Too Many Rules, Too Many Bureaucrats

[+PinkDreams]

I agree, there are far too many restrictions and rules.

 

One of the first things that attracted me to Geocaching, was that fact that there were all levels of difficulty and I could do whichever I wanted, whatever difficulty I wanted. I liked the diversity and the fact that you had a choice.

 

A challenge cache is just that....”a challenge”. Either you want to or are able to attempt it or not, the way the person designed it. If you don't want to do it, then don't, but GC should not take away my right to decide what is right for me. Everyone should be able to create a cache in whatever manner they want. The seekers then decide what they want to do.

 

Limiting the creators ability to create in his own way (of course within the bare minimum guidelines that we have to have in society – legal etc) is not helpful or necessary. We are all capable of deciding for ourselves what we want to do or can do, after we see the requirements. A large variety and various difficulty levels is a good thing.

 

I have to agree with the person who stated we are dealing with a bunch of "whining babies", who demand more rules are made (squeaky wheel gets the grease), but by trying to keep these people quiet with more rules, we just enable them to do it more, because it works.

 

GC has unfortunately decided to try to pacify the whining masses when what they should have done is allow people to create as they want and then encourage the whiners to be proactive with the creator themselves if they personally had a problem with a cache or challenge. If they worked it out, great, if not, they should be told to move on, and that be the end of it. There are many caches and challenges out there. That is the great thing about Geocaching, there is something for everyone.

 

To use one more cliche, “Live and Let Live”

Edited September 30, 2012 by PinkDreams

[+ChileHead]

Everyone should be able to create a cache in whatever manner they want.

 

No, there has to be some set of rules to say what a cache is. You may not agree where the line is drawn, but there has to be one.

 

I can't put out a cache that says "Take a picture of yourself at location X/Y, naked, and post it to claim a find. There is no cache to find." That's not a cache, but it might be to the person who created it in the "manner they want".

 

You can't create a cache in "whatever manner you want" by saying "If you order a extra large mocha latte, the barista will hand you the cache to sign".

 

There are ground rules for what is and isn't cache, just as there are ground rules for what is and isn't a challenge cache. Argue about what those are, but don't argue that there shouldn't be any rules. Without rules we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[+PinkDreams]

No, there has to be some set of rules to say what a cache is. You may not agree where the line is drawn, but there has to be one.

 

I can't put out a cache that says "Take a picture of yourself at location X/Y, naked, and post it to claim a find. There is no cache to find." That's not a cache, but it might be to the person who created it in the "manner they want".

 

You can't create a cache in "whatever manner you want" by saying "If you order a extra large mocha latte, the barista will hand you the cache to sign".

 

There are ground rules for what is and isn't cache, just as there are ground rules for what is and isn't a challenge cache. Argue about what those are, but don't argue that there shouldn't be any rules. Without rules we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

I believe the things you mention fall within obvious guidelines that we have to have.

 

And by the way, if you are worried about being naked on camera, then you have the right to not attempt that challenge.

Edited September 30, 2012 by PinkDreams

[+The Jester]

No, there has to be some set of rules to say what a cache is. You may not agree where the line is drawn, but there has to be one.

 

I can't put out a cache that says "Take a picture of yourself at location X/Y, naked, and post it to claim a find. There is no cache to find." That's not a cache, but it might be to the person who created it in the "manner they want".

 

You can't create a cache in "whatever manner you want" by saying "If you order a extra large mocha latte, the barista will hand you the cache to sign".

 

There are ground rules for what is and isn't cache, just as there are ground rules for what is and isn't a challenge cache. Argue about what those are, but don't argue that there shouldn't be any rules. Without rules we'll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

I believe the things you mention fall within obvious guidelines that we have to have.

 

And by the way, if you are worried about being naked on camera, then you have the right to not attempt that challenge.

On one hand you say we shouldn't have rules and let the masses make any cache they want. On the other hand you say "ovious guidelins that we have to have". You can't have both! Either we have rules (guidelines) or we don't.

