Container/No Container/Log/No Log Ruling

[+Don_J]

 

Since you read the whole thread you already know that this is exactly what I was asking for. Please abolish the entire "must have a container" rule.

 

Then all we have to do is deface anything with the GC number and in the process, invite millions of people to deface it with their signatures.

Maybe YOU could start a different game for that. Call it "Geotagging" or "Graffiticaching". You could be rolling in the big bucks in no time.

 

Once again, if you had read the whole thread you would understand my sarcasm.

 

Well, I've read the thread and I do understand your sarcasm. Of course you don't want the rule abolished. What you seem to want is an exception for just this cache, so I have to ask why? What makes this cache any more special than if I strip the bark off of a log and hide it 1/4 mile away from your special cache. Why would one cache be considered special, worthy of an exception, when an identical cache isn't? Then, if a striped log is okay, why not a 2X4? Once we've accepted that 2X4 is okay, if some scofflaw dumps some building rubbish on the side of the road, I don't even have to supply my own 2X4, I just have to supply the coordinates.

 

The slope is incredibly slippery here.

[+wmpastor]

I believe the ruling on this a while ago was that a geocache needs to be a container holding a log, not simply a log.

 

If it were just a log, the arguement is that one could sign anything at GZ and call it a find, thus defacing via graffitti an area. "Sneaky" hides like that make it difficult to know that the "log" is the cache, and may encourage the signing of whatever you want, anywhere you want near the coordinates of a geocache and calling it a find.

That takes "throw-downs" into a whole new realm.

 

What would we call them? Write-ons? Write-downs?

 

Slippery slope.

[+redsox_mark]

It comes down to interpretation of the word "container".

To date, I haven't knowingly met anyone who did not grasp the subtle nuances of that word. It's just not that complicated. I suspect those who continue to hide containerless caches either aren't aware of that guideline, (monkey see - monkey do?), or don't care about that guideline.

 

To me that is not the point. It is not that people don't understand the word "container".

 

Consider the average cacher, who has not visited this forum. They have read the guidelines (but not analyzed the nuances of every word). They have found in the field examples of:

 

1. A magnet with a small plastic bag stuck on the back with the log inside

2. A magnet with a log behind it (log not attached to anything but held by the magnet)

3. A magnet with the log glued to the back of the magnet

4. A book in a library which was the logbook (and not inside anything other than the building)

 

They read again the guideline

 

Geocache Contents

Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

They like the idea of the cache which is a magnet with the log glued to the back of the magnet. It seems better than using a plastic bag as it will lie flatter.

 

My point is the average cacher is very unlikely to conclude that it is not allowed simply from reading the guidelines. For me - in caching terms, "container" means a physical thing that is hidden as a cache (and includes a log). I don't have deep thoughts about what "container" really means. And even if I did, I'm not sure I would conclude that #4 is allowed (but it seems it is).

 

I'm not sure if #2 is allowed or not. Here the log is separate, it is held by the magnet. The first definition of "container" I found is:

 

An object that can be used to hold or transport something.

 

The magnet is holding the log against the metal.

 

My point is: If it is important that cache hiders do not hide caches like a magnet with log glued to it, then it needs to be explicit in the guidelines that hiders see. Or to put it another way - I agree with you that the hiders aren't aware of the guideline (and yes they have seen other examples). But I can't blame the hiders when the guidelines do not make this clear.

[+J Grouchy]

It comes down to interpretation of the word "container".

To date, I haven't knowingly met anyone who did not grasp the subtle nuances of that word. It's just not that complicated. I suspect those who continue to hide containerless caches either aren't aware of that guideline, (monkey see - monkey do?), or don't care about that guideline.

 

I think folks can be pretty creative with the notion of what makes a 'container'...as I posted previously.

 

So I'm surprised nobody has come in to challenge the definition of "container". One could use the very broad definition "an object used for or capable of holding, esp for transport or storage"...

 

And yes, I get that the stricter interpretation is about holding WITHIN...otherwise a chair or a desk could then be called a container.

What if this log was in a pile of logs. Could this pile be considered a 'container' for the log that is signed? Maybe a ring of rocks or a larger log with a crack or split large enough to 'contain' the log that is signed? It seems to me the CO has some wiggle room here and is only limited by his own creativity.

