, then hide a multi! Seems simple enough.

No it isn't. If you bothered reading his description of the series you'd see it's not just a multi. Each "stage" would be a whole multi on it's own. This series is huge.

 

But don't compare apples to oranges. "He hid an apple cache. I want to hide an orange cache, but call it an apple cache." Just doesn't work that way.

Just doesn't work that way? Then show me the guideline against it. The "this should be a multi because it looks like a multi" doesn't count as it doesn't exclude listing it as unknowns.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Avernar

[+northernpenguin]

I'm waiting for the CO to relist it as a multi an get slapped for the final being too far away from the posted.

[+Flintstone5611]

Avernar-“They are separate documents. They're even hosted on different domains.”

Avernar-“That's the problem. I couldn't find a direct or sequence of links to get from the guidelines to that section that restricted bonus caches.”

Avernar-“...Some of the pages of the guidelines are hosted in the same spot as the knowledge books. This is unfortunate as it's hard to determine where the guidelines end and the knowledge books begin.”

So are they in different domains where you can't find them or are they together in the same spot where they confuse you? If you can’t find the connection or links, ask someone who possesses more knowledge, like Keystone, I'm sure he'd be glad to help.

 

I think you’re starting to get the point. There is no division, they are all part and parcel of the rules and guidelines that determine whether a cache gets published, or in the example in your post #1, gets denied. You’re never going to convince Groundspeak of your misinterpretation of the guidelines no matter how you try to twist them to fit into your own universe.

 

 

No one is misinterpreting the guidelines. We are having trouble determining what document is a guidelines and what isn't. This is far more important than a single cache. Most of us are cache owners. Every time we submit a new cache for review, we click a checkbox stating that we have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. I was unaware of KB 4.13 until last night. I click that box in good faith. Now, I'm finding that I have technically lied to the website 169 times.

 

Additionally, Keystone wrote that parts of the KB that are considered to be part of the guidelines are linked to the main guideline page and they have a disclaimer at the top of them. KB 4.13 has neither. By his very definition, it is not part of the guidelines, yet it is being used to deny certain caches.

 

What is really confusing is that there is a KB titled "Guidelines" and a KB titled "Geocaching". The cache submital page links to "Guidelines", which has three sections. Until last night, most of us considered that to be the article that we were expected to read and understand. Now, we are told that section 4 from the "Geocaching" KB also applies.

 

In my opinion, if we are expected to read and understand section 4 from the "Geocaching" KB, it should be moved or copied in its entirety to the "Guidelines" KB.

 

Now, let's look at the cache in question.

 

1. Cacher has idea.

2. Cacher goes to the Hide and Seek page and clicks the link for Guidelines for hiding a cache. He read all three sections and all of the linked documents, (which comprise the Guidelines KB), particularly 2.2.2 Puzzle Caches.

 

The information needed to solve a puzzle cache (sometimes called a mystery cache) must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

For many caches of this type, the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the appropriate vicinity searches and keeps the mileage of Trackables that pass through the cache reasonably accurate.

 

Give as detailed information as possible to the reviewer when you submit the cache. Report the coordinates for the actual cache location and use the "Additional Waypoints" feature to input any other relevant stages or clues.

 

A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache. This will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. An example is finding a cache in each county of your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, be sure to do your research first.

 

Note that the part about Challenge caches is linked to 4.14 of the Geocaching KB. 4.13, which deals with bonus caches is NOT linked.

 

3. Cacher feels that he has adequately "read the guidelines", purchases materials, makes caches, paddles across lakes and climbs mountains to hide them.

4. Submits the caches.

5. Caches are denied because they violate some obscure guideline that is buried four sections deep in a KB that the cacher was not required to read in the first place.

 

I don't know how anyone can read this and not realize that something is seriously wrong.

 

May I just say that you really summed up the key components of this thread very well.

[Team Goju]

I'm waiting for the CO to relist it as a multi an get slapped for the final being too far away from the posted.