[+The A-Team]

I believe the things you mention fall within obvious guidelines that we have to have.

Okay, what about "Find 100 caches while walking on your hands"? I don't think another "obvious" guideline covers that. Would you be fine with people placing ridiculous challenges like this?

 

Like the others said, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. TPTB have drawn it where they think it should be, and they have every right to do so because it's their site.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I don't think Don was complaining about challenges being too difficult. It's more like they are too silly. Originally we had a 100 day streak challenge. People working on this challenge decided they wanted to own a challenge cache as well so we got a 25 day challenge, a 30 day challenge, a 50 day challenge, and a 75 day challenge. Some completed the 100 days and kept the streak going, so we got a 125 day challenge, a 150 day challenge, a 365 day (streak) challenge, and a 400 day (that's as far as I got) challenge. How many streak challenges do we need? Then there are all of the combination challenges. Find at least one cache a day for 26 consecutive days with a cache starting with the letter A on the first day, the letter B on the second day, etc. A few of these may be interesting and fun to do. But pretty quickly it seems more of contest to create the most convoluted rules to distinguish your challenge from the next. Or simply taking an exiting challenge and adding an extra component to it to make it "harder".

 

There is nothing in the guidelines that prohibit a challenge cache from being challenging. While the guidelines state that "Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so," and expand on the this by saying that "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers"; my guess would be that something like the "Fizzy" challenge would be allowed even though some people might be unable to find all the necessary 5 star terrain caches. Similarly a challenge to find caches on each continent may be OK even though some cachers may be unable to travel these distances. It think there rule is to prevent requiring someone from doing something unreasonable, except to a small segment of geocachers. For example a challenge that requires you to avoid specific caches may seem reasonable to people who already avoid them, but it is not reasonable, from Groundspeak's point of view, to make others change the way they cache in order to accomplish a challenge.

 

The restrictions on challenges are not meant to make challenges less challenging. Instead the guidelines have restricted a few types of challenges which Groundspeak and reviewers have decided are not meeting the intent of Geocaching being a lite fun activity. They seem to come from cache owners who are either interested in making people jump through hoops to get a smiley or who may want to call out a specific segment of the caching community (such as people who avoid all 1/1 micros by having a challenge that you find more caches with T/D of 2/2 or higher than you find that are 1/1).

 

Some of the restrictions are clearly based on the principle of keeping challenges in line with making Geocaching a fun activity. A challenge can't ask people to stop finding certain caches, can't be based on what other cachers found (and therefore a FTF challenge would not be acceptable), can't require the publication of new caches or cache ownership, and can't require logging of caches that are archived or disabled at the the time.

 

Certain other restrictions were deemed unreasonable. Originally requiring caches placed before a certain date, providing a list of specific caches that could be used to complete the challenge, or counted only caches found after the challenge was published were methods used to prevent "cheating". There was a fear that people would create caches specifically to make a challenge easier. Groundspeak has decided that these restriction are unnecessary. Challenge are for fun, and if some cachers create cache specifically to make a challenge easier, the challenge owner has the options of archiving the challenge or accepting that challenge caches will evolve over time and generally become easier to do. Instead of making rules to catch "cheaters", challenges should be based on rewarding accomplishments. If a few people cheat to get a smiley ---- what's that saying again?

[+WRASTRO]

To me this seems to be a pretty simple situation.

 

The OP wants to place a cache and list it on the GC.com website. The proposed cache does not meet the requirements to be posted on the GC.com website. The OP is not happy about having the cache idea rejected.

 

GS has been in the cache listing business for 12+ years and has a pretty good idea of what works for cache listings given the GS business model. What works has evolved over the years based on experience and feedback from users around the World. There are currently more than 1.9 million active caches and more than 7 million cache logs have been posted in the past 30 days. That is a large amount of data available to GS.

 

GS thinks the proposed cache is not in the best interest of the product offered by GS. The game and the business evolve but I see no reason to publish a cache that clearly is outside of the current rules/guidlines. Innovation is a good thing. Banging your head against a wall that has previously been scaled is another. If an idea didn't work before why should anyone think it will work now?

