Jump to content

Looking for some suggestions


KBLAST
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I'm going to do my best to give as much information as possible ONLY to give backstory so I don't get bad suggestions due to being misinformed. The question I am asking in the end is... what direction would YOU take with my blog now? Some of you will automatically think this is trying to draw attention to my blog - it's not. If I wanted attention, I would have an updated blog. DUH!

 

I started a blog back in the beginning of July. I was trying to come up with a way to do a blog that would be fun and silly, highlight some fun caches, and would not give away spoilers that COs would be upset about. I attempted to win one of the retired geohamsters back then, but didn't win. Then the idea came - what if a wannabe geohamster (rejected geohamster) teamed up with a wannabe geohamster owner who was also rejected? And why does this hamster want to hang out with me? To learn how to be a PROPER geohamster! The problem is, he stinks at geocaching, therefore he could NEVER find any caches he sought.

 

Stash was created, and he started DNFing caches. I would take pictures of Stash and how bad he is at caching. Sometimes there were spoilers, but I asked for permission to place those spoilers. MOST of the pictures were of Stash being WAY far away from the cache and failing. He had a DNF for every day (I'm currently on an every day streak, so it wasn't too hard to pull off.) I also had a quick blurb at the bottom of each DNF pointing to the blog for "more information... there may be spoilers". If you REALLY want to see the blog, it's here. LOTS of locals loved it and even created two caches specifically aimed at helping Stash finally find a cache. Groundspeak even noticed the blog at some point and sent us a LEGITIMATE retired geohamster to help Stash!

 

I then got a note from Groundspeak asking me to stop the whole thing due to a complaint from a cache owner. I had a GREAT conversation with the lady at Groundspeak, and have ZERO COMPLAINTS about their final decision. Here is the ultimate decision: I am not to post "false DNFs" anymore as they are potentially misleading. I would always post my personal "found it" after Stash's DNF, but in essence, I was creating a "false log", and cache owners are responsible for removing false logs, so me putting false logs there creates problems. I'm also not to post any links to my blog on any future logs because it's advertising.

 

I've been mulling since these decisions were made about what to do now. I had so much fun posting "non-spoiler" pictures and having fun with the DNFs. As I said at the beginning, I'm looking for suggestions on where to go with the blog now. Do I start the blog over with a new premise? Do I pick up now after Stash's "hiatus" and say that suddenly he has learned how to geocache? Since he can no longer "DNF", what kinds of pictures do I take now? I won't post spoilers without cache owner permission, and don't want that to become the purpose of the blog AT ALL.

 

For those of you curious folks who are wondering what the "rest of the story" is, the cache owner's primary objections to the blog were my links to my blog in my DNF (something I didn't realize was a problem at the time but will stop doing now), false DNFs (I think it's sour grapes but understand Groundspeak's dilemma), and they claimed I placed spoiler pictures of their cache in my blog. In both instances the cache owner's cache was not even in the pictures and the pic was taken 50-100 feet away, and Groundspeak eventually said that claim was invalid.

Link to comment

Wow that is such a cute idea. It is sad you can't continue in the same vein but I guess I can see where Groundspeak is coming from with the false dnfs and the blog link. As a cache owner myself I wouldn't have an issue with it at all. It sounds to me like you need to move in the found it direction now. Maybe stash impressed tptb at Groundspeak and he has been in training for the last few months and he is now super stash the cache finding geohampster.

Link to comment

I don't understand why the blog link is a problem. If it's considered commercial just because it's on blogspot, then host it on your own web site.

 

The one Stash DNF I looked at was pretty uninteresting, pretty much just a link to the blog. I think I'd object to that. If Stash were telling a good story and posting the photos to the cache log, in addition to the link, that would provide something of interest on the cache page.

 

You could also post Stash's story as part of your Found log, so that there isn't any fake log.

 

Now, whether that CO was just irritable to start with, or got irritated by the fake DNFs, I can't tell. It does sound like the spoiler photos claim was bogus, though without examining all of them AND finding the relevant caches, I really can't judge. Hopefully GS won't ask you to stop posting non-spoiler photos. But I'd say just avoid this CO's caches.