[+terri2south]

I have found several "Flat" caches where the log (write in the rain)is simply glued to a flat magnet attached to an object. Disguised as a sign or label. Under these rules wouldn't all these caches not meet the requirements as they are not in containers? Personally I think they are pretty creative.

[Clan Riffster]

Also, your use of the word guideline is important.

 

Guideline Definition = a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.

I think that's the context I used. Certainly, that's how I view them. As a whole, there is a degree of flexibility built into them. As such, the term 'Guidelines' is appropriate. Within the guidelines, there are sections which the Reviewers are not willing to bend. When I look over the guidelines, and I see a sentence which includes words like 'should', I figure there's a chance that there is at least a hint of flexibility there, depending on other factors. But when I see a sentence which includes words like 'never' and 'must', I figure there is less flexibility.

[Clan Riffster]

Consider the average cacher

 

(but not analyzed the nuances of every word)

But that was my point. When I consider the 'average' cacher, obviously, my personal experience has to come into play. This experience indicates that the word 'container' does not have a great deal of nuance for the average cacher. In my experience, the average cacher knows exactly what Groundspeak means when they say a container is required. Because of this belief, and the continuing attempts to utilize containerless caches, I feel it goes back to either ignorance or apathy.

[+OReviewer]

So, in light of that I can guarantee there wasn't any deceit going on here.

FWIW, I don't think there was any deceit going on.

 

I do think there is a general lack of forwardness from MOST cache owners. For every review I do that has a reviewer note explaining what I might need to know to properly review a cache, I get 25+ with no information what so ever.

 

I have suggest to HQ that a reviewer note with information be required before it even hits the queue. This would save a ton of back and forth.

[+OReviewer]

I'm confidant that OReviewer did bend the rules when it was published, as he probably knew what it was, and figured at the time it would not cause any ruckus. It was only after it became disabled for a month when someone posted a premature NA, and resulting in several others making fun of them, which is what could have triggered the lockdown.

Your confidence was wrong in this case. I didn't pick up on it being a log to sign, "Log it", "log only", etc are pretty common as far as cache names go; also, as a finder, other than at an event, in over 10k caches, I've never found a "sign the log". It never crossed my mind that it might just be a log to sign.

 

While the NA brought me to the page (originally, I had no plans to do anything), the pictures on the page are what signed the death warrant.

Edited October 2, 2013 by OReviewer

[+Team Firenze]

 

Well, I've read the thread and I do understand your sarcasm. Of course you don't want the rule abolished. What you seem to want is an exception for just this cache, so I have to ask why? What makes this cache any more special than if I strip the bark off of a log and hide it 1/4 mile away from your special cache. Why would one cache be considered special, worthy of an exception, when an identical cache isn't? Then, if a striped log is okay, why not a 2X4? Once we've accepted that 2X4 is okay, if some scofflaw dumps some building rubbish on the side of the road, I don't even have to supply my own 2X4, I just have to supply the coordinates.

 

The slope is incredibly slippery here.

 

I don't have to defend what is special about this cache. The 30+ favorites take care of that.

 

If you want to do the same thing then I say fine. It's a nice cache, different than an LPC and it isn't hurting anybody.

 

Again, we get to the slippery slope turning this into somebody making trash a geocache. No, that would still not be allowed because it is obviously trash and takes no creativity. Not very hard to see the difference and if good descriptions were given to a reviewer it wouldn't be very hard for them to see the difference either.

[+Team Firenze]

I have found several "Flat" caches where the log (write in the rain)is simply glued to a flat magnet attached to an object. Disguised as a sign or label. Under these rules wouldn't all these caches not meet the requirements as they are not in containers? Personally I think they are pretty creative.

 

Yes this thread has made it clear that all of those caches should be archived (not my opinion but Groundspeak's).

[+KC2WI]

It is crazy to disallow this cache but allow the thousands of crummy unimaginative nanos, micros, and others thrown under a lamp post skirt, etc.

 

The cache has a log you can sign.

 

The log of this cache is easier to read and sign than the log in a nano. It will also never get soggy and wet like the usual pill bottle micro/nano.

 

There is no container but so what, the only purpose of a nano/micro container is to protect the (paper) log. In this case the "log" does not need protecting. You can't put any swag in a nano or most micro containers.

 

If you follow the rules to the letter, all nanos and micros and many other caches are are illegal because they do not have a logbook.