[knowschad]

I agree, there are far too many restrictions and rules.

 

One of the first things that attracted me to Geocaching, was that fact that there were all levels of difficulty and I could do whichever I wanted, whatever difficulty I wanted. I liked the diversity and the fact that you had a choice.

 

A challenge cache is just that....”a challenge”. Either you want to or are able to attempt it or not, the way the person designed it. If you don't want to do it, then don't, but GC should not take away my right to decide what is right for me. Everyone should be able to create a cache in whatever manner they want. The seekers then decide what they want to do.

 

Limiting the creators ability to create in his own way (of course within the bare minimum guidelines that we have to have in society – legal etc) is not helpful or necessary. We are all capable of deciding for ourselves what we want to do or can do, after we see the requirements. A large variety and various difficulty levels is a good thing.

 

I have to agree with the person who stated we are dealing with a bunch of "whining babies", who demand more rules are made (squeaky wheel gets the grease), but by trying to keep these people quiet with more rules, we just enable them to do it more, because it works.

 

GC has unfortunately decided to try to pacify the whining masses when what they should have done is allow people to create as they want and then encourage the whiners to be proactive with the creator themselves if they personally had a problem with a cache or challenge. If they worked it out, great, if not, they should be told to move on, and that be the end of it. There are many caches and challenges out there. That is the great thing about Geocaching, there is something for everyone.

 

To use one more cliche, “Live and Let Live”

 

Geeze... that sure is a lot of whining about whiners!!

[+ArcherDragoon]

This site is just one of many listing services...each with their own appeal and own drawbacks. Geocaching is not Groundspeak's game...but Geocaching.com is their listing service.

[+bflentje]

I love completing challenge caches but I admit that some are getting to be way out there in terms of requirement. And to be fair, I too own a challenge cache or two which probably crosses that line. I'd hate to see them go away simply because of how crazy they've become.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I love completing challenge caches but I admit that some are getting to be way out there in terms of requirement. And to be fair, I too own a challenge cache or two which probably crosses that line. I'd hate to see them go away simply because of how crazy they've become.

+1

 

I have three...

-Two are for the masses...one really easy one...

-One...for the really dedicated...

 

...that being said, I do understand what you are saying...being around when the ALR thing got way out of hand...I see a familiar pattern...and, honestly, it scares me a bit at what could happen...

[+JJnTJ]

Since Challenges have evolved and are now a totally distinct cache type, shouldn't they have a distinctive icon, too? They don't really belong with the puzzles and night caches and whatnot in the "Unknown" category anymore.

 

Here's hoping they don't water down puzzles next.

[+nthacker66]

I always enjoy how whenever someone (usuall a GS insider or a reviewer) needs to defend GS - the vanned response is "Groundspeak is just a listing service." Personally, that statement wants to make me puke.

 

What Groundspeak isnt:

1) They are not eagletarian - heck,there is no democracy, and the rules are not decided by the community.

2) They are not "just a listing service"

3) They are not held responsible for cache rules

 

WHat Groundspeak is - in reference to the above

1) They are a business. They have a CEO, executives and employees. They ultimately make the rules. However, the let the non employees (volunteers) aka reveiwers, enforce it. Therefor, reviewers get a big say in the rules themselves - too often though, the reviewers speak in their circle and to Groundspeak not objectively, but how THEY think the game should be played and therefore THEY get to decide the rules. The only thing that trumps that is if Jeremy and team thinks it will detract from the consumable products, otherwise, if the rules don't hurt container, logo, and swag sales, its the reviewers who run the show.

 

2) Groundspeak is far more then "just a listing service" They are a business who sells a product. And as I just said above, if the game and its rules either support the product or promote it, all is golden. They don't make money off of premium member subscriptions. Bless them for that, your monthly contribution pays for infrastructure. You get a decent service out of it. Nothing more nothing less. They do make money off of their logo, of of branding and reselling swag, containers, TB's, etc. And I will mention it yet again - their guidelines are set up to promote that because it is in their best business interest.