 

Edward

Link to comment

Once upon a time caching was fun. People shared their experiences in blogs and some thought of clever or cute ways to make geocaching fun. Then one day Groundspeak decided that this is a serious game. False DNFs are misleading. Cache owners should be given some special right to control what others write about their caches in blogs on third party sites. In the so-called "spirit of geocaching" Groundspeak no longer takes a hands-off approach in all but the most serious disputes and instead sends emails to bloggers telling them what they can or cannot write.

 

This new spirit of geocaching is sapping all the fun out of the old spirit of geocaching. Sure there have always been some players to take the whole thing to seriously. They've created their own little rules for when you should log a find (and some even for when you should log a DNF). They've created an expectation that the cache owner can keep their caches spoiler free (and that spoilers, the name implies, spoil or ruin the fun for all, when in fact most of the time a spoilers tend to let more people have fun, particularly when easily avoided by those who don't want to see them). I say lighten up. Don't expect this game to work in a serious rigorous way. People are having fun with it. Though apparently Groundspeak has decided to go in a different direction :mad:

Link to comment

You could always go ground zero and actually DNF it. Just don't look particularly hard for it. If you don't find it, you don't find it. Come back in a few days and find it. *wink* *wink*

 

Sounds like we have stepped onto that slippery slope and it won't be long before we are barreling downhill on a crash course with the rocks below.

Link to comment

I think Stash is a pretty funny idea. My guess is that 98% of CO's would be tickled to be a part of Stash's adventure of futility. I would bet that if you contact CO's ahead of time and tell them that you'd like to take Stash for a visit and would they mind if Stash posted his log and non-spoiler spoiler photos to his blog?, only about 1 out of 50 would say no. And if I'm wrong about that and the ratio is a little higher? No big deal. You'll still make the day of the vast majority of CO's and get to keep updating a fun blog.

 

Use the pre-email to weed out the no-fun-niks and you should be good to go. I hope you continue on, and I hope Stash visits NYC sometime.

Link to comment

Stash was created, and he started DNFing caches. I would take pictures of Stash and how bad he is at caching. Sometimes there were spoilers, but I asked for permission to place those spoilers. MOST of the pictures were of Stash being WAY far away from the cache and failing. He had a DNF for every day (I'm currently on an every day streak, so it wasn't too hard to pull off.) I also had a quick blurb at the bottom of each DNF pointing to the blog for "more information... there may be spoilers". If you REALLY want to see the blog, it's here. LOTS of locals loved it and even created two caches specifically aimed at helping Stash finally find a cache. Groundspeak even noticed the blog at some point and sent us a LEGITIMATE retired geohamster to help Stash!

 

I then got a note from Groundspeak asking me to stop the whole thing due to a complaint from a cache owner. I had a GREAT conversation with the lady at Groundspeak, and have ZERO COMPLAINTS about their final decision. Here is the ultimate decision: I am not to post "false DNFs" anymore as they are potentially misleading. I would always post my personal "found it" after Stash's DNF, but in essence, I was creating a "false log", and cache owners are responsible for removing false logs, so me putting false logs there creates problems. I'm also not to post any links to my blog on any future logs because it's advertising.

 

 

Thats ridiculous.

 

A DNF means that there is no log in the book, so how could it be fake?

 

Such silly angst is why people don't post real DNFs.

Link to comment

 

A DNF means that there is no log in the book, so how could it be fake?

 

Such silly angst is why people don't post real DNFs.

While I agree in spirit to your reply, it is so full of puritan propaganda that it deserves a reply.

 

A log [signature] in the book is not what determines the validity of an online Found log or an online DNF. Certainly it makes no sense to log a DNF online if you did sign the log. But it also makes no sense to log a DNF if you never even looked for the cache. The idea behind logging a DNF online is that you attempted to find the cache and were not successful. If you made no attempt then you shouldn't log either a Found or a DNF. I suppose this is Groundspeak's stance: Stash the sock puppet never attempted any cache so there should not be any online logs from this account.