 

If the log you sign does not have to actually be a book ("logbook" implies a paper log book) then nowhere in the rules does it specify that the log has to be paper. Evidently the log you sign can be made of anything.

 

It is also not specified that the "logbook" has to be inside the container. A cache just has to "consist of" a container and logbook.

 

So attach a pill bottle to the log and you meet the rules. Seems to me that with 37 favorites, the people have spoken.

[+Team Firenze]

Consider the average cacher

 

(but not analyzed the nuances of every word)

But that was my point. When I consider the 'average' cacher, obviously, my personal experience has to come into play. This experience indicates that the word 'container' does not have a great deal of nuance for the average cacher. In my experience, the average cacher knows exactly what Groundspeak means when they say a container is required. Because of this belief, and the continuing attempts to utilize containerless caches, I feel it goes back to either ignorance or apathy.

 

I would like to take a poll to see how important average cachers feel the "container" is. Personally I never thought that I was searching for a container. I thought I was searching for something to sign. The containers as far as containers go are really just log holders. Nano, luggage tags, ziplock bags, film canisters.

 

So, I guess we have a chicken and egg situation. Are we searching for a container or are we searching for the log?

[+Team Firenze]

So, in light of that I can guarantee there wasn't any deceit going on here.

FWIW, I don't think there was any deceit going on.

 

I do think there is a general lack of forwardness from MOST cache owners. For every review I do that has a reviewer note explaining what I might need to know to properly review a cache, I get 25+ with no information what so ever.

 

I have suggest to HQ that a reviewer note with information be required before it even hits the queue. This would save a ton of back and forth.

 

That is an interesting point O. I like it. I never thought about the fact that you really don't have a clue what is going on at the GZ unless its in the description.

 

So, something like "film canister in guard rail" would be required.

 

Of course that would make it a lot easier for you to find on your non-reviewer account

[+Team Firenze]

It is crazy to disallow this cache but allow the thousands of crummy unimaginative nanos, micros, and others thrown under a lamp post skirt, etc.

 

The cache has a log you can sign.

 

The log of this cache is easier to read and sign than the log in a nano. It will also never get soggy and wet like the usual pill bottle micro/nano.

 

There is no container but so what, the only purpose of a nano/micro container is to protect the (paper) log. In this case the "log" does not need protecting. You can't put any swag in a nano or most micro containers.

 

If you follow the rules to the letter, all nanos and micros and many other caches are are illegal because they do not have a logbook.

 

If the log you sign does not have to actually be a book ("logbook" implies a paper log book) then nowhere in the rules does it specify that the log has to be paper. Evidently the log you sign can be made of anything.

 

It is also not specified that the "logbook" has to be inside the container. A cache just has to "consist of" a container and logbook.

 

So attach a pill bottle to the log and you meet the rules. Seems to me that with 37 favorites, the people have spoken.

 

Thank you for understanding.

 

We are in the process of figuring out how to add the container as we speak. Hopefully it will be done today.

[+J Grouchy]

If you follow the rules to the letter, all nanos and micros and many other caches are are illegal because they do not have a logbook.

 

No...the 'guidelines' state:

 

Geocache Contents

•Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Don't cherrypick to make your point.

[+edscott]

If you follow the rules to the letter, all nanos and micros and many other caches are are illegal because they do not have a logbook.

 

No...the 'guidelines' state:

 

Geocache Contents

•Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Don't cherrypick to make your point.

 

And it is "another type of log"... []

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't have to defend what is special about this cache. The 30+ favorites take care of that.

 

Don't fool yourself, out of 140 finds, its not as much as you think.

 

I have a nano with 20 favorites, an LPC with 19, and a micro with 15 favs. Personally, I would not have given any of them a favorite point if I had found them. They get plenty of visits and are out of the ordinary, but they aren't that great. The 15 pound ammo cans filled with swag that I lugged deep into the woods are what I would mark as a fav, but they get very few visits.

 

Your buddies cache would have disappointed me, as its in a parking area with nothing really special about it, other than being different. Why did the 103 other finders not mark it as a fav?

[4wheelin_fool]

Again, we get to the slippery slope turning this into somebody making trash a geocache. No, that would still not be allowed because it is obviously trash and takes no creativity. Not very hard to see the difference and if good descriptions were given to a reviewer it wouldn't be very hard for them to see the difference either.