 

Well... now there would be a good argument as to why it cannot possibly become a multi. Nor is it to become a bunch of traditionals as also suggested, with a bonus cache. There is a good argument here for allowing this series as it exists now. If all else fails it will be listed elsewhere.

[+DanOCan]

I'm waiting for the CO to relist it as a multi an get slapped for the final being too far away from the posted.

 

Well... now there would be a good argument as to why it cannot possibly become a multi. Nor is it to become a bunch of traditionals as also suggested, with a bonus cache. There is a good argument here for allowing this series as it exists now. If all else fails it will be listed elsewhere.

 

Why? There is no distance limitation to how far the final for a Multi can be from the posted coordinates. Is it possible you are thinking of Unknown caches where the actual cache is supposed to be within a reasonable distance of the posted bogus coordinates?

 

It's not unusual for Multis to spam hundreds of kilometers.

[+Avernar]

It's not unusual for Multis to spam hundreds of kilometers.

One of the major flaws of a multi. There's no indication to the cachers in the area of a stage that there's a multi they can do.

[+rjb43nh]

Avernar-“…You however started arguing that #3 was wrong which I pointed out is not the case with quotes from the guidelines and even an link to a cache.”

 

Just to make it clear, I’m not talking about previous caches or hypothetical caches, I’m talking about the single cache (or series of caches according to you) that you referenced in post #1. You can quote the guidelines from now till doomsday and say what you “think” they mean but the only opinions that count are those of the local reviewer and Groundspeak, and I happen to agree with their decision. It’s may be your opinion that I’m wrong but the cache has been denied because, as submitted, it doesn’t fit within the guidelines. As the final decision of the reviewer states-"As it stands today, your cache fits the definition of a "Multi Cache"; that is to say that one stage leads to the next, and it must be completed in sequence in order to reach the "Final" stage/cache.

I would therefore be required to consider this cache/the remaining caches to be "Stages of a Multicache" and would hence request that changes be made to the listing to reflect that.”

 

Now Team Goju and you have two choices; you can make the necessary changes to make the caches conform to the guidelines as a multicache; or you can continue to post here, which you’re more that welcome to do, but it will not get that cache published. Your continuing to argue the merits with me and others, while quite civil, are not productive.

 

Unfortunately Team Goju has apparently put a lot of time and effort into this cache but that cannot be a consideration in the approval process. Maybe next time you have a grand plan it would be wise to run it past your local reviewer to make sure there aren’t problems with the cache that you’re overlooking. Whether you or I think Groundspeak is right or not is also immaterial, it is their sandbox and you can play by their rules or not play at all. That is between you and TPTB.

[+thebruce0]

Here's the thing. The reviewers have spoken. Appeals has spoken. An alternate solution was provided. As much as the decision sucks, there's nothing more that can be done except debate on principle in this thread. Regardless of whether it's an interpretation of the guidelines based on vague wording in the knowledgebook or not. I've been there. I've fought the fight. The people fighting here are now fighting the same fight. It's futile. This is what I've been saying.

 

Issues and loopholes in wording like this for which people are extremely passionate should be clarified in the guidelines. Who cares if it 'seems' minor and obvious on the part of TPTB. It's obviously not clear, there's obviously a vagarity in the wording. To end the debate and stop it happening in the future, make it clear.

Edited September 12, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Avernar]

Just to make it clear, I’m not talking about previous caches or hypothetical caches, I’m talking about the single cache (or series of caches according to you) that you referenced in post #1.

Then why are you arguing with me about a secondary topic in this thread?

 

You can quote the guidelines from now till doomsday and say what you “think” they mean but the only opinions that count are those of the local reviewer and Groundspeak, and I happen to agree with their decision.

So you agree that Groundspeak and the reviewer should enforce guidelines that don't exist? The rest of us don't.

 

Or do you agree that Groundspeak and the reviewers should enforce statements in the knowledge books that suggest you shouldn't do something but don't tell you not to do something?

