Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
arisoft

ALR or not

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
Quote

GC24KMN has an impermissible ALR that was added post-publication on 4/18/2016.  Had the language been on the cache page at the time of review, the cache would not have been published. 

 

It is easy to agree that description has changed after reviewing and it is quite possible that the reviewer would have not published the cache but stating that this is an ALR is not so clear.

 

A couple of weeks ago I questioned another cache for a similar reason. There was a mandatory checker you have to use to find a multi-cache. I got an answer from HQ stating that mandatory on-line checkers are OK and I am going to make use of this option myself in the future.

 

In both cases, the CO did not threat to delete any logs but it was quite clear that using the checker is a good option for the finder to find the correct cache.

 

I can not understand why the possibility to verify that you have found a correct cache is an ALR. It is a property of the cache and it is not related to the signing or logging process. If I say that the right cache container is red and logs to a green container are not acceptable, is this also an ALR? Huh?

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

As was stated in the other thread, GC24KMN has a "textbook ALR."  For a traditional cache, nothing's required except to sign the log inside the cache container.

 

For your example, you can go check your red cache container, if you feel strongly about the issue.  If a geocacher's signature is not on the logsheet for the red cache container, then you can delete that geocacher's log, if you feel strongly about the issue.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2019 at 8:30 PM, Keystone said:

As was stated in the other thread, GC24KMN has a "textbook ALR."  For a traditional cache, nothing's required except to sign the log inside the cache container.

 

The cache owner do not require anything else than signing the logbook - actually the owner did not require even the signing of the logbook in the description. What makes you think otherwise?

 

On 8/8/2019 at 8:30 PM, Keystone said:

For your example, you can go check your red cache container, if you feel strongly about the issue.  If a geocacher's signature is not on the logsheet for the red cache container, then you can delete that geocacher's log, if you feel strongly about the issue.

 

What is the difference when we change the red container to the container used in GC24KMN ?  If the logbook is not signed what options the CO have?

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What makes you think otherwise?

"When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

Sounds like a requirement to me. Specifically, it sounds like a variation of a codeword cache, which hasn't been allowed since before I started geocaching.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, an ALR and Agenda (e.g. the part about "bad apples").  Bonus points for effort.  I've heard of people trying to see how many Waymark Categories they can list a certain object or location, but I rarely see the same challenge applied to Guideline violations.  A for effort, but sounds like they geocided (minus the dramatic Archiving of all their Listings of course) back in May/June time frame.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, niraD said:

"When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

Sounds like a requirement to me. Specifically, it sounds like a variation of a codeword cache, which hasn't been allowed since before I started geocaching.

 

So you feel that you are required to do something. Do you think that the cache owner is really requiring this and why?

 

The CO could achieve the same result also with other means. For example giving a MD5 hash of the code written on the logbook. The result is the same. You may verify the code if you wish or just sign the logbook without verifying the code. Using the hash the result is almost the same as using a picture of the logbook on the cache description.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Do you think that the cache owner is really requiring this and why?

Yes, because the CO writes "When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the CO expects finders to "take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yes, because the CO writes "When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the CO expects finders to "take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

Your citation is out of context. It is under "Container verifier" paragraph and it is clearly an instruction how to use the checker. Not how to claim a find.

I can not see a word stating that you must use the checker to be eligible to log the find. It is evident that the CO should give longer instructions for those who do not understand without explaining.

 

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

Whether or not it’s an ALR seems a bit grey to me, but in the end it seems pointless. If there’s maybe a throwdown there, the owner should just go and check.  If they’re no longer willing or able to do so, then the cache should be adopted or archived.

 

Of course, if they’ve geocided or been banned, most of this is moot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Probably a pointless superfluous set of instructions anyway.  You can already get loads of trackable codes and Puzzle solutions on social media, wouldn't surprise me if this one is out there too.   Like the CO states in the Description...

 

" I thought it would be time to mess with your heads a little bit. "

 

Yeah, well there's loads of people that will likely mess with you right back buddy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Your citation is out of context. It is under "Container verifier" paragraph and it is clearly an instruction how to use the checker. Not how to claim a find.