 

3) Segue into this one - They are genuises - in the fact they have no legal responsibility of cache placement, cache dangers, etc. Their rules are rather loose and it is up to the reviewer to decided if that cache is ultimately allowed to be where it is. Something happens, something with a municipality comes into question - it isn't Jeremy, or Sandy, or Mn10bike who sits in front of a county commision or worse yet, a magistrate, its the cache owner and a reviewer. If there are questions with state law or a state office that needs to be addressed, again, its not Jeremy who tries to educate them, it is a reviewer. That is how Groundspeak keeps themselves out of litigation of any sort and doesnt even need to wash their hands of any thing because technically and legally, their hands never touch the dirt. There are legal disclaimers that I bet 99% of cahcers have never even seen on here about Groundspeak.

 

What does all of this have to do with challenege caches? Everything. More then just challenege caches, but the sport in general - its about money and sustaining the revenue stream for Groundspeak. And guess what, I am fine with that. Hats off and all the credit to jeremy for building a successful business. Don't blame them for that nor blame them for develope a model that the rules rest in the hands of a few reviewers around the world who do try their best to be objective and for the most part manage that pretty well. Remember, they are still only humans.

 

But also, let us not kid ourselves - we have very little say over the rules as a collective. First of all, there are no real viable alternative listing services to really go to even if a mass exodus from GS were to occur. Secondly, too many people have too much time invested into this game to jump ship, so in essence we are "stuck" with the way the rules are set up and decided here. All we can hope for is the reviwers and GS who set these rules do so with an open mind while keeping the game viable.

Edited October 4, 2012 by nthacker66

[+niraD]

2) Groundspeak is far more then "just a listing service"

One quibble: When people say that Groundspeak is "just a listing service", they do not mean that the only thing Groundspeak does is act as a listing service. They generally mean that Groundspeak does not own the caches that they list, and that while Groundspeak has authority over the listings, Groundspeak has no authority over the caches themselves. (And that ties into your 3rd point.)

[+Don_J]

2) Groundspeak is far more then "just a listing service"

One quibble: When people say that Groundspeak is "just a listing service", they do not mean that the only thing Groundspeak does is act as a listing service. They generally mean that Groundspeak does not own the caches that they list, and that while Groundspeak has authority over the listings, Groundspeak has no authority over the caches themselves. (And that ties into your 3rd point.)

 

My impression was that he took the long way around, just to disprove his main point. In regards to the cache itself, liability, etc, Groundspeak is just a listing service.

 

As far as cachers not having a say in the rules. Actually we do by our own actions. Almost every rule that we have is the result of cachers pushing other rules to the absolute limits.

 

Don't drill holes in trees - I didn't, I set a screw.

Don't drill holes or screw things to trees - I didn't, I pounded a nail.

 

At some point is just becomes easier to say, Don't attach anything to trees.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Don_J

[AZcachemeister]

 

Don't drill holes in trees - I didn't, I set a screw.

Don't drill holes or screw things to trees - I didn't, I pounded a nail.

 

At some point is just becomes easier to say, Don't attach anything to trees.

 

People do love to play with semantics, don't they?

[+nthacker66]

2) Groundspeak is far more then "just a listing service"

One quibble: When people say that Groundspeak is "just a listing service", they do not mean that the only thing Groundspeak does is act as a listing service. They generally mean that Groundspeak does not own the caches that they list, and that while Groundspeak has authority over the listings, Groundspeak has no authority over the caches themselves. (And that ties into your 3rd point.)

 

My impression was that he took the long way around, just to disprove his main point. In regards to the cache itself, liability, etc, Groundspeak is just a listing service.

 

As far as cachers not having a say in the rules. Actually we do by our own actions. Almost every rule that we have is the result of cachers pushing other rules to the absolute limits.

 

Don't drill holes in trees - I didn't, I set a screw.