 

Given the number of people who have accounts for their pets or for their imaginary friend, is it only a matter of time till TPTB tell people to stop logging finds for these accounts?

 

Traditionally there has been a lot of tolerance for people who want to have some fun and be playful in the logging of caches. It seems recently, that Groundspeak has begun to take a more serious view of the online logs and gone beyond simply telling cache owners they can delete bogus, counterfeit, and off-topic logs into now telling cachers who are creating such logs that they must stop.

Link to comment

In the so-called "spirit of geocaching" Groundspeak no longer takes a hands-off approach in all but the most serious disputes and instead sends emails to bloggers telling them what they can or cannot write.

Look at the bright side, toz. At least your worry that Groundspeak will always mindlessly side with cache owners who cry "Spoiler!" has proven to be unfounded. From another thread:

 

I'd argue that if you want to keep your geocaching.com account you almost have to check with cache owners before posting anything.... One certainly would have to remove the material if a cache owner complains because so far there is no evidence that Groundspeak would ever rule in favor of the poster let alone that they even review the complaint.

Link to comment

I love the idea. I hope you don't give it up.

 

If I understand correctly, you've got two things causing a problem: the link to your blog in Stash's online logs, and the usage of "false DNFs." (Personally, I think the whole idea is creative and shouldn't cause any problems, but since Groundspeak has spoken...)

 

If you take out the link in Stash's logs, that should satisfy the "non-commercial" issue. One way you could work around this (although it requires more work for you) is to basically write Stash's blog entries twice - one in the blog itself and one in the online log (and you could put photos in both, too). That way you get Stash's cute story across in the online logs without any need for the link.

 

With respect to the "false DNF" issue, one way you could work around this is to incorporate Stash's DNF entry into your own "found" log. For example, Stash could speak first, detailing his doomed efforts at finding the cache ("Stash here, using Kblast's account on account of I forgot the password to my own...You won't believe what I went through trying to find this cache...[then from here you copy text from your blog entry]"), and then Kblast could chime in on the second paragraph ("Whew, finally managed to wrestle the keyboard away from Stash so I can get a few words in myself on this log. Well, he might not have been able to find this cache, but I thought it was a piece of cake...").

Link to comment

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:

 

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

(Change is highlighted in green)

 

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

 

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

 

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

 

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

Link to comment

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:

 

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

(Change is highlighted in green)

 

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

 

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

 

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

 

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

 

Thanks for the update and the honest appraisal, Nate!

 

Settle down, Toz. :lol:

Link to comment

A log [signature] in the book is not what determines the validity of an online Found log or an online DNF. Certainly it makes no sense to log a DNF online if you did sign the log. But it also makes no sense to log a DNF if you never even looked for the cache. The idea behind logging a DNF online is that you attempted to find the cache and were not successful. If you made no attempt then you shouldn't log either a Found or a DNF. I suppose this is Groundspeak's stance: Stash the sock puppet never attempted any cache so there should not be any online logs from this account.

 

That seems awfully puritanical to me. :blink:

Link to comment
Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

I think this is a good plan. You can't legislate consideration; trying usually generates sturm and drang and little else.

 

Thanks for the update Nate.

Link to comment

A log [signature] in the book is not what determines the validity of an online Found log or an online DNF. Certainly it makes no sense to log a DNF online if you did sign the log. But it also makes no sense to log a DNF if you never even looked for the cache. The idea behind logging a DNF online is that you attempted to find the cache and were not successful. If you made no attempt then you shouldn't log either a Found or a DNF. I suppose this is Groundspeak's stance: Stash the sock puppet never attempted any cache so there should not be any online logs from this account.

 

That seems awfully puritanical to me. :blink:

 

He said he'll settle down and have a donut.

Now you have one too, we'll pass them all around and have fun now.