 

There are plenty of well done caches disguised as trash. A clear orange juice bottle filled with orange paint and cement, with the bison tube accessed from below is one example. They get plenty of favorites also. But you would have them disallowed? How about taking those the skis off and come down off the slippery slope?

[+J Grouchy]

If you follow the rules to the letter, all nanos and micros and many other caches are are illegal because they do not have a logbook.

 

No...the 'guidelines' state:

 

Geocache Contents

•Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

Don't cherrypick to make your point.

 

And it is "another type of log"... []

 

Yeah...well, I don't think the "log" is really the issue here. It's all about the "container" which, in my mind, could be done in an interesting and elegant way without resorting to tying a pill bottle to the log or putting the whole thing into a jumbo zip-lock bag. It just seems to me the CO and his friend are stuck on "container" being something conventional or artificial. How about taking to large planks of bark and attaching a hinge to make it a clamshell 'container' for the log? How about a large PVC pipe wrapped in some sort of camo like fake moss or leaves...open on both ends for easy access?

 

He obviously was already trying to think outside the proverbial (and literal) box with regards to the log itself. Why not take it further?

[+Team Firenze]

I don't have to defend what is special about this cache. The 30+ favorites take care of that.

 

Don't fool yourself, out of 140 finds, its not as much as you think.

 

I have a nano with 20 favorites, an LPC with 19, and a micro with 15 favs. Personally, I would not have given any of them a favorite point if I had found them. They get plenty of visits and are out of the ordinary, but they aren't that great. The 15 pound ammo cans filled with swag that I lugged deep into the woods are what I would mark as a fav, but they get very few visits.

 

Your buddies cache would have disappointed me, as its in a parking area with nothing really special about it, other than being different. Why did the 103 other finders not mark it as a fav?

 

Special is obviously relative but where I live if I do a quick query out of about 40000 caches 37 favorites would put this one in the top 200.

 

I would hazard a guess that your caches have been out for more than a year. Who knows how many favorites this would have if it was out for longer.

 

And finally, only premium cachers can leave favorites so a better question would be why did 65% or so not favorite this.

 

Who knows and honestly I don't care. It is special enough to me to want to see it stick around and understand why GS wouldn't enjoy this kind of hide as opposed to getting rid of it.

[+Team Firenze]

 

Yeah...well, I don't think the "log" is really the issue here. It's all about the "container" which, in my mind, could be done in an interesting and elegant way without resorting to tying a pill bottle to the log or putting the whole thing into a jumbo zip-lock bag. It just seems to me the CO and his friend are stuck on "container" being something conventional or artificial. How about taking to large planks of bark and attaching a hinge to make it a clamshell 'container' for the log? How about a large PVC pipe wrapped in some sort of camo like fake moss or leaves...open on both ends for easy access?

 

He obviously was already trying to think outside the proverbial (and literal) box with regards to the log itself. Why not take it further?

 

The cache is in a gravel parking lot next to the delaware river. We can't create a giant box here. And honestly we like the cache the way it is. So, we are going to add a bison tied to the log just so it is legal. I don't like but we aren't going to create a construction project just fit into the rules.

 

Oh, and the CO is thinking of other creative caches base on these guidelines. He just sent me a picture of one. I will give you a hint. Think scroll instead of log

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm confidant that OReviewer did bend the rules when it was published, as he probably knew what it was, and figured at the time it would not cause any ruckus. It was only after it became disabled for a month when someone posted a premature NA, and resulting in several others making fun of them, which is what could have triggered the lockdown.

Your confidence was wrong in this case. I didn't pick up on it being a log to sign, "Log it", "log only", etc are pretty common as far as cache names go; also, as a finder, other than at an event, in over 10k caches, I've never found a "sign the log". It never crossed my mind that it might just be a log to sign.

 

While the NA brought me to the page (originally, I had no plans to do anything), the pictures on the page are what signed the death warrant.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

 

From the pictures it doesn't look that special to me, nor does the previous hide.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Team Firenze]

 

From the pictures it doesn't look that special to me, nor does the previous hide.

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion. There are many who disagree with you.

 

The great part is you don't have to find it. Or give it a favorite.

[+OReviewer]

Of course that would make it a lot easier for you to find on your non-reviewer account

Eh, I see so many caches, by the time I get out to find them, I have no idea what I'm looking for. Heck, the infrequent times I get a FTF, I often have no idea what I'm looking for!