Don't drill holes or screw things to trees - I didn't, I pounded a nail.

 

At some point is just becomes easier to say, Don't attach anything to trees.

And that is all fine and good, but people shouldn't say that everything is objective or approaches objectivity when CLEARLY everything about caching, its rules (here and on other services),and the people who make thos rules, are purely subjective. And that isn't always a bad thing, it just means both don't pound your chest saying your objective nor should other people pound on you when you make a mistake (as a finder, hider, reviewer, business owner, etc.) - as I said, we are only humans.

 

And for the record, I do not disagree with the original poster - in its essence, I agree - not just too much beauracracy - but I think the power to make the rules is being misued on many levels, both intentionally and unintentionally.

Edited October 4, 2012 by nthacker66

[+tozainamboku]

And that is all fine and good, but people shouldn't say that everything is objective or approaches objectivity when CLEARLY everything about caching, its rules (here and on other services),and the people who make thos rules, are purely subjective. And that isn't always a bad thing, it just means both don't pound your chest saying your objective nor should other people pound on you when you make a mistake (as a finder, hider, reviewer, business owner, etc.) - as I said, we are only humans.

One of the issues has been that Groundspeak has had difficulty in expressing the rationale for the variou guidelines. In fact when pressed on this issue they tend to remain silent. That leaves the community to speculate on the reasons for the rules.

 

Is Groundspeak attempting to act in the interest of the "game" or just in Groundspeak's interests?

 

Are they more concerned with liability or with profit?

 

Are they responding to what a majority of geocachers want or just trying to appease a vocal few?

 

I doubt that rules are made just for the heck of it. It would be much simpler to approve all caches. It certainly would be simpler not to change and clarify them every few months. I have to believe there is some rationale behind each decision, though Groundspeak may not want us to know what it is.

[knowschad]

2) Groundspeak is far more then "just a listing service"

One quibble: When people say that Groundspeak is "just a listing service", they do not mean that the only thing Groundspeak does is act as a listing service. They generally mean that Groundspeak does not own the caches that they list, and that while Groundspeak has authority over the listings, Groundspeak has no authority over the caches themselves. (And that ties into your 3rd point.)

 

My impression was that he took the long way around, just to disprove his main point. In regards to the cache itself, liability, etc, Groundspeak is just a listing service.

 

As far as cachers not having a say in the rules. Actually we do by our own actions. Almost every rule that we have is the result of cachers pushing other rules to the absolute limits.

 

Don't drill holes in trees - I didn't, I set a screw.

Don't drill holes or screw things to trees - I didn't, I pounded a nail.

 

At some point is just becomes easier to say, Don't attach anything to trees.

I don't know what happened. That tree wasn't there when I hid the cache.

[+msrubble]

What Groundspeak isnt:

1) They are not eagletarian

 

'Course not. They're ranatarian.

[+jellis]

Funny I just had someone ask me why they couldn't get a certain channel on her TV. I asked her if it was Free or Paid TV. She said Free. I told her if she wanted that channel then you have to go to another provider.

If you want to play the way YOU want then go to one of the other sites that don't have so many rules.

 

I have noticed from when I started and stories when the game was started, how the rules have evolved as things changed.

Yes the first one (and Mingo) were buried. But they know now why you shouldn't bury caches or why you shouldn't attach things to trees, or place caches on private property, or make them look like pipe bombs.

Rules evolve as the game reaches more people and places.

[+jellis]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

[+WRASTRO]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

[+jellis]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

I have no problem with LPC caches. I consider them starting places for newbies. And you will see more logs on them then many other caches. I think I own a few, not by choice.

[+WRASTRO]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

I have no problem with LPC caches. I consider them starting places for newbies. And you will see more logs on them then many other caches. I think I own a few, not by choice.

I have no problem with real diificult puzzles or challenges even if only a small number of cachers will find them. Even if I won't find them. They add to the game.

[jholly]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

I have no problem with LPC caches. I consider them starting places for newbies. And you will see more logs on them then many other caches. I think I own a few, not by choice.