 

It’s may be your opinion that I’m wrong but the cache has been denied because, as submitted, it doesn’t fit within the guidelines.

Show me the section of the guidelines where it prohibits this sort of hide then.

 

As the final decision of the reviewer states-"As it stands today, your cache fits the definition of a "Multi Cache"; that is to say that one stage leads to the next, and it must be completed in sequence in order to reach the "Final" stage/cache.

I would therefore be required to consider this cache/the remaining caches to be "Stages of a Multicache" and would hence request that changes be made to the listing to reflect that.”

And I have pointed out to you many times that the logic the reviewer is using is wrong. Just because it fits the definition of a multi doesn't mean it has to be a multi.

 

I even pointed out other cache series (traditionals with a bonus) that fit the definition of a multi which the reviewers published no problem without complaining it should be a multi to disprove the above logic. You on the other had start complaining that "we're not talking about that here".

 

Well, guess what. We are. I have shown that the reviewers used a made up excuse that if it were valid should be enforced consistently.

 

That the reviewers not enforcing the guidelines evenly or using made up guidelines is on topic here, weather you like it or not.

 

Now Team Goju and you have two choices; you can make the necessary changes to make the caches conform to the guidelines as a multicache; or you can continue to post here, which you’re more that welcome to do, but it will not get that cache published. Your continuing to argue the merits with me and others, while quite civil, are not productive.

Or he can gather support here and have people vote on the feedback item to allow these kinds of hides.

[+Avernar]

Here's the thing. The reviewers have spoken. Appeals has spoken. An alternate solution was provided. As much as the decision sucks, there's nothing more that can be done except debate on principle in this thread.

No, there's one last thing: vote.

 

I'd really love to see this series published here. But if it comes down to it, I'd rather see the series published elsewhere than have it butchered.

 

For all their claims of "just being a listing service" they seem to do a lot of meddling in the cache concepts themselves.

[+tozainamboku]

It looks more an more like the rationale that people are buying into is that the rule against chaining bonuses is needed because some might turn a multi into a chain solely to reward someone with extra smileys.

 

I sure hope this isn't Groundspeak's rationale. This is a view of the minority of geocachers who claim that numbers don't matter yet get upset over power trails or bonus smileys. I've argued that a cache owner who wanted to could tell people to log a find for each stage. There doesn't seem to be any rule that Groundspeak is the least bit interested in enforcing that says you could do this. But those geocachers who have adopted the idea that there should only be one find logged per GC code, will see the chained bonus series as a scheme put together solely to bet around this non existent rule. So of course the rule to prevent this atrocity is needed and any argument that a series like this might exist for other reasons is ignored. Obviously the OP had found another way for people to cheat.

 

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the this holier than thou attitude that anything that provides ways for cacher to get additional smileys - power trails, bonus caches, multiple logs on a cache, including challenges in the find count - are cheating and degrading geocaching. If you're not interested in smiley count your are free to not log any or all of these. Or go ahead and log what is allowed, just don't pay attention to your find count or to any one else's.

 

But the OP has now said that his intent is not to give extra smileys (though his grammatical error seems to have hurt his credibility). So even if you buy in the puritan view and think that chain bonus must be stopped before they cause the destruction of geocaching, I'd urge to to look at that particulars of this case.

1. There is a theme that relates the cache in the series. That theme is illustrated by doing the caches in a certain order.
   
2. The individual cache are not intended to be done all at once. Some are a significant distance from others in the series.
   

It may be possible to do the caches out of order, perhaps through a lucky guess or help from another finder. I don't see the cache owner asking for the ability to delete logs if some were to do these caches out of order (that might be an ALR). What the cache owner is asking for is a mechanism that would encourage these caches to be done in order.