I can not see a word stating that you must use the checker to be eligible to log the find. It is evident that the CO should give longer instructions for those who do not understand without explaining.

I cannot see a word stating that the use of the container verifier is optional. So there... :P

 

If the purpose is to let the finder know that the correct container has been found, then the online container verifier is not needed. There are other ways that are simpler, and that can allow the finder to determine in the field, without an internet connection, that the correct container has been found.

 

The fact that the container verifier is an online system indicates to me that there must be some other purpose, specifically to let the CO know that the correct container has been found. And that steps into the realm of keyword caches and ALRs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Whether or not it’s an ALR seems a bit grey to me, but in the end it seems pointless. If there’s maybe a throwdown there, the owner should just go and check.  If they’re no longer willing or able to do so, then the cache should be adopted or archived.

 

I understand that the checker is made for the finder to be able to avoid fake caches planted by other players without disclosing anything about the hide itself.

There is no indication that the cache is not maintained properly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, niraD said:

If the purpose is to let the finder know that the correct container has been found, then the online container verifier is not needed. There are other ways that are simpler, and that can allow the finder to determine in the field, without an internet connection, that the correct container has been found.

 

Yes - there are other ways like MD5 hash. But all of them are equally optional like the color of the cache container.

 

19 minutes ago, niraD said:

The fact that the container verifier is an online system indicates to me that there must be some other purpose, specifically to let the CO know that the correct container has been found. And that steps into the realm of keyword caches and ALRs.

 

On-line checkers are allowed for multi-caches and not considered ALRs.

 

I have geochecker in one of my traditional caches https://coord.info/GC2G4YY

My cache description gives direct instructions to use the checker to report the find. This is a reviewed cache description and never ever has any mentioned an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I have geochecker in one of my traditional caches https://coord.info/GC2G4YY

My cache description gives direct instructions to use the checker to report the find. This is a reviewed cache description and never ever has any mentioned an ALR.

Admittedly, I'm working with Google's translation, but it looks like you've hidden the request/requirement to use the checker in colorful thematic language. Perhaps that colorful thematic language hid the nature of the requirement from your volunteer reviewer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

On-line checkers are allowed for multi-caches and not considered ALRs.

 

Those online checkers are for confirming coordinates. That isn't what's happening in the case in question.

 

Quote

I have geochecker in one of my traditional caches https://coord.info/GC2G4YY

My cache description gives direct instructions to use the checker to report the find. This is a reviewed cache description and never ever has any mentioned an ALR.

 

Like niraD, I'm at the mercy of the Google translation, but it sounds like this is a puzzle listed as a traditional, with a checker you use to get the coordinates for the final. If you do require* that finders use the checker before they log their find, then that's a clear ALR, whether it was caught by the reviewer or not.

 

*as in, you'll delete logs if they don't use the checker

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Search alr on help center and it is clear:

3.3. Additional logging requirements (ALR)

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. 

If you own an existing cache that has a mandatory ALR, you must: 

  • Edit the text of your cache page to make the ALR optional, or remove it.
  • Cache owners must not delete logs based on ALRs. This applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009.

 

 

Now if it truly bothers you that someone is going to find a throw down or fake the log altogether then why not work the ALR into a mystery cache or multi cache. Personally if I find a throw down and the CO did not bother to maintain I expect my find to count. I did my bit by finding and signing a log. Sometimes I don't bother to read the descriptions or hints. Can't tell you how many bonus caches (mystery) I've missed out on because I did not grab the code word. There are so many caches out there what's the deal with missing one? 

 

One of my hides was a recycled location. I found three throw downs on the same tree. It happens no skin off my back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, The A-Team said:
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

On-line checkers are allowed for multi-caches and not considered ALRs.

 

Those online checkers are for confirming coordinates. That isn't what's happening in the case in question.

 

No, on-line checkers are allowed also for mandatory use. This is why I asked this from the HQ. In that case you get final coordinates from on-line checker with passcode.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Like niraD, I'm at the mercy of the Google translation, but it sounds like this is a puzzle listed as a traditional, with a checker you use to get the coordinates for the final. If you do require* that finders use the checker before they log their find, then that's a clear ALR, whether it was caught by the reviewer or not.