:omnomnom: :omnomnom: :omnomnom: :omnomnom: :omnomnom:

 

(edit: can't speel today)

Edited by Sol seaker
Link to comment

Only if Stash actually 'tries' but fails... :P

 

In thinking about it though, there's really no reason why he couldn't... with any DNF, how do you really know how 'competent' the geocacher(account) really is? Just because there are 5 DNFs in a row for one doesn't mean the cache is unavailable, and there can be crazy caches where someone is still unable to find it. So how, really, is a DNF ultimately misleading? If you really care, you'd have to compare the DNFs to other logs by the same user to find out how skilled they are... I'd be more worried about a long time geocaching vet with very few DNFs posting one on a log, than an account that has zero finds posting one :laughing:

 

I love the idea of Stash - great idea. Hope it's able to continue :)

Link to comment

there are some good blogs out there,(I really enjoyed yours BTW) this one i found on one of my cache pages by a young lady, (https://picasaweb.google.com/103120189306196951541/AdventuresInGeocaching?authkey=Gv1sRgCJOp0rnh2eah9wE&feat=directlink&gsessionid=ojN9z6wrwcwnY38VWOUvUw)it has one of my caches in it, but i didn't complain because she does not list which cache it is in her blog. (and yes, it's definitely a spoiler pic of my cache). you might want to try something similar to what i do, for some extra fun when logging. (see my profile pics) I am very careful not to include spoilers or even background in a lot of the pics, no one has ever complained to me, (I've even received fan mail about it) and got a write up by Groundspeak. ( http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/01/go-geocaching-dont-forget/ ) and the running joke with our avatar is he always finds it first, hogs first pick of the swag, and taunts us about it. It is disappointing that whoever complained about you could not have contacted you directly rather than rat you out to Groundspeak. I have a feeling that you will be able to find a way to keep all parties happy. but i kind of agree a DNF log may just confuse other cachers when it was actually found.

Link to comment
but i kind of agree a DNF log may just confuse other cachers when it was actually found.

Which is why they said they follow each up with their own found log, so the last log is always found (presuming they find it). It's no different than say, a beginner who's not well informed yet of common hides we take for granted, logging a dnf :)

Link to comment

Maybe my understanding of the situation is skewed, but if the problems are false DNF logs posted by Stash, would changing the practice to posting notes from Stash allow for you to continue with your very creative logging style? It takes away a small part of the idea, but I think it still would serve the purpose and would still be lots of fun for those of us who actually like to have fun to read.

 

Stash can "DNF" any of my caches any day.

Link to comment

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:

 

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

(Change is highlighted in green)

 

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

 

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

 

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

 

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

Nate,

There's no need to change 4 (m) because it already says that. The section is headed

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums
.

So to say

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner

...is simply repeating what has already been made clear. Obviously as this is the Terms of Use of Groundspeak's Web Site, then the "Publishing Tools and Forums" are Groundspeak's.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I always hate it when someone starts a topic then appears to just fall off the face of the earth. I'm here, I have just been watching the comments because I really wanted to see some of the suggestions. I do want to chime in on a few things:

 

Thanks a ton, Nate, for letting us know about the changes and changing attitude. I can only imagine what a nightmare it is for you all at HQ dealing with everyone's little petty squabbles. As I was working with the wonderful lady who dealt with me on this one, I often thought to myself, "I should just drop this and let those poor people have a break. This blog ISN'T that popular, it was meant for fun, and it's sad this poor woman has to sit and mediate something that I would have gladly worked out with the cache owner had he contacted me directly." I'm so glad she was very considerate and helpful! As I said in the original post, no matter what ANYONE else's opinion is, I appreciate the hard work the folks at GS put into trying to keep this fun for all. I may find their decisions misguided from time to time and may disagree, but they were ABSOLUTELY wonderful with the way they handled the situation.

 

To answer Cup. - The CO said they didn't like me using their cache to advertise my blog, and they didn't like me posting "spoilers". I use the term in quotations because the two caches of theirs that I used had pictures taken 40 - 100 feet away from the cache with the cache location not even in the picture. I want to make sure it's clear that I NEVER intend to post true spoilers without a CO's permission.