 

Based on the distances between these caches and the puzzle component that has to be solve for each one, making them into a multi-cache may be unreasonable. While you could've have a multi that took you all over the province of Ontario and would take several days or even weeks to complete. The difficulty on that cache alone would be so hide as to discourage most people from trying. It looks like the idea for this series may is to start out with some easier caches. The difficulty of the caches would increase with each level with the final cache in the series having the highest difficulty (especially if it counts the work done on prior caches in the series). The cache owner is providing an opportunity for cachers to proceed in the series until they difficulty of the next cache is too high for them. Doing this as a single multi may be too difficult for anyone to even try, but a series may have lots of cachers finding the easier white belt, and fewer cachers finding the next cache in the series, until you get to the black belt which will be found only by serious cachers.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah! Here we have the crux of the argument! "I wasted my time because I didn't read the guidelines." Or "I didn't bother checking with the reviewer, even though what I am trying to do has never been done before. So I wasted my time and shoud be rewarded."

Sorry, but you're wrong. Even after being shown the relavent section of the knowlege books, the language there says "should not" and not "can't". On top of that, that section doesn't have the text indicating it's part of the guidelines.

 

This thread has not shown anything to be fuzzy. That is your misinterpretation.

A supposed guideline that uses the words "shouldn't" in a section not marked as part of the guidelines is not fuzzy to you? Wow.

 

A bonus cache is not a daisy-chain series. Two entirely different things, which you have misinterpreted.

I'm glad you think so because the reviewers and Groundspeak are using the bonus cache rule to deny his "daisy-chain" series.

 

(BTW, reviewers do not seem to be too happy with bonus caches, but they are allowed.)

A bonus cache runs on the concept of 'find two (or more) caches, and receive the coordinates for the final (or the next series)'. That is an entirely different concept than 'I'm hiding a multi, but want each step to be a separate cache.'

And nothing in the guidelines prohibits listing a multi as a series of unknowns.

 

If you wish to hide a multi, then hide a multi! Seems simple enough.

No it isn't. If you bothered reading his description of the series you'd see it's not just a multi. Each "stage" would be a whole multi on it's own. This series is huge.

 

But don't compare apples to oranges. "He hid an apple cache. I want to hide an orange cache, but call it an apple cache." Just doesn't work that way.

Just doesn't work that way? Then show me the guideline against it. The "this should be a multi because it looks like a multi" doesn't count as it doesn't exclude listing it as unknowns.

 

All I see is quibbling and entitlement. Ignore the facts all you want, and argue until Doomsday. Look for supposed loopholes, and claim entitlement again. That's all I see on this thread. Should have, could have, would have. If one is going to do anything out of the ordinary (such as hide a cache on the Space Station), common sense dictates asking the publisher/reviewer beforehand. If ones lacks that common sense, then arguing, ad infinitum, that 'it only says that I shouldn't, not that I cannot'. That's entitlement, not common sense.

So, blather on. Ad nauseum. Disecting the guidelines for misplaced commas is desperation. Try common sense instead.

[+Avernar]

It looks more an more like the rationale that people are buying into is that the rule against chaining bonuses is needed because some might turn a multi into a chain solely to reward someone with extra smileys.

That I don't understand. With the time and effort that Team Goju put into the series he could have easily created a 1000 cache power trail. That would have given out way more smilies.

 

I sure hope this isn't Groundspeak's rationale.

Then why did they ask him to turn it into a bunch of traditions with a bonus at one point? Same number of smilies.

 

It looks like the idea for this series may is to start out with some easier caches. The difficulty of the caches would increase with each level with the final cache in the series having the highest difficulty (especially if it counts the work done on prior caches in the series). The cache owner is providing an opportunity for cachers to proceed in the series until they difficulty of the next cache is too high for them. Doing this as a single multi may be too difficult for anyone to even try, but a series may have lots of cachers finding the easier white belt, and fewer cachers finding the next cache in the series, until you get to the black belt which will be found only by serious cachers.

That's a very good point that I didn't think of. The series was designed to get progressively more difficult. If this were turned into a multi it would mean only a few cachers would complete it to the black belt level. A lot of cachers would miss out on completing the easier caches in the series.

[+rjb43nh]

Avernar-“Then why are you arguing with me about a secondary topic in this thread?”