[+Team Firenze]

 

From the pictures it doesn't look that special to me, nor does the previous hide.

 

 

You are entitled to your opinion. There are many who disagree with you.

 

The great part is you don't have to find it. Or give it a favorite.

 

Oh well, I am bored before I head out to place a special cache that you probably won't like and fix this one. So, I though I would add some more back up to the special argument.

 

"A fast find but REALLY COOL. TFTH!"

 

"I enjoyed this cache immensely and it gave me a rare belly laugh. Thanks for your ingenuity and a great hide. I am adding this one to my list of favorites."

 

Those two logs are from two cachers who are in the top 100 or maybe 25 (i forget - 80000 or so finds between the two) for finds in the US. They seem to like it.

 

Now, I know you are going to say "I don't care how many finds they have. Their opinion doesn't count more than mine".

 

Where that is true they have seen a lot of caches and obviously found this one to be at least a little bit "special".

[4wheelin_fool]

It's special only because there aren't many out there like it. That's because it is not allowed. Allow that and several others, and we'll see how special is. Let me get my chainsaw and saturate the area and watch how many new favs get posted.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm confidant that OReviewer did bend the rules when it was published, as he probably knew what it was, and figured at the time it would not cause any ruckus. It was only after it became disabled for a month when someone posted a premature NA, and resulting in several others making fun of them, which is what could have triggered the lockdown.

Your confidence was wrong in this case. I didn't pick up on it being a log to sign, "Log it", "log only", etc are pretty common as far as cache names go; also, as a finder, other than at an event, in over 10k caches, I've never found a "sign the log". It never crossed my mind that it might just be a log to sign.

 

While the NA brought me to the page (originally, I had no plans to do anything), the pictures on the page are what signed the death warrant.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

 

From the pictures it doesn't look that special to me, nor does the previous hide.

 

 

 

Is this really the special cache? The CO didn't even debark the whole log to make it easier to write on. Barely any effort went into creating it. Guaranteed that if GS approved these it would dominate forest finds --- take a small can of paint and a paint brush and every .1 miles slap a log with the word geocache and your done. Not creative or impressive and a detriment to the pastime IMO.

Edited October 2, 2013 by L0ne R

[JASTA 11]

Let me get my chainsaw and saturate the area and watch how many new favs get posted.

 

YEE-HAW !!!

 

[+niraD]

It is crazy to disallow this cache but allow the thousands of crummy unimaginative [snip]

Again, this isn't about whether any cache is "crummy" or not, or whether any cache is imaginative or unimaginative. The volunteer reviewers to not consider such things. They consider only whether a cache meets the guidelines.

 

The cache has a log you can sign.

Again, the presence of a log to sign isn't in question.

 

There is no container but so what, the only purpose of a nano/micro container is to protect the (paper) log.

For better or for worse, Groundspeak has chosen to draw the line between "geocache" and "not a geocache" here: a geocache has a container with a log. A container alone is insufficient. A log alone is insufficient.

 

Do you have a suggestion for a better place for them to draw the line? Because on this topic (what is or is not a geocache), the volunteer reviewers need a clear line.

[JASTA 11]

--- take a small can and a paint brush and every .1 miles slap a log with the word geocache and your done. Not creative or impressive and a detriment to the pastime IMO.

 

[+redsox_mark]

Consider the average cacher

 

(but not analyzed the nuances of every word)

But that was my point. When I consider the 'average' cacher, obviously, my personal experience has to come into play. This experience indicates that the word 'container' does not have a great deal of nuance for the average cacher. In my experience, the average cacher knows exactly what Groundspeak means when they say a container is required. Because of this belief, and the continuing attempts to utilize containerless caches, I feel it goes back to either ignorance or apathy.

 

Well I think we agree except for the part about apathy and ignorance. There are lots of flat magnetic caches out there. And as I understand it, in the past they were allowed. Now it seems this has been "tightened" (in guidance to reviewers?), but the published guidelines have not changed. I guess you can say the average cacher is ignorant (as they have not been told). So no, I don't think the average cacher knows that Groundspeak no longer allows "flat caches". Unless they read this forum how would they know?

[Clan Riffster]

It is special enough to me to want to see it stick around and understand why GS wouldn't enjoy this kind of hide as opposed to getting rid of it.