 

There is no word that the the checker is optional :D:D:D

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, MNTA said:

Now if it truly bothers you that someone is going to find a throw down or fake the log altogether then why not work the ALR into a mystery cache or multi cache.

 

If you make a throwdown yourself, you absolutely know that you are signing a wrong cache. The real problem is when you put a throwdown as a prank for the next finder who thinks that it is a genuine cache with an empty logbook inside.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I’m missing the subtleties of the caches being discussed above, but my understanding is that...

 

Any checker / verifier that helps you get your signature in the logbook is fine, even when mandatory.  For example, a keyword checker that gives you the coords for a puzzle, or a coordinate checker that also gives the code for a padlocked cache.

 

However, something to verify you’ve signed the correct logbook must be optional, otherwise it’s an ALR.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

So you feel that you are required to do something. Do you think that the cache owner is really requiring this and why?

 

The CO could achieve the same result also with other means. For example giving a MD5 hash of the code written on the logbook. The result is the same. You may verify the code if you wish or just sign the logbook without verifying the code. Using the hash the result is almost the same as using a picture of the logbook on the cache description.

 

If I found the cache, signed the log and  posted a Found It log online, then the CO deleted that log because I didn't send  MD5 has (or 4 digit code), that would be a textbook example of an ALR.  The only requirement for posting a Found It log is finding the cache and signing the physical log.  Any other "requirement" the CO tries to impose on finders is additional and is not allowed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, arisoft said:

Do you think that the cache owner is really requiring this and why?

 

Of course he is.  If he's going to create something that verifies a find and then not use it and not require finders to use it, that seems a bit counterproductive to me.  If it's an optional component of the cache, then why create it in the first place?

 

Why?  Seriously?  To prevent people from claiming false finds (either via throwdown or an armchair log).  

 

16 hours ago, arisoft said:

The CO could achieve the same result also with other means. For example giving a MD5 hash of the code written on the logbook. The result is the same. You may verify the code if you wish or just sign the logbook without verifying the code. Using the hash the result is almost the same as using a picture of the logbook on the cache description.

 

If the CO opts to delete the log of a finder who does the bold above without verifying the signature in the logbook, it then becomes a requirement of finding the cache and isn't allowed.  Again, if it's an optional means of claiming the find, then it's fine but it you have to do something else that is required, then it's an ALR.  It's up to the CO to verify the find by verifying that the signature is in the logbook.  The finder signs the log to prove they found it; that's all that's required on their part.   It's not up to the finder to verify the find by using another thing in place that the CO requires you to use. 

 

16 hours ago, arisoft said:

It is evident that the CO should give longer instructions for those who do not understand without explaining.

 

The fact that multiple English as a first language cachers believe this to be a command rather than a "request" that's not really needed should show that the problem is with the CO and their use of the English language, not with the interpretation we all have come to agree is a requirement.  This CO did NOT use language that clearly stated this was an optional task, as the guidelines state. An English as a first language reviewer has concurred with our assessment of the language used.   As it's written, it's a command to do this, not an optional task.

 

15 hours ago, arisoft said:

I understand that the checker is made for the finder to be able to avoid fake caches planted by other players without disclosing anything about the hide itself.

There is no indication that the cache is not maintained properly.

 

If that's their SOLE method of verifying a find (rather than going out to visually verify the log), then it's an ALR.  There's nothing to indicate otherwise.  There's nothing stating that this verifier isn't required; there's nothing stating this verifier is required.  In the absence of stating that you do not need to use it, the implication is that you do need to use it to claim the find.

 

15 hours ago, arisoft said:

On-line checkers are allowed for multi-caches and not considered ALRs.

 

Because, as already mentioned, they verify the coordinates for the next stage or the final, not the find.  If you require them to use an online checker in order to claim the find, then that's an ALR.

 

15 hours ago, arisoft said:

My cache description gives direct instructions to use the checker to report the find. This is a reviewed cache description and never ever has any mentioned an ALR.