 

Now that is interesting. How is it you can own a cache but not by choice? Seems to me you either choose to own the cache or you archive it.

[+nthacker66]

And that is all fine and good, but people shouldn't say that everything is objective or approaches objectivity when CLEARLY everything about caching, its rules (here and on other services),and the people who make thos rules, are purely subjective. And that isn't always a bad thing, it just means both don't pound your chest saying your objective nor should other people pound on you when you make a mistake (as a finder, hider, reviewer, business owner, etc.) - as I said, we are only humans.

One of the issues has been that Groundspeak has had difficulty in expressing the rationale for the variou guidelines. In fact when pressed on this issue they tend to remain silent. That leaves the community to speculate on the reasons for the rules.

 

Is Groundspeak attempting to act in the interest of the "game" or just in Groundspeak's interests?

 

Are they more concerned with liability or with profit?

 

Are they responding to what a majority of geocachers want or just trying to appease a vocal few?

 

I doubt that rules are made just for the heck of it. It would be much simpler to approve all caches. It certainly would be simpler not to change and clarify them every few months. I have to believe there is some rationale behind each decision, though Groundspeak may not want us to know what it is.

 

All good questions to ask - and in my opinion here is how I view it

 

Groundspeak is attempting to act in the interest of the game that ultimately reaults in groundspeaks interests. Again, they are a business, first and foremost they must do things that will results in positive numbers for the business - that is the fine balance between what is good for the customer AND for the business.

 

They are concerned with both liability and profit. As a business though, if they can get away without being held liable and make proft - they will. And they do. Their disclaimers state is it up to the hider and seeker to determine what is doable - so someone crawling around in a drainage tunnel and dies in a collpase - as long as Groundspeak doesn't get sued for it, they will continue to allow it. I am not saying this particular type of hide should stop (i like tunnel cahces), but lets not kid ourselves - Groundspeak isn't concerned with peoples safety - and I am not so sure they should be - every activity we partake in is of our own choices. What my comlaint is, as a company, dont pretend to care and use semantics as such when the reality is, you don;t.

 

They respond to what they want and what their volunteers want - as long as it is within their best business interest. See a common tread in everyone one of my own responses? Its a business. And that is fine in and of itself. My issue is with people both in and out of Groundspeak to make it into something more or less then that. Don't pretend, dont lie. Just be honest.

[+jellis]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

I have no problem with LPC caches. I consider them starting places for newbies. And you will see more logs on them then many other caches. I think I own a few, not by choice.

 

Now that is interesting. How is it you can own a cache but not by choice? Seems to me you either choose to own the cache or you archive it.

Trust me it has happened and I am not going to let it happen again.

[+jellis]

And that is all fine and good, but people shouldn't say that everything is objective or approaches objectivity when CLEARLY everything about caching, its rules (here and on other services),and the people who make thos rules, are purely subjective. And that isn't always a bad thing, it just means both don't pound your chest saying your objective nor should other people pound on you when you make a mistake (as a finder, hider, reviewer, business owner, etc.) - as I said, we are only humans.

One of the issues has been that Groundspeak has had difficulty in expressing the rationale for the variou guidelines. In fact when pressed on this issue they tend to remain silent. That leaves the community to speculate on the reasons for the rules.

 

Is Groundspeak attempting to act in the interest of the "game" or just in Groundspeak's interests?

 

Are they more concerned with liability or with profit?

 

Are they responding to what a majority of geocachers want or just trying to appease a vocal few?

 

I doubt that rules are made just for the heck of it. It would be much simpler to approve all caches. It certainly would be simpler not to change and clarify them every few months. I have to believe there is some rationale behind each decision, though Groundspeak may not want us to know what it is.

 

All good questions to ask - and in my opinion here is how I view it

 

Groundspeak is attempting to act in the interest of the game that ultimately reaults in groundspeaks interests. Again, they are a business, first and foremost they must do things that will results in positive numbers for the business - that is the fine balance between what is good for the customer AND for the business.