My first topic is I believe you to be wrong.

My second topic is Groundspeak states you’re wrong.

 

Avernar-“So you agree that Groundspeak and the reviewer should enforce guidelines that don't exist? The rest of us don't.”

First, “the rest of us” you refer to doesn’t appear to exist. Please read the posts to see that.

Second, the reviewer has stated this is a guideline violation and I agree.

 

Avernar-“Show me the section of the guidelines where it prohibits this sort of hide then.”

I don’t have to. I just have to point to the reviewer’s informed decision.

 

Avernar-“And I have pointed out to you many times that the logic the reviewer is using is wrong.”

And I have pointed out to you many times, the reviewer, who is the authority here, not you, has stated they are right. Who’s going to win this one?

 

Avernar-“Or he can gather support here and have people vote on the feedback item to allow these kinds of hides.”

Well we all know how well that worked with virtuals. This ain’t gonna happen.

 

Feel free to continue tilting at windmills but I’ve got to get ready to go caching tomorrow, maybe finding some great multicaches. Feel free to continue without me.

[+Avernar]

All I see is quibbling and entitlement. Ignore the facts all you want, and argue until Doomsday. Look for supposed loopholes, and claim entitlement again. That's all I see on this thread. Should have, could have, would have.

No need to be rude about it.

 

If one is going to do anything out of the ordinary (such as hide a cache on the Space Station), common sense dictates asking the publisher/reviewer beforehand.

That's the point. What he did is not out of the ordinary for Ontario. If he was trying something completely unheard of before then running it by the reviewers would be a very good idea.

[+Nozzletime]

Going through life you have all sorts of levels, the cache owner wishes to set up a small (9 caches stated in the first listing) series.

I went through school Kindergarten to grade 13 and beyond.

I went through different levels of scouts.

I played levels in video games.

I earned different certification levels in teaching and coaching sports.

How about the forces?

 

What is the problem with his explaining karate levels with caches that build on each other?

The guidelines are wishy washy.(PERIOD)

They are strewn all about with all sorts of local unwritten guidelines (nothing on Canada post property, you have to search the forums for that one.)

Don't forget Knowledge book 4.13(sheesh)

 

Bonus caches, 8 bonus caches is not what it sounds like, it sounds like you have to do the caches in the order intended.

A bonus is a reward for your effort.

eg. I found two caches and in the same area there is a freebie smiley because I wrote down the coords from the lid of the other two.

 

Lets get back to basics, he hid the caches,he wrote them up, he submitted them.

Puzzle or mystery designation is catch all, so they are correctly labelled.

Hit the publish button, why give him grief?

It is tupperware in the woods.

It is a game, we are not saving lives here.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service, so let's get them listed!

What's the problem?

[+Avernar]

My first topic is I believe you to be wrong.

Good for you. I happy you have an opinion. But don't condemn me for disagreeing with you in my thread.

 

My second topic is Groundspeak states you’re wrong.

So? Power trails were against the guidelines before but the community changed Groundspeaks mind.

 

First, “the rest of us” you refer to doesn’t appear to exist. Please read the posts to see that.

I need to read the posts to see that? Excuse me? You need to take your own advice and see the others that think as I do. I'm not the one who pointed out that the section of the knowledge books where this rule is located is not even labeled as and extension of the guidelines like Keystone said it should. I'm not the one who pointed out you can't get from the guidelines page to that section by clicking on the embeded links.

 

Second, the reviewer has stated this is a guideline violation and I agree.

Again, thank your for sharing your opinion.

 

Avernar-“Show me the section of the guidelines where it prohibits this sort of hide then.”

I don’t have to. I just have to point to the reviewer’s informed decision.

Thought so. So you couldn't find it.

 

And reviewers are far from infallible. They make mistakes. The fact that he got three different reasons for denying the series just shows that the reviewer was far from informed in this case.

 

And I have pointed out to you many times, the reviewer, who is the authority here, not you, has stated they are right. Who’s going to win this one?