 

But if you look at the number of people who have used the checker, it pales in comparison to the number of finds, which shows that it's not truly "required" to use.  I see 92 green lights and 703 finds.  It's not needed to claim the find or verify the coordinates so it's an optional item that many choose not to do.  If you had deleted their finds solely because they didn't use the checker, then it would be an ALR.

 

I do have to ask.  If it's a traditional cache but not hidden at the posted coordinates, how did you get it published?  This seems to me to be a puzzle cache rather than a traditional cache.

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

No, on-line checkers are allowed also for mandatory use. This is why I asked this from the HQ. In that case you get final coordinates from on-line checker with passcode.

 

It's verifying the coordinates of the final, not the find of the final.  That's permissible. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If I found the cache, signed the log and  posted a Found It log online, then the CO deleted that log because I didn't send  MD5 has (or 4 digit code), that would be a textbook example of an ALR.  The only requirement for posting a Found It log is finding the cache and signing the physical log.  Any other "requirement" the CO tries to impose on finders is additional and is not allowed.

 

Right but this is not the case here. There is no evidence that CO is requiring more than a signed logbook. I would call this an imaginary ALR.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

This is all speculation, and the argument back and forth will go on forever. Want to know for sure if it's an imaginary ALR or a real one? Go find the cache, sign the log, and don't use the verifier. See what happens.

 

QED.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I do have to ask.  If it's a traditional cache but not hidden at the posted coordinates, how did you get it published?  This seems to me to be a puzzle cache rather than a traditional cache.

 

Good questions because facts are against your reasonging in both cases. :D Try the checker to find out.

 

54 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

t's verifying the coordinates of the final, not the find of the final.  That's permissible.  

 

As I told in another post, the checker I questioned is a passcode checker. You must enter right passcode to get coordinates to the final. I was surprised when I was told by the HQ that it is OK.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

As I told in another post, the checker I questioned is a passcode checker. You must enter right passcode to get coordinates to the final. I was surprised when I was told by the HQ that it is OK.

 

Surely there are many examples of this?  The certitude checker, for example, allows for keyword validation and I’ve seen this used in lots of puzzles.  Are you describing something different?

 

Here's one I solved recently:

https://coord.info/GC809F0

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

As I told in another post, the checker I questioned is a passcode checker. You must enter right passcode to get coordinates to the final. I was surprised when I was told by the HQ that it is OK.

 

Surely there are many examples of this?  The certitude checker, for example, allows for keyword validation and I’ve seen this used in lots of puzzles.  Are you describing something different?

 

Using on-line tools with puzzle caches is quite normal. I am talking about multi-caches and requirements before you are able to sign the logbook.

 

Quote

A key difference between Mystery and Multi-Caches is that Mystery Caches require additional research that goes beyond reading the cache page.

 

I found that there are more than one multi-cache which are using an on-line passcode checker tool that goes beyond reading the cache page. It is not possible to find those caches using a GPSr and printed cache description. You need a smartphone or another solution to access the checker on-field. Because I hate using checkers and using captchas on-field, I asked from the HQ whether this is a correct way to construct a multi-cache and it is. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Using on-line tools with puzzle caches is quite normal. I am talking about multi-caches and requirements before you are able to sign the logbook.

 

Got it.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Using on-line tools with puzzle caches is quite normal. I am talking about multi-caches and requirements before you are able to sign the logbook.

 

 

I found that there are more than one multi-cache which are using an on-line passcode checker tool that goes beyond reading the cache page. It is not possible to find those caches using a GPSr and printed cache description. You need a smartphone or another solution to access the checker on-field. Because I hate using checkers and using captchas on-field, I asked from the HQ whether this is a correct way to construct a multi-cache and it is. Case closed.

 

The cache in the OP is not a Puzzle nor Multi-Cache, it's a Traditional.  Case re-opened. :anicute:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

The cache in the OP is not a Puzzle nor Multi-Cache, it's a Traditional.  Case re-opened. :anicute:

 

That was another case and I did not suspect that the on-line checker in the multi-cache was an ALR.