 

OK - as far as practical solutions, I'm first going to reopen my ticket as suggested by Nate to find out what my options are and if anything has changed.

 

I'd still love thoughts and suggestions... if nothing changes, I'm actually planning to combine a few of the ideas stated here. Some are similar to what I was considering, but with some twists I hadn't thought of. :) That's exactly the kind of input I was hoping for. Thanks a bunch all!

Link to comment

they didn't like me posting "spoilers". I use the term in quotations because the two caches of theirs that I used had pictures taken 40 - 100 feet away from the cache with the cache location not even in the picture.

 

Which is *exactly* why this was never going to work.

Link to comment
There's no need to change 4 (m) because it already says that... Obviously as this is the Terms of Use of Groundspeak's Web Site, then the "Publishing Tools and Forums" are Groundspeak's.

While perhaps true in a technical sense, generally speaking, I'm a huge fan of making things extra-clear where possible.

Link to comment
Traditionally there has been a lot of tolerance for people who want to have some fun and be playful in the logging of caches. It seems recently, that Groundspeak has begun to take a more serious view of the online logs and gone beyond simply telling cache owners they can delete bogus, counterfeit, and off-topic logs into now telling cachers who are creating such logs that they must stop.

 

Playful logs are great, as a cache owner I enjoy receiving and have been known to leave them myself. Totally misleading logs such as logging finds when you didn't find the cache or logging DNFs when you did find it can confuse the owner and the rest of the community.

 

Fun is great and is why we are here, but when your version of fun can negatively affect others a line needs to be drawn.

Link to comment
Traditionally there has been a lot of tolerance for people who want to have some fun and be playful in the logging of caches. It seems recently, that Groundspeak has begun to take a more serious view of the online logs and gone beyond simply telling cache owners they can delete bogus, counterfeit, and off-topic logs into now telling cachers who are creating such logs that they must stop.

 

Playful logs are great, as a cache owner I enjoy receiving and have been known to leave them myself. Totally misleading logs such as logging finds when you didn't find the cache or logging DNFs when you did find it can confuse the owner and the rest of the community.

 

Fun is great and is why we are here, but when your version of fun can negatively affect others a line needs to be drawn.

 

How does that type of DNF negatively affect anyone other that the CO gets an unneeded email in his/her box?

 

Folks filter out caches based on DNFs? Well, in that case we really should stop suggesting that people log DNF anytime that don't find a cache regardless of the reason. We should probably start encouraging people to only log DNF when they are reasonably sure that the cache is not there. <_<

 

DNF is not a real indicator that the cache is missing unless you actually read the log.

 

If anything, I would suggest that the OP always post the DNF first so that his find log is the last log showing.

Link to comment

As mentioned, how does anyone but the logger know if they or didn't find the log (apart from a name in the log book)? There's no way to know if someone found the container or not if they log a DNF. It could be legitimate - at any time, anyone may simply just not have found the container, no matter how easy it is. A DNF itself should not be any indicator if the cache is available or not; a DNF should be taken in context of that particular cacher's logging style and caching ability, if anything.

 

Like geobain said, a DNF is only misleading if the person believes a DNF means the cache is not there. In the case of the 'fake' dnf, it's followed by a find, which effectively nullifies the DNF anyway - the cache was last found, it's good to go.

Link to comment

As mentioned, how does anyone but the logger know if they or didn't find the log (apart from a name in the log book)? There's no way to know if someone found the container or not if they log a DNF. It could be legitimate - at any time, anyone may simply just not have found the container, no matter how easy it is. A DNF itself should not be any indicator if the cache is available or not; a DNF should be taken in context of that particular cacher's logging style and caching ability, if anything.

 

Like geobain said, a DNF is only misleading if the person believes a DNF means the cache is not there. In the case of the 'fake' dnf, it's followed by a find, which effectively nullifies the DNF anyway - the cache was last found, it's good to go.

 

exactly !