The issue has nothing to do with liking or disliking. At this stage, personal preferences are irrelevant. Jeremy himself could find this and think, "OMG! A chunk of wood! Brilliant!", and unless he exercised some sort of executive privilege, the cache would not meet the guidelines.

[+J Grouchy]

...Groundspeak no longer allows "flat caches"....

 

Is that so? http://shop.geocaching.com/default/cache-essentials/cache-containers/chewing-gum-nano-cache-container-1378.html

[+redsox_mark]

I would like to take a poll to see how important average cachers feel the "container" is. Personally I never thought that I was searching for a container. I thought I was searching for something to sign. The containers as far as containers go are really just log holders. Nano, luggage tags, ziplock bags, film canisters.

 

 

Well, you and I agree on this point. To me, "container" is the thing I'm searching for. When I find it, I expect to find a log to sign.

 

Because of this forum - and this forum only - when I found a flat magnetic cache recently I knew it was not allowed. But otherwise, I would not have given it a second thought. I found the cache, I signed the log. Seems fine. This is the point I've been trying to make. I think that very few cachers who have not read this forum (and aren't reviewers) would find a flat magnetic cache and think "You know, the log is part of the magnet, so actually the magnet does not contain it". Yes they know what the word "container" means in English, just like they know what the word "cache" means. But they don't have a deep philosophical contemplation about what container means.

 

So cachers will continue to hide them.

 

I have no issue if Groundspeak wants to draw the line here. I just don't see how cachers are supposed to know they have re-drawn it.

 

One last obvious point: If some guidelines to reviewers get tightened (for example relating to bridges or train tracks) and the hider doesn't know, well the reviewer will likely catch it. With a flat cache, most likely the reviewer will not know (unless sometime later they find it themselves). The hider isn't trying to break the rules or deceive the reviewer; they just don't know. The one in my area which was hidden recently was from a respected local cacher with 10 years experience and 300+ hides. I am sure he has no idea it is not allowed, and I can't blame him for that.

[+redsox_mark]

...Groundspeak no longer allows "flat caches"....

 

Is that so? http://shop.geocaching.com/default/cache-essentials/cache-containers/chewing-gum-nano-cache-container-1378.html

 

Sorry, I was not precise in my definition. I was using "flat cache" to mean a magnet which has no inside and the log is on the other side.

[4wheelin_fool]

Is this really the special cache? The CO didn't even debark the whole log to make it easier to write on. Barely any effort went into creating it. Guaranteed that if GS approved these it would dominate forest finds --- take a small can of paint and a paint brush and every .1 miles slap a log with the word geocache and your done. Not creative or impressive and a detriment to the pastime IMO.

 

I haven't met the CO, but I think the favs are partially because he is a local personality of some sort. Opening the 8"x12" logbook of one cache, I was greeted by the FTF scrawl of this CO in large cursive script, written in an unintelligible way for us mere mortals to comprehend, taking up the entire page. I'm guessing he may be a rockstar, or even a oracle, soothsayer, or some form of cult leader of sorts. I don't think he will respond to this silly thread, as he may be busy carousing in the keys with 72 young female nymphs. In any case, he has many great and inspiring hides, but this is not one of them. The key to creating a cache with many favorites is to place it somewhere where it will be visited often, and make it so unusual that nobody has found another. The number of favs can often be misleading, and is not always an indicator of how good a cache is.

[+dprovan]

And I GUARANTEE that if an outside business consultant were brought into look they be horrified that a volunteer is responsible for large part of a for profit company's customer service.

Well, I think you're dead wrong. I think a business consultant would be very impressed that GS has found a way to put the part of the product that matters the most to customers in the hands of customers, even before the consultant considered the saved wages and reduced legal entanglement.

 

Regardless, its my opinion and I am entitled to it. I am all entitled to try and make the game better. My feeling is that companies like GS that rely on such a large part of the public must learn to adapt or evolve or be left behind.

In my opinion, what you're missing is that this guideline is an example of adapting and evolving by plugging a hole that was starting to lead to an uncontrolable reduction in quality for caches of this type. One counter example doesn't wipe out previous experience that told GS that not having this guideline would make the game worse, not better.

[+fbingha]

I have been disappointed every time I have discovered that a cache I have invested time in finding is a container less cache.

 

- The log pasted in the back of a phone book

- The log pasted to a piece of wood that was hinged onto a road side sign.