 

Please forgive me that I looked one of your traditional cache descriptions and immediatelly found an ALR :surprise:

 

Quote

Please latch the container closed so it seals, and re-hide it as good or better in its spot, so that only Geocachers could ever find Abe.

 

You did not state that this is a voluntary task. The general opinion seems to be that in that case it is an ALR.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

You did not state that this is a voluntary task.

In common usage the introductory "Please" indicates this is a polite request and therefore optional, and is not an absolute requirement.

 

As has been said again and again and again above, the text in the cache in question, when taken as a whole, is clearly a requirement and not a request, therefore it's an ALR.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

In common usage the introductory "Please" indicates this is a polite request and therefore optional, and is not an absolute requirement.

 

Now I see... the word "please" is missing from GC24KMN and because there is no such word in my native language I was blind for the difference.

 

I checked your own caches and found an ALR without the word "please".

 

"This cache is on the Western Downs Cycle Route, so if you've got a mountain bike, get it out & get peddling...."

 

Because I have a mountain bike I must get it out and start peddling to be eligible to log this cache? Right?

Edited by arisoft
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, MNTA said:

Search alr on help center and it is clear:

3.3. Additional logging requirements (ALR)

A geocacher can log a physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. 

If you own an existing cache that has a mandatory ALR, you must: 

  • Edit the text of your cache page to make the ALR optional, or remove it.
  • Cache owners must not delete logs based on ALRs. This applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009.

 

I didn't realise the ALR ruling was changed for all logs made after 4 April 2009. I assumed that the old rule was grandfathered over and still included.

 

I recently did a mystery cache that had a wooden block puzzle inside. The cache description included the following text - 

 

"1. Find the cache.

2. Assemble the four wooden pieces of puzzle to look like a pyrimid.

3. Take a photo of the completed puzzle together with your GPS.

4. Upload the picture on the cache page to claim your find.

5. Only one log per solve!!!!

 

Please note no photo, no find!!"

 

I assume this is an outlawed ALR?

 

For what it is worth, I found the request quiet reasonable. It is a nice cache placed by a seasoned CO who has being setting caches for at least a decade and every one I have found have being worth the search. Would I report it as an ALR? No. Neither would I say anything but thank you to the CO.

 

I cannot see the issue with ALRs like this. If I cared enough I would just not find the cache and move on to the next boring Tupperware box in a hedge.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, South_Stander said:

I assume this is an outlawed ALR?

Yep.

 

Note that the problem isn't solving the physical puzzle. There are a number of caches where you have to solve a physical puzzle to access the container/log so you can sign the log. That's fine.

 

The problem is the requirement to solve the puzzle and post a photo in addition to finding the cache and signing the log.

 

13 minutes ago, South_Stander said:

I cannot see the issue with ALRs like this.

There was a period where all ALRs were allowed. Then reasonable ALRs were allowed, but the cache had to be listed as mystery/puzzle (not traditional or multi or whatever). Then ALRs were banned, and not grandfathered.

 

As I recall, what killed "reasonable ALRs" was pretty much the same thing that killed virtual caches; the volunteer reviewers didn't want to be in the position where they had to tell someone that their baby was ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, South_Stander said:

So it's another case of a few spoiling it for the many.

Yep.  Sorta...

Many of the  "corrections" made here over the years was because of more than a few pushing the envelope.  We lost cache types too.

We talked with another at an event about one that required all members logging be PMs.

 - Even though it's PMO, there's been alternative logging for basic members way-before we started.

Another requiring a photo of all at GZ didn't fair well.  Parents with their kids, and that privacy thing...

But I've honored requests for pirate talk,  lie/exaggerate on your log,  continue the story, rhyme, and did an entire series where the other 2/3rds was an elf, and I was an orc.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, arisoft said:

Because I have a mountain bike I must get it out and start peddling to be eligible to log this cache? Right?

taken in context, clearly nor; whereas taken in context the cache in the OP is completely different in intent.

 

It looks to me like you have mastered English words, but there's more to language than words so maybe some more studying might be in order as you are standing alone here among numerous respondents who have English as a first language, and therefore I would suggest a better understanding of the subtleties.

