The history of ALR (additional logging requirements) ??

[+SN67]

During research for a cache I'm making, I found out that in the good old days (in this case 2007) it was allowed to have additional logging requirements on ALL mystery caches. Not just the Challenges as it is  to day. When I digged deeper into history by reading old threads in this forum, it seemed to me that at some time there was no limit for the logging requirements on ANY caches!? 

A CO of a tradi could apparently legaly delete logs if the finder didn't do what he/she demanded (besides from writing in the logbook). Is that true? ... And if so, - how long back are we talking about? 

And when were the ALR totally forbidden for physical caches? (Except for Challenge caches). 

[+Isonzo Karst]

2000 - 2007 Cache owners could attach additional logging requirements to caches of any type, and they could delete logs of finders who did not comply. 

February 2007 Guidelines change: caches with ALR had to be listed as a Mystery cache. Older caches were NOT grandfathered; cache owners were instructed to either remove the ALR, clearly make it optional, or contact a reviewer to change the cache type to Mystery. Reviewers were told not to actively seek out old ALR caches of the wrong type but to respond when reported.

April 2009 Guidelines eliminated ALR, with an exception for Challenge Caches, adding a new section, The Logging of All Physical Caches. Challenge caches were newly defined as as subset of Mystery caches. The Challenge Caches article was created in the Help Center (then the KB - Knowledge Books) to provide public documentation  to what constituted a valid Challenge - but only reviewers knew the article existed 

None of the old ALR non-challenge caches were grandfathered, but they still exist here and there. Generally, CO isn't enforcing the ALR, and no one complains.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Isonzo Karst

[+SN67]

Thank you very much  

I'm surprised that the first regulation didn't happen until the beginning of 2007   

[+JL_HSTRE]

Is there any idea what was the first cache with an ALR and what the requirement was? Probably hard to tell, especially as the requirement may have been completely removed from the description. 

 

I'm guessing finders were required to take a photo of themselves with a disposable camera in the cache.

 

I'm not surprised the ALRs lasted awhile. Geocaching grew slowly during its first decade and it doesn't seem like ALRs were widespread so it probably took awhile for the problematic requirements (and problematic COs nitpicking) before the problem reached critical mass.

[+arisoft]

10 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I'm not surprised the ALRs lasted awhile. Geocaching grew slowly during its first decade and it doesn't seem like ALRs were widespread so it probably took awhile for the problematic requirements (and problematic COs nitpicking) before the problem reached critical mass.

 

I think that it was when the find became more important than the experience. Problematic or nitpicking COs basically are not a problem. But whining finders are a problem. HQ gave in to the appellants.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I never saw take photo  with camera in cache as an ALR. It was an option, with the CO promising to gather the camera and post the photos to the page, but rarely doing it.  Camera was film, often damaged,  and uploading the images required having them digitized, at various levels of cost.  (Cost fell over time,  to free for a couple of images from any roll).

 

Commonest was email with codeword from cache log, or words (from stages), and or with the how to of your puzzle solution.  Bonus caches were often "email me for coords". 

In Florida, it was common to add a codeword to the log of a micro, more so than other caches.  Why? I don't know. Those were the very caches where the log would be too wet for a codeword to survive long. 

 

These forums were full of complaints about log deletions on ALR, particularly on Trads. People were still printing pages, or loaded the text to a PDA, and the loc to a gps.  Travelers would find a trad, sign log, not bother to read the description, and then have their log deleted because they didn't email the CO with info from a nearby historical marker. And of course, the codewords on the soggy logs were unreadable PDQ.

[+niraD]

37 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Is there any idea what was the first cache with an ALR and what the requirement was? Probably hard to tell, especially as the requirement may have been completely removed from the description.

 

I'm guessing finders were required to take a photo of themselves with a disposable camera in the cache.

When I started in 2006, there were local ALR caches that required collecting certain combinations of the owners personal signature items, and posting a photo of the items as proof. There were also local ALR caches that required the log to be posted in a certain style (e.g., as a limerick).

[+hzoi]

I remember some caches that required finders to provide a "proof number" in their log, which was derived by...some formula of some type, I don't remember how it was calculated.  In fact, I don't think I ever really got it right, as I was depending on the Babelfish translator; caches weren't in my native language. I don't think my finds were deleted, maybe out of the novelty of having an American log them, or maybe out of an assumption I was too thick to properly translate the requirement.

[+Touchstone]

3 hours ago, SN67 said:

Thank you very much  

I'm surprised that the first regulation didn't happen until the beginning of 2007   

2007 probably coincides with the time frame that people stopped reading Descriptions

[+bflentje]

Either way, removing ridiculous logging requirements was one of Groundspeak's finest moments. A sincere thank you.

 

There was a point where the ALR's were getting stupider by the day, at least in some parts of the world.

[+rapotek]

2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Commonest was email with codeword from cache log, or words (from stages), and or with the how to of your puzzle solution.

I wonder sometimes if an option existing in another geocaching site would be usable here: a cache owner can lock the cache online "found it" log with a password there, you must know the correct password to log a find and this option is available to all cache types. A kind of system-enabled ALR, it does not eliminate a physical logbook signature requirement whenever possible.