Link to comment

I think the Stash blog is a cute idea, and entertaining. I also can see the concerns with posting 'false' DNFs and repeated links to the blog in the logs. (To answer GeoBain - yes, many GSAK aficionados use the 'last 2 DNF' filter to remove caches with recent DNFS, particularly when we are downloading a large number of caches for a trip.)

 

One suggestion: post a link to the blog on your Profile page. Many geocachers with blogs do that, and then people can find it.

 

If you decide to start posting Finds for Stash, he would be in good company, as there are plenty of dogs and babies with accounts and finds. :lol:

Link to comment

(To answer GeoBain - yes, many GSAK aficionados use the 'last 2 DNF' filter to remove caches with recent DNFS, particularly when we are downloading a large number of caches for a trip.)

 

Wouldn't the found log nullify the effect on that filter?

 

And couldn't the OP just be sensitive to caches that already have real DNFs? If I were the OP I would steer STASH away from caches with current DNFs anyway since he already seems to have a lot of trouble finding caches. :)

Link to comment
There's no need to change 4 (m) because it already says that... Obviously as this is the Terms of Use of Groundspeak's Web Site, then the "Publishing Tools and Forums" are Groundspeak's.

While perhaps true in a technical sense, generally speaking, I'm a huge fan of making things extra-clear where possible.

It's also true in an official sense, a logical sense and a common-sense sense as well as an English Language sense! But I agree that further clarification should do no harm.

Link to comment

I am not to post "false DNFs" anymore as they are potentially misleading. I would always post my personal "found it" after Stash's DNF, but in essence, I was creating a "false log", and cache owners are responsible for removing false logs, so me putting false logs there creates problems.

 

I think your blog idea was very creative and fun, and can't imagine what kind of a spoil-sport would actually complain about it.

 

As for the "false logs," I would argue that they weren't false at all. Did your toy hamster ever actually FIND a geocache? Of course not, he's a toy hamster! So it's true that he Did Not Find the cache, therefore it can't be a "false log."

 

Sadly, Groundspeak refuses to appoint me as the Supreme Arbiter of Geocaching Rules. Maybe I need to send them an updated resume'?

Link to comment

Maybe my understanding of the situation is skewed, but if the problems are false DNF logs posted by Stash, would changing the practice to posting notes from Stash allow for you to continue with your very creative logging style? It takes away a small part of the idea, but I think it still would serve the purpose and would still be lots of fun for those of us who actually like to have fun to read.

 

Stash can "DNF" any of my caches any day.

 

I also commend you on your very fun idea, but I can also see problems with a fake DNF. Pocket queries return the last five logs. Cachers frequently look to those logs for help when they are having problems finding it, and for other information regarding the cache. Having a fake log, even a note, would only be frustrating to a cacher in that situation. That said, it isn't any worse than a "TFTC" or blank log in that they all take up one of the five logs.

Link to comment

Maybe my understanding of the situation is skewed, but if the problems are false DNF logs posted by Stash, would changing the practice to posting notes from Stash allow for you to continue with your very creative logging style? It takes away a small part of the idea, but I think it still would serve the purpose and would still be lots of fun for those of us who actually like to have fun to read.

 

Stash can "DNF" any of my caches any day.

 

I also commend you on your very fun idea, but I can also see problems with a fake DNF. Pocket queries return the last five logs. Cachers frequently look to those logs for help when they are having problems finding it, and for other information regarding the cache. Having a fake log, even a note, would only be frustrating to a cacher in that situation. That said, it isn't any worse than a "TFTC" or blank log in that they all take up one of the five logs.

 

I was thinking about the false logs and those of no help. At least an entertaining DNF has a little value as opposed to those.

Link to comment

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:

 

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

(Change is highlighted in green)

 

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

 

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

 

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

 

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

:)

Link to comment

I admit I have not read this whole thread, but a great deal of the beginning.

 

I suggest you just have your hamster(s) post a "note" rather than a log. then they can still have their DNF's without misleading anyone.

I do understand the need to create "real" DNF logs, because we do depend on those to know if the cache is missing or not.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...