- and yes, the back of a flat magnet.

 

So, yes, to me the point of geocaching is to find the container and the log within the container. If I found a log was the cache then I would be very unhappy. Hiding a log requires no skill. That is even worse than the leap frogged throwdowns found on a power trail.

The guidelines say all caches must have a container and you can play coy all you want but we know that Groundspeak does not think a log is a cache, nor a flat magnet, nor paper glued to something else.

Attaching a bison to your log does not make it a cache unless you put the log in the bison.

Better yet, just cut the log in half and hollow out a spot for the bison.

[+Team Firenze]

It's special only because there aren't many out there like it.

 

You are correct. That is why people like it.

 

 

That's because it is not allowed.

 

Technically yes but theoretically no. If I was creative and thought up this type of cache I could put it out with the bison or a pico in it. Same fun just with a container.

 

That hasn't been done. So, in our area, it is unique which is part of the reason people like.

 

 

Allow that and several others, and we'll see how special is. Let me get my chainsaw and saturate the area and watch how many new favs get posted.

 

 

Invalid statement because it is true for any type of unique hide.

[+Team Firenze]

 

Is this really the special cache? The CO didn't even debark the whole log to make it easier to write on. Barely any effort went into creating it. Guaranteed that if GS approved these it would dominate forest finds --- take a small can of paint and a paint brush and every .1 miles slap a log with the word geocache and your done. Not creative or impressive and a detriment to the pastime IMO.

 

 

To me, your judgement of the picture of the cache is superceded by the favorites and posivite logs left for the cache.

 

For the 100th time nobody is asking for containerless caches to be made legal.

 

We are asking that "good" caches be allowed.

[+Team Firenze]

It is special enough to me to want to see it stick around and understand why GS wouldn't enjoy this kind of hide as opposed to getting rid of it.

The issue has nothing to do with liking or disliking. At this stage, personal preferences are irrelevant. Jeremy himself could find this and think, "OMG! A chunk of wood! Brilliant!", and unless he exercised some sort of executive privilege, the cache would not meet the guidelines.

 

Are you reading a different thread? Is somebody arguing that that this cache DOES meet the guidelines????

[+Team Firenze]

Do you have a suggestion for a better place for them to draw the line? Because on this topic (what is or is not a geocache), the volunteer reviewers need a clear line.

 

Why do they need a clear stringent unbreakable line??

 

Why can't we just say hey this cache seems good? It seems fun. Its not hurting anybody let it go.

[+Team Firenze]

Is this really the special cache? The CO didn't even debark the whole log to make it easier to write on. Barely any effort went into creating it. Guaranteed that if GS approved these it would dominate forest finds --- take a small can of paint and a paint brush and every .1 miles slap a log with the word geocache and your done. Not creative or impressive and a detriment to the pastime IMO.

 

I haven't met the CO, but I think the favs are partially because he is a local personality of some sort. Opening the 8"x12" logbook of one cache, I was greeted by the FTF scrawl of this CO in large cursive script, written in an unintelligible way for us mere mortals to comprehend, taking up the entire page. I'm guessing he may be a rockstar, or even a oracle, soothsayer, or some form of cult leader of sorts. I don't think he will respond to this silly thread, as he may be busy carousing in the keys with 72 young female nymphs. In any case, he has many great and inspiring hides, but this is not one of them. The key to creating a cache with many favorites is to place it somewhere where it will be visited often, and make it so unusual that nobody has found another. The number of favs can often be misleading, and is not always an indicator of how good a cache is.

 

This actually made me laugh. Quite funny. I will have to send it to him.

[+Team Firenze]

And I GUARANTEE that if an outside business consultant were brought into look they be horrified that a volunteer is responsible for large part of a for profit company's customer service.

Well, I think you're dead wrong. I think a business consultant would be very impressed that GS has found a way to put the part of the product that matters the most to customers in the hands of customers, even before the consultant considered the saved wages and reduced legal entanglement.

 

How do consider one person out of 1000s of cachers "the customer".

 

I think you are more on target with the saved wages and reduced legal entanglements.

[+Team Firenze]

I have been disappointed every time I have discovered that a cache I have invested time in finding is a container less cache.

 

- The log pasted in the back of a phone book

- The log pasted to a piece of wood that was hinged onto a road side sign.

- and yes, the back of a flat magnet.