 

They are concerned with both liability and profit. As a business though, if they can get away without being held liable and make proft - they will. And they do. Their disclaimers state is it up to the hider and seeker to determine what is doable - so someone crawling around in a drainage tunnel and dies in a collpase - as long as Groundspeak doesn't get sued for it, they will continue to allow it. I am not saying this particular type of hide should stop (i like tunnel cahces), but lets not kid ourselves - Groundspeak isn't concerned with peoples safety - and I am not so sure they should be - every activity we partake in is of our own choices. What my comlaint is, as a company, dont pretend to care and use semantics as such when the reality is, you don;t.

 

They respond to what they want and what their volunteers want - as long as it is within their best business interest. See a common tread in everyone one of my own responses? Its a business. And that is fine in and of itself. My issue is with people both in and out of Groundspeak to make it into something more or less then that. Don't pretend, dont lie. Just be honest.

Well if COs don't tell reviewers how their caches are hidden I don't see how it is GC fault. They don't go out and check to see if all caches are safe or within the guidelines. They trust us cachers to report issues and hopefully the reviewers will follow through.

[knowschad]

I'm confused about the whole thread.

Rules are there for reasons to keep things from going crazy.

Like we had a few ? Challenges put out in our area that unless I won the lottery, I can never complete them.

...

 

The examples noted and some that I have seen locally, tell me that Challenge caches are spiraling out of control, just like the virtuals and the ARLs. I just wonder how long until we get the news from Miss Jenn.

 

I don't agree. Good challenges have always been difficult; what I notice now is that more people complain when new ones are not instantly possible for somebody with 10,000 or more finds.

 

For example: I will never finish the CA Delorme challenges. Just not going to happen. No big deal; I just don't worry about it. I don't post a note berating the hider because I cant do it. Likewise, the Fizzy challenges are probably impossible for most cachers to ever get. Does that mean they shouldn't exist?

 

The biggest change I have seen is not in the difficulty of the challenges but in the attitudes of the seekers.

I understand what you are saying, but like some of the real difficult puzzles and Challenges, is why take up 528ft space if only a small amount of cachers will solve (or complete) them?

Why take up 528 ft of space with a lame LPC or a nano on a stop sign, etc, etc, etc. Some people like and enjoy them.

I have no problem with LPC caches. I consider them starting places for newbies. And you will see more logs on them then many other caches. I think I own a few, not by choice.

 

Now that is interesting. How is it you can own a cache but not by choice? Seems to me you either choose to own the cache or you archive it.

Trust me it has happened and I am not going to let it happen again.

 

We need a Paul Harvey moment here. I'm also puzzled by the "I think I own" part. Paul?

[+GeoBain]

Well if COs don't tell reviewers how their caches are hidden I don't see how it is GC fault. They don't go out and check to see if all caches are safe or within the guidelines. They trust us cachers to report issues and hopefully the reviewers will follow through.

 

Then conversely, if reviewers start asking how the hides are hidden, does that then make groundspeek liable for problems?

 

If so, I would think they'd rather remain in the dark and just be a listing service with no liability.

[+PeoriaBill]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

[+The A-Team]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

 

More accurately, the GeoBain user account has no finds or hides but has been used to make over 1500 posts in the forums. I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

[+The A-Team]

I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

That's exactly what a sock puppet account is. Here's the relevant clause from the forum guidelines (bolding mine):

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

If you can't stand behind what you say online, then don't say it.

[+Don_J]

I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

That's exactly what a sock puppet account is. Here's the relevant clause from the forum guidelines (bolding mine):

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

If you can't stand behind what you say online, then don't say it.

 

He's made it clear many times. He archived all of the caches on the other account and uses this account to find caches. He does not log finds, he logs notes, which we can't keep track of.

[+niraD]

Is the "GeoBain" account really being used "for the purpose of posting anonymously"? The account is clearly being used for purposes other than posting to the forums, even though it currently has no finds logged online.