 

I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to go trawling through your caches looking for examples so I'm gonna duck out of this now.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Another requiring a photo of all at GZ didn't fair well.  Parents with their kids, and that privacy thing...

 

I would feel uncomfortable with this. In fact I would probably skip the cache if I saw one. I can understand why it is dodgy ground with children also.

 

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

But I've honored requests for pirate talk,  lie/exaggerate on your log,  continue the story, rhyme, and did an entire series where the other 2/3rds was an elf, and I was an orc.  :)

 

These are the type that are fun and keep the hobby interesting. It's nice to see that ones like these are honoured, s thanks for that. I have seen an example of a lie/exaggerate cache and it was fun reading through the logs. I have also seen a cache that asked for the logs to be in limerick form too. That was a fun read, even if I'd struggle putting one together.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, arisoft said:

I found that there are more than one multi-cache which are using an on-line passcode checker tool that goes beyond reading the cache page. It is not possible to find those caches using a GPSr and printed cache description. You need a smartphone or another solution to access the checker on-field. Because I hate using checkers and using captchas on-field, I asked from the HQ whether this is a correct way to construct a multi-cache and it is. Case closed.

 

Many of the examples you provided aren't ALRs because of one simple thing.  All of the online things you describe are used to verify the coordinates (and you MUST use them to get the coordinates) BEFORE you make the find on the final.  They don't verify that you found the final; they only verify that you now have the correct coordinates to be able to find the final.  The main example offered up in the other post and a few others above (and not used by you) is that an ALR requires you to use an online verifier AFTER the find has been made, or some other task that is added AFTER the find has been made to verify that it was, indeed, found as the CO intended.

 

Any task that is required, or additional, to be able to get credit for being able to claim the find on the cache is also an ALR.  For example, "include a picture of yourself" with your log or it will be deleted.  You can't require people to do things once the find has been made.  "Send me the code found on the log" is another example of an ALR because it requires you to do something extra after you have found the cache.  Any online things used before the cache is found are fine because they only verify coordinates, not a find.  They can be required to be used and in some cases, that's part of the puzzle or task that makes the cache a bit more interesting than your run of the mill multi or puzzle.  However, the fact remains that their use is allowed before the final is found but they're not allowed after the cache has been found because it's up to the CO to verify the find, not the finder.  The finder's responsibility is to sign the log to prove the find on their end; the CO's responsibility is to visually verify the log was signed on their end- not use some other alternate means of verification requiring the finder to do something additional to signing the log.

Edited by coachstahly
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/9/2019 at 2:58 AM, arisoft said:

The real problem is when you put a throwdown as a prank for the next finder who thinks that it is a genuine cache with an empty logbook inside.

 

I've never heard of someone leaving a throwdown to prank others. Only because they couldn't find the cache and didn't want to take a DNF.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Any task that is required, or additional, to be able to get credit for being able to claim the find on the cache is also an ALR.  For example, "include a picture of yourself" with your log or it will be deleted. 

The key part here is "or it  will be deleted".  It doesn't matter what a CO is asking others to do.  If it's accompanied with a threat that the found it log will be deleted if the finder doesn't complete an additional (to signing a log) task then it's an ALR.    To me, an implied threat is still a threat.  If a finder believes that the CO will delete a log if the task isn't done, that's enough to convince me that it's an ALR.  

  • Upvote 7
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The key part here is "or it  will be deleted".  It doesn't matter what a CO is asking others to do.  If it's accompanied with a threat that the found it log will be deleted if the finder doesn't complete an additional (to signing a log) task then it's an ALR.    To me, an implied threat is still a threat.  If a finder believes that the CO will delete a log if the task isn't done, that's enough to convince me that it's an ALR.  

Yes, but I deny there's a threat, implied or otherwise, with the cache in the OP. If you clear your mind of preconceptions, you can read the description as offering, as an added benefit, a way for the seeker to confirm he's found the right cache in case he's worried he found the bogus throwdown. Hence, the term used is "verifier", implying to me that the person performing the action is verifying the truth of the cache. If the intent were to prove to the CO that you found the cache, I'd expect a term like "prove" or "validate". I see nothing at all suggesting that step is required despite everyone here reading it that way.