The reviewer is not the authority here, Groundspeak is. We want to change their mind. It has been done in the past so why are you so insistent we give up and not try?

 

Avernar-“Or he can gather support here and have people vote on the feedback item to allow these kinds of hides.”

Well we all know how well that worked with virtuals. This ain’t gonna happen.

Worked just fine with power trails.

 

Feel free to continue without me.

Finally something you wrote I agree with!

[+northernpenguin]

I read this thread and what I have decided is the way the guidelines are written, we will soon need a bar association for geocachers where we can check our listings to see if they are within the guidelines, don't violate any trademarks and are not violating any patents. Or perhaps Groudspeak will start selling us Cache Acceptance Insurance, like that Title Insurance we all have to get when we buy a house.

[Keystone]

It would be far more profitable to talk about how the listing guidelines work, and how they were applied in this case, than to talk about reviewers making mistakes, reviewers being arbitrary, or geocachers being "wrong" in their postings. Fact is, the reviewer applied the guidelines the way all the reviewers have been instructed to do. Had the reviewer been wrong, he or she would have been reversed on appeal. The reviewer was right, so the focus ought to be on why that is, and whether you agree with the guideline.

 

When posting, pretend you are talking to the other thread participants around a picnic table at an event cache. Would you say the same things face to face?

 

Me, I've left the picnic table because I don't like the tone of the conversation. I am monitoring the thread in my role as a forum moderator.

[+Avernar]

Fact is, the reviewer applied the guidelines the way all the reviewers have been instructed to do.

Forgive me for being blunt but the original reason for the denial was a maintenance concern and that THE SERIES WAS NOT AGAINST THE GUIDELINES. My apologies for shouting but this little fact seems to have gotten lost.

 

The final ruling was that he should make it a multicache because it fits the definition of a multicache. This goes against all we've been told when picking a type is that if it doesn't fit a certain type, make it the catch all Unknown type.

 

Not once did a reviewer or Groundspeak give a guideline violation as a reason for the denial. And I maintain there is no such guideline.

 

The rule you found was close. But there's several problems with it:

 

1) The reviewer or Groundspeak never mentioned it.

2) It says "should not" which means that it is still an option.

3) It's in a section that can't be navigated to from the guidelines

4) It's in a section that's missing the "this is an extension of the guidelines" text you said it should have if it were part of the guidelines.

 

So it boils down to a maintenance issue. The CO gave them a maintenance plan and even said he would post the clues on the cache pages if any of the caches would be taken out of action. So is his word not good enough? It's a kick in the groin when someone can tell Groundspeak "I can maintain a 1000 cache power trail" and they belive him but when my friend tells them "I can maintain an 8 cache series" they don't.

 

So please Keystone, tell me that you can defend the above actions by the reviewers and Groundspeak.

 

Had the reviewer been wrong, he or she would have been reversed on appeal. The reviewer was right, so the focus ought to be on why that is, and whether you agree with the guideline.

Nice bit of false logic there. "The reviewer can't be wrong because Groundspeak upheld their decision" That assumes that Groundspeak is always right.

 

But I'm not saying that the reviewer interpreted the guideline wrong, I'm saying that the reviewer failed to provide a guideline violation. And that Groundspeak did the same error on appeal.

 

When posting, pretend you are talking to the other thread participants around a picnic table at an event cache. Would you say the same things face to face?

If they came to my table, didn't pay attention to what I said and then accused me of not listening to them I'd ask them to please leave. I can't do that here.

 

As for the reviewers, I'd be honest with them. If you've followed any of my posts you'd know I'm a big defender of the reviewers. But lately we've had a bunch of new reviewers come aboard and the consistency of the reviewer's rulings has gone considerably down.

 

Talking to other cachers there's a growing resentment towards the reviewers in my area and that's not a good thing.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Avernar

[Keystone]

The OP couldn't take my hint, so I am closing his thread. To all readers, give this subject a rest, and don't open another topic on this particular cache series.