[+GeoBain]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

 

I'm no one. No one important, anyway.

[+GeoBain]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

 

More accurately, the GeoBain user account has no finds or hides but has been used to make over 1500 posts in the forums. I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

 

Actually, I do use this account to geocache with. I sign logs with this account. I log into the geocaching app with this account. I just don't log my finds online and I have a long standing position on this that should be well known by now.

[+GeoBain]

I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

That's exactly what a sock puppet account is. Here's the relevant clause from the forum guidelines (bolding mine):

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

If you can't stand behind what you say online, then don't say it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I stand behind every single thing I say.

[+GeoBain]

I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

That's exactly what a sock puppet account is. Here's the relevant clause from the forum guidelines (bolding mine):

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

If you can't stand behind what you say online, then don't say it.

 

He's made it clear many times. He archived all of the caches on the other account and uses this account to find caches. He does not log finds, he logs notes, which we can't keep track of.

 

100% correct.

[knowschad]

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

Who are you? You have no Geocaching history??

 

I'm no one. No one important, anyway.

 

Yeah, but are you a charter nobody?

[knowschad]

I wouldn't call that a socket puppet, but rather a separate account used just for the forums. I suspect that GeoBain also has an account used for geocaching.

That's exactly what a sock puppet account is. Here's the relevant clause from the forum guidelines (bolding mine):

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

If you can't stand behind what you say online, then don't say it.

Too many rules, too may bureaucrats.

[Keystone]

GeoBain has properly explained the reason for his account history, so we are finished with that tangent. Peoria Bill, if you had concerns, you should have contacted GeoBain privately or contacted a moderator, rather than taking the thread off topic.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

They are concerned with both liability and profit. As a business though, if they can get away without being held liable and make proft - they will. And they do. Their disclaimers state is it up to the hider and seeker to determine what is doable - so someone crawling around in a drainage tunnel and dies in a collpase - as long as Groundspeak doesn't get sued for it, they will continue to allow it. I am not saying this particular type of hide should stop (i like tunnel cahces), but lets not kid ourselves - Groundspeak isn't concerned with peoples safety - and I am not so sure they should be - every activity we partake in is of our own choices. What my comlaint is, as a company, dont pretend to care and use semantics as such when the reality is, you don;t.

 

Um, when has Groundspeak pretended to care about safety? They've long published dangerous caches and stated that all risks associated with hiding/finding those caches were on the geocachers themselves, not the company. They've declined to publish caches when they haven't met the listing guidelines, but whether the cache is "safe" to find doesn't factor into the decision. You could hide a cache above a pit of molten lava and get it listed.

[+jellis]

This is one of the Challenge guidelines that is hard to prove.

 

"Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication"

 

Just because there maybe one cache that qualifies does not me there is "sufficient available".

We had to create new caches to be able to qualify for some of the Challenges out there because after the "at the time publication" some get archived and then there are none (well within 100 miles)

I was working on a Challenge "Forts" turns out most of the ones that cachers qualified for are now archived and you almost have to go all the way out to Utah, Texas or further to get them.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This is one of the Challenge guidelines that is hard to prove.

 

"Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication"

 

Just because there maybe one cache that qualifies does not me there is "sufficient available".

We had to create new caches to be able to qualify for some of the Challenges out there because after the "at the time publication" some get archived and then there are none (well within 100 miles)

I was working on a Challenge "Forts" turns out most of the ones that cachers qualified for are now archived and you almost have to go all the way out to Utah, Texas or further to get them.

 

That's why guidelines have to use nebulous terms such as "sufficient available".

 

Form what I've seen Challenges seems to be very much a regional thing. There are probably many places where one could complete a fizzy challenge or a "caches starting with every letter and number" challenge and never have to drive more than 50 miles from home. I think that the last time I checked, in order to complete either of those I would have to travel about 400 miles round trip to find the furthest cache needed to complete the challenge. I can't imagine trying to complete some of the challenges I've seen if one lived some place more remote than central New York.