 

The checker itself does have robot protection, which I concede makes it seem like it's protecting against someone trying to "verify" even though they don't have the code, but, on the other hand, there's no point to robot protection if the CO can see the guesses in order to confirm who's successfully "verified".

 

All the negative responses here start out by assuming the CO will check to see who confirms and delete logs that don't agree, but I don't see any such threat in the description, and I even have trouble reading it into the description when I try. Yes, admittedly, I'd be concerned that the CO might think he can require the verification step, but since I know a deletion would be easily overridden by GS, I wouldn't worry that his plan would prevent me from making the find.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Yes, admittedly, I'd be concerned that the CO might think he can require the verification step, but since I know a deletion would be easily overridden by GS, I wouldn't worry that his plan would prevent me from making the find.

 

Surely, this is the case with any ALRs?

 

This would be a non-issue if the CO simply stated that use of the ‘verifier’ was optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

From OP-
 

Quote

 

I can not understand why the possibility to verify that you have found a correct cache is an ALR. It is a property of the cache and it is not related to the signing or logging process. If I say that the right cache container is red and logs to a green container are not acceptable, is this also an ALR? Huh?

 

 

 

 

Regarding GC24KMN, and the CO being known as, "I am the curse of Atlanta".

Some of these reasons may or may not apply to why the checker is on the cache page.   

 

Due to throw downs;

  • See if the CO really checks his caches.
  • A form of someone's sentiment of repaying the CO for hiding a hard to find cache.
  • A seeker feeling they have 'deserved' a find due to their experience, or lack there of. 
  • Being in a well known touristy park, maybe someone thought they were 'helping' the CO with maintenance (possible visiting from a far not to revisit) so justifying their throw down and because of their act of kindness, they prefer to receive their smiley. 

Possible due to a cacher upset at the CO after their TFT log was deleted.  Upset not getting a FTF, accusing the CO of switching containers so no one is the FTF, could be someone stance on this issue.

 

So it's possible the CO placed a checker on the cache page to assist with the validity of,

A) The CO hiding efforts and

B) To assist with the seekers efforts.  IDK.

 

I do know, I have a checker on my virtual. This is due to so many seekers that can not determine a 'South West corner' of a fixed rectangle on flat piece of ground.  So instead of sending me a wrong answer, they can check to see if they got it right.  If the CO placed his checker with these like intentions, (an option for seekers), I don't believe we are in the ALR arena.      

 

All that said, the CO has assured me he has a container at the posted coords and checks on it frequently.  I think it's also key to note, the self proclaimed "I am the curse of Atlanta" is currently banned from the GC.com site and spending a little time in Geo-Jail.

Edited by LZ33
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Surely, this is the case with any ALRs?

 

This would be a non-issue if the CO simply stated that use of the ‘verifier’ was optional.

I think it is already a non-issue because it isn't stated to be a requirement. Honest, I've read it over several times, and I can't find anything that says I have to use the verifier or that says I can't claim the find whether I use the verifier or not. Even if he intended to make it a requirement, through clumsiness he's failed to do so.

 

The more I look at this, the more I don't understand everyone's attitude. I doubt I'd ever look for that cache to begin with, but if I did look for it and managed to find it, I'd be only too anxious to prove I found it by reporting the code in the cache. As much as I acknowledge that requiring the code as proof would an ALR, by the time I found the cache, the extra work of writing the code down and entering it on line would seem so trivial I'd have no reason to not do it even though I know I don't have to.

 

21 minutes ago, LZ33 said:

All that said, the CO has assured me he has a container at the posted coords and checks on it frequently.

I have to admit, I'm not sure I believe him, but if this is true, then there's no reason at all for anyone to have to prove they found the cache 'cuz CO will be able to check the log himself. Others probably think that's a good argument for not having the verifier, but to me, it's just more evidence supporting the theory that the verifier is as, as the word implies, for seekers to verify they found the right cache, not so seekers can prove it to the CO.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/9/2019 at 8:18 PM, arisoft said:

 

Now I see... the word "please" is missing from GC24KMN and because there is no such word in my native language I was blind for the difference.