 

So, yes, to me the point of geocaching is to find the container and the log within the container. If I found a log was the cache then I would be very unhappy. Hiding a log requires no skill. That is even worse than the leap frogged throwdowns found on a power trail.

The guidelines say all caches must have a container and you can play coy all you want but we know that Groundspeak does not think a log is a cache, nor a flat magnet, nor paper glued to something else.

Attaching a bison to your log does not make it a cache unless you put the log in the bison.

Better yet, just cut the log in half and hollow out a spot for the bison.

 

You opinion does not match the logs or favorite count.

 

The bison tube of course has a log in it.

[Clan Riffster]

It is special enough to me to want to see it stick around and understand why GS wouldn't enjoy this kind of hide as opposed to getting rid of it.

The issue has nothing to do with liking or disliking. At this stage, personal preferences are irrelevant. Jeremy himself could find this and think, "OMG! A chunk of wood! Brilliant!", and unless he exercised some sort of executive privilege, the cache would not meet the guidelines.

 

Are you reading a different thread? Is somebody arguing that that this cache DOES meet the guidelines????

Are you reading what you wrote? Your comment was in regards to Groundspeak giving a blatant guideline violation a pass simply because they, (whoever 'they' might be), enjoyed it. I pointed out the obvious fallacy to your logic.

[+Team Firenze]

It is special enough to me to want to see it stick around and understand why GS wouldn't enjoy this kind of hide as opposed to getting rid of it.

The issue has nothing to do with liking or disliking. At this stage, personal preferences are irrelevant. Jeremy himself could find this and think, "OMG! A chunk of wood! Brilliant!", and unless he exercised some sort of executive privilege, the cache would not meet the guidelines.

 

Are you reading a different thread? Is somebody arguing that that this cache DOES meet the guidelines????

Are you reading what you wrote? Your comment was in regards to Groundspeak giving a blatant guideline violation a pass simply because they, (whoever 'they' might be), enjoyed it. I pointed out the obvious fallacy to your logic.

 

Yes the fallacy in my logic is that we should not allow geocaches that people like. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

I get it. It breaks the rules. You think if it breaks the rules it should NEVER EVER be allowed. Got it.

 

I disagree and think we the rules should be less stringent. Very simple. Two different opinions.

[+niraD]

Do you have a suggestion for a better place for them to draw the line? Because on this topic (what is or is not a geocache), the volunteer reviewers need a clear line.

Why do they need a clear stringent unbreakable line??

Did you read this reply from a volunteer reviewer?

 

Let's be honest here, just because there are rules does not mean that they are always enforced or followed. Just like 4wheeler you would like to turn this into us asking to open up the flood gates. That is not the case. We aren't asking to allow every single type of cache that doesn't have a container. Again like 4wheeler you attempt to make the link from this cache to trash. That isn't right or fair.

 

There are actually quiet a few rules to the game in my opinion (ask any new cacher). But of course they aren't rules they are guidelines. And, they are only enforced when a volunteer reviewer feels like it.

The guidelines were clarified on this point BECAUSE the floodgates were starting to open. It's also called "the slippery slope." If you allow one creative graffiti cache as an exception, someone takes it to the next level, and so on. Each time I enforce the rule on containers and logs, I draw a bright line that keeps us from going down the slippery slope and opening the floodgates. In the process, some creative ideas need to be modified, like the earlier example of a wooden log that's inside a giant ammo box.

 

I don't think the problem with allowing leeway is that the reviewers are currently overworked. I think the problem is that cache owners keep pushing the limits, and that drawing clear lines helps keep the reviewers from becoming overworked. And the extra work wouldn't come from reviewing caches. The extra work would come from dealing with cache owners who insist that their cache is special and deserves the same kind of leeway that some other cache received.

This.

 

Why can't we just say hey this cache seems good?

The volunteer reviewers judge which caches comply with the guidelines. They do not judge which caches are good.

 

I don't want the volunteer reviewers judging which caches are good. The volunteer reviewers don't want to judge which caches are good. Groundspeak doesn't want the volunteer reviewers judging which caches are good.

[Clan Riffster]

You think if it breaks the rules it should NEVER EVER be allowed.

Perhaps your issue has to do with reading comprehension? Have I even so much as hinted that this was my belief system? If you'd spend more time reading the guidelines, and less time on hyperbolic drama, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Clan Riffster