I know, "people do not read descriptions and physical logbooks", "there are dedicated pages with solutions for mysteries and passwords would be there quite soon", "there would be complaints from '+1' founders" etc., but I wonder anyway...

[+VAVAPAM]

7 minutes ago, rapotek said:

I wonder sometimes if an option existing in another geocaching site would be usable here: a cache owner can lock the cache online "found it" log with a password there, you must know the correct password to log a find and this option is available to all cache types. A kind of system-enabled ALR, it does not eliminate a physical logbook signature requirement whenever possible.

Seriously doubt it.  Even you describe it as " ... a kind of system-enabled ALR".

[+VAVAPAM]

It's interesting to see what was obviously an ALR before, and whether subsequent cachers still follow through with it.  There's one in which all logs were required to "whine" about the find ... in x words or less.  Funny logs!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

When I started in 2006, there were local ALR caches that required collecting certain combinations of the owners personal signature items, and posting a photo of the items as proof. There were also local ALR caches that required the log to be posted in a certain style (e.g., as a limerick).

I did one that asked finders to write their log in pirate speak (the cache was on an island).  It was my 500th find so I also uploaded a photo (photoshoped) of me with a patch over my eye and a parrot on my shoulder.

[+JL_HSTRE]

3 hours ago, bflentje said:

There was a point where the ALR's were getting stupider by the day, at least in some parts of the world.

 

Someone, probably on these forums, one described ALRs shortly before their ban as "a race to the bottom."

 

3 hours ago, rapotek said:

I wonder sometimes if an option existing in another geocaching site would be usable here: a cache owner can lock the cache online "found it" log with a password there, you must know the correct password to log a find and this option is available to all cache types. A kind of system-enabled ALR, it does not eliminate a physical logbook signature requirement whenever possible.

I know, "people do not read descriptions and physical logbooks", "there are dedicated pages with solutions for mysteries and passwords would be there quite soon", "there would be complaints from '+1' founders" etc., but I wonder anyway...

 

I really like the idea in theory, but in practice I don't think it's sufficiently viable. Between people swapping code words as you mentioned, and the frequency in which cache contents are damaged or destroyed by a variety of causes yet the cache itself is otherwise findable it just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[+captnemo]

I owned a cache that was a seed cache.  In order to log a find you had to take a micro from the cache and hide it, reason being there were so few caches out there.

 

When ALR were banned I removed the requirement, which turned out to be the best thing that could have happened.  No longer did I have to be the cache police.  Finders enjoyed the cache so much more.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, rapotek said:

I wonder sometimes if an option existing in another geocaching site would be usable here: a cache owner can lock the cache online "found it" log with a password there, you must know the correct password to log a find and this option is available to all cache types. A kind of system-enabled ALR, it does not eliminate a physical logbook signature requirement whenever possible.

What problem are you trying to solve? The problem with type of confirmation ALR is that it requires you to assume all geocachers are cheating scoundrels who will always break the rules if they have a chance. Having that attitude is a much bigger problem than people sometimes logging caches they didn't find.

[+rapotek]

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

What problem are you trying to solve? The problem with type of confirmation ALR is that it requires you to assume all geocachers are cheating scoundrels who will always break the rules if they have a chance. Having that attitude is a much bigger problem than people sometimes logging caches they didn't find.

I just wanted to show a functionality which works elsewhere and nobody seems to have a problem with its existence. As for "all geocachers are cheating scoundrels": I hope nobody has that attitude, regardless of your suggestions. You may as well say that the signature in logbook requirement is really a suspicion that all geocachers are cheaters and there has to be a proof for the "found it" log. Personally, I would rather do not use such functionality, but someone else may consider to use it as an option.

As for damaged or destroyed cache contents - I suppose if almost no one could log a "found it", the pressure on performing proper maintenance or archive the cache would be even more ?

[+arisoft]

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

From time to time there have been cache owners trying to limit the access to the cache only for them who are interested in the cache theme and also participated to the experience they have created. For example some Adventure lab developers have brought up the fact that finding the cache without visiting the site is not what they want to tolerate. This is a real problem for them.

[+JL_HSTRE]

17 hours ago, dprovan said:

The problem with type of confirmation ALR is that it requires you to assume all geocachers are cheating scoundrels who will always break the rules if they have a chance. Having that attitude is a much bigger problem than people sometimes logging caches they didn't find.

 

Is it okay if it's only 1 in 10 geocachers? 1 in 100?

 

Look at the number of people who speed, park illegally, commit infidelity, steal, lie, etc. There are lots of cheating scoundrels out there. It's naive to think otherwise. 

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Is it okay if it's only 1 in 10 geocachers? 1 in 100?

 

Look at the number of people who speed, park illegally, commit infidelity, steal, lie, etc. There are lots of cheating scoundrels out there. It's naive to think otherwise. 

It's a question of whether you assume everyone is lying and cheating and treat them as trash until you get to know them, or you assume everyone's honest and treat them with respect unless you learn they don't deserve it. It's the difference between prejudging people, and interacting with people as individuals before deciding what they're like. 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 2 out of 3, it's still prejudice.