 

I checked your own caches and found an ALR without the word "please".

 

"This cache is on the Western Downs Cycle Route, so if you've got a mountain bike, get it out & get peddling...."

 

Because I have a mountain bike I must get it out and start peddling to be eligible to log this cache? Right?

 

13 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

taken in context, clearly nor; whereas taken in context the cache in the OP is completely different in intent.

 

It looks to me like you have mastered English words, but there's more to language than words so maybe some more studying might be in order as you are standing alone here among numerous respondents who have English as a first language, and therefore I would suggest a better understanding of the subtleties.

 

I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to go trawling through your caches looking for examples so I'm gonna duck out of this now.

 

 

 

I'm not going out and selling my MTB for any cache ...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LZ33 said:

From OP-
 

 

Regarding GC24KMN, and the CO being known as, "I am the curse of Atlanta".

Some of these reasons may or may not apply to why the checker is on the cache page.   

 

Due to throw downs;

  • See if the CO really checks his caches.
  • A form of someone's sentiment of repaying the CO for hiding a hard to find cache.
  • A seeker feeling they have 'deserved' a find due to their experience, or lack there of. 
  • Being in a well known touristy park, maybe someone thought they were 'helping' the CO with maintenance (possible visiting from a far not to revisit) so justifying their throw down and because of their act of kindness, they prefer to receive their smiley. 

Possible due to a cacher upset at the CO after their TFT log was deleted.  Upset not getting a FTF, accusing the CO of switching containers so no one is the FTF, could be someone stance on this issue.

 

So it's possible the CO placed a checker on the cache page to assist with the validity of,

A) The CO hiding efforts and

B) To assist with the seekers efforts.  IDK.

 

I do know, I have a checker on my virtual. This is due to so many seekers that can not determine a 'South West corner' of a fixed rectangle on flat piece of ground.  So instead of sending me a wrong answer, they can check to see if they got it right.  If the CO placed his checker with these like intentions, (an option for seekers), I don't believe we are in the ALR arena.      

 

All that said, the CO has assured me he has a container at the posted coords and checks on it frequently.  I think it's also key to note, the self proclaimed "I am the curse of Atlanta" is currently banned from the GC.com site and spending a little time in Geo-Jail.

 

While I prefer to be able to tell when I find the correct cache container, I'm learning to avoid caches placed by anyone who is a Curse.  :anicute:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, dprovan said:

...you can read the description as offering, as an added benefit, a way for the seeker to confirm he's found the right cache in case he's worried he found the bogus throwdown. Hence, the term used is "verifier", implying to me that the person performing the action is verifying the truth of the cache.

 

"PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!!!
Since there is now a possibility there exists a throwdown container at the cache site, I have created a container verifier on this cache page. Inside the container, I have written down a 4 digit alpha numeric code on the log sheet. When you find the container, take the 4 digit code you find on the log sheet, click on the container verifier link below, and enter the code on that page."

 

If the CO had stopped before the bolded part, then I'd agree with you. That's not what they did.  Instead, the CO tells you to enter the code after you find the cache to prove/verify/validate you found the correct one. It's up to the CO to verify a find, not the seeker.

 

Lest you forget, a reviewer has chimed in and said it's an ALR.  We can split hairs about who we believe this verifier is primarily intended for but because the CO has asked for the finder to do something after the cache was found, it goes against the guidelines.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 1:30 PM, Keystone said:

As was stated in the other thread, GC24KMN has a "textbook ALR."  For a traditional cache, nothing's required except to sign the log inside the cache container.

 
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Lest you forget, a reviewer has chimed in and said it's an ALR.

Erm, did you miss the reviewer who published the cache (and once disabled it) chiming in explaining why they don’t think it’s an ALR?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Lest you forget, a reviewer has chimed in and said it's an ALR.

 

I can not see any reviewer note about ALR on the cache page. Normally, when a reviewer steps in, they post a note or disable/lock the cache until the issue is solved.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

If the CO had stopped before the bolded part, then I'd agree with you.

 

In this case the "issue" is missing word "please", as explained earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...