[+arisoft]

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's a question of whether you assume everyone is lying and cheating and treat them as trash until you get to know them

 

More I know them more I know they cheat. Some are even proud about cheating some are trying to cheat imperceptibly. You don't have to treat them as trash even if they cheat. I have understood  that cheating at some level may be one important aspect of this hobby which makes it more interesting and challenging.

[+dprovan]

31 minutes ago, arisoft said:

More I know them more I know they cheat. Some are even proud about cheating some are trying to cheat imperceptibly. You don't have to treat them as trash even if they cheat. I have understood  that cheating at some level may be one important aspect of this hobby which makes it more interesting and challenging.

I'm so sorry for you. I'm glad I don't cache where you do. The more I know them, the less I find anyone cheats regularly, and the more I find that those that occasionally claim a find for that cache they couldn't quite reach reconsider after I talk with them about whether they really care that much about a +1.

 

But the point in this context is that the proposal is to treat everyone like trash by demanding they produce the right code to prove they're honest. I don't really care much about cheaters, so it makes no difference to me how you treat them, but I do worry about anyone that's being called a cheater until they can prove otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about making it interesting and challenging. Are you talking about your efforts to thwart cheats? If so, then you must not like the secret code proposal, either, since it would make it too easy, right?

[+arisoft]

56 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But the point in this context is that the proposal is to treat everyone like trash by demanding they produce the right code to prove they're honest. I don't really care much about cheaters, so it makes no difference to me how you treat them, but I do worry about anyone that's being called a cheater until they can prove otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about making it interesting and challenging. Are you talking about your efforts to thwart cheats? If so, then you must not like the secret code proposal, either, since it would make it too easy, right?

 

Secret code method is guaranteed to fail for obvious reasons. It is occasionally suggested, also by myself. I feel that the main reason for cheating, especially self-deception, is missing guidance in guidelines. There is no definition for etiquette what you really are supposed to do. There are only minimum requirements to be abused by "criminal minds" Basically it does not matter whether you even follow these guidelines or not. Everything is in good shape until someone finds that the game is not played how they thought it should go. What happens then depends on the person. I have seen many kinds of responses. The classic example is suddenly archiving all caches.

[+JL_HSTRE]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's a question of whether you assume everyone is lying and cheating and treat them as trash until you get to know them, or you assume everyone's honest and treat them with respect unless you learn they don't deserve it. It's the difference between prejudging people, and interacting with people as individuals before deciding what they're like. 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 2 out of 3, it's still prejudice.

 

I prefer to let people start from a neutral point and allow the weight of the evidence tilt one way or the other.

 

Respect is earned, not given.

 

Requiring everyone to provide extra proof is not accusing everyone of being a liar. That's like saying a police checkpoint is accusing every driver of being a criminal. 

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

The more I know them, the less I find anyone cheats regularly, and the more I find that those that occasionally claim a find for that cache they couldn't quite reach reconsider after I talk with them about whether they really care that much about a +1.

 

I'm talking about cheating, you're talking about puritanical log signing requirements.

 

I log a find when I find the cache. I log a DNF when I don't find the cache, which is often. And if the inquisition kept questioning me because my name wasn't on log 100% I would quit caching. Especially in Florida where the climate means 1 in 4 logs is typically ruined. 

[+VAVAPAM]

.

Edited July 26, 2019 by VAVAPAM
deleted: response to coment not even related to the topic

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I log a find when I find the cache. I log a DNF when I don't find the cache, which is often. And if the inquisition kept questioning me because my name wasn't on log 100% I would quit caching. Especially in Florida where the climate means 1 in 4 logs is typically ruined. 

 

I see that we share same basis. Many owned caches and habit to log DNF when a cache is not found. Maybe it is a climate question but I do not think that I would quit if my logs are questioned.

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I'm talking about cheating, you're talking about puritanical log signing requirements.

That's right. As I said, I don't see anyone in my area cheating. THen I went on to say that even those that some with puritanical log signing requirements would consider cheating are normally not following those puritanical log signing requirements only because they've never thought about it before.

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

That's right. As I said, I don't see anyone in my area cheating. THen I went on to say that even those that some with puritanical log signing requirements would consider cheating are normally not following those puritanical log signing requirements only because they've never thought about it before.

I’ve had, on a few occasions, reported accounts that appear to log bogus finds over many States and/or Countries in a single day. I’m not sure an ALR is going to make those problems disappear, but that sort of “cheating” still does occur. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

19 hours ago, arisoft said:

Maybe it is a climate question but I do not think that I would quit if my logs are questioned.

 

I'm not offended at being questioned and occasionally make mistakes. For example, a CO kindly pointed out that I had logged a Find with a clear DNF log; it was an accident on my part I was happy to correct.

 

I meant if my logs were questioned on a regular basis. I log plenty of DNFs, am usually meticulously about my find days, try to write good logs, have a good personal reputation. It would get tiresome and annoying to defend myself on a regular basis because many caches have their logs reduced to a pulpy or crispy blob.