Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
arisoft

ALR or not

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

It's up to the CO to verify a find, not the seeker.

isn't that what the verifier does?  It was written by the CO to verify finds - like a check of the log sheet, only in real time.  Personally, I'd like to know right away if I've found the wrong container, as opposed to finding out later when the log is deleted, when there is a high chance of throwdowns on a cache.  I tried the verifier, just for fun.  I used a random code and it told me that I'd mistyped the code or found a throwdown, if it was a throwdown please remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

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.

Well, we can go back and forth all day, but I just think it's undeniably not a requirement as expressed in the text, and no consequences are listed. Verify as an imperative is significantly different than prove and validate.

 

Although you can easily enough imagine other motives that are not supported by the actual text, structurally that sentence is no different than any other suggestion the CO might have made. "When you find the container, take a minute to enjoy the scenery, then go online and log your experience." I doubt many people would think that if you didn't enjoy the scenery, the CO would delete your find.

 

Anyway, that's enough for me. I'm not going to worry about it until someone finds the cache. Until then, there are plenty of other reasons to think the CO is jerking people around without considering the hypothetical ALR. Personally, I'm not convinced there's actually a cache with a code in it to begin with, and it certainly seems unlikely anyone will ever find it if there is one, so it will never come down to him rejecting a find that doesn't "verify" code, anyway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

there are plenty of other reasons to think the CO is jerking people around without considering the hypothetical ALR. Personally, I'm not convinced there's actually a cache with a code in it to begin with, and it certainly seems unlikely anyone will ever find it if there is one, so it will never come down to him rejecting a find that doesn't "verify" code, anyway.

 

According to the cache description, the cache owner went to the extreme of... making the container easy for a finder to identify.  Uh huh.  Sure.  B)

 

Anyway, yeah.  The "Here's An ALR For You Oh And It's Not An ALR" thing is just part or the craziness.

Coords are loose.  Obviously very loose.
Aggressive cache hunters once “BURRIED IT!!” with a scorched-earth search.  Maybe they could 100 feet from GZ into the forest one direction or another, but not at GZ.
The cache page is fluid and has drastically changed several times.
The description is now hidden due to "excessive viewing".
The cache was originally a 2.5 difficulty (because “cachers will tell other cachers where it is once found”) and is now a 5 difficulty.
There was once a Geocoin in the cache's inventory, quite a trick for a Nano.  The coin subsequently vanished.

 

There's a lot odd with that cache and several others by various COs around here.  The caches aren't really about Geocaching, or at most they are about “the cool, old-fashioned Geocaching days long ago before there were stuffy, boring rules”.  There are still some old local caches with intact ALRs and an added note that the ALR isn't allowed, and to this day that big, bold warning always makes me wonder which it is.  The original intact ALR may remain right there on the page, but it's not enforceable (also, new ones may not be published like that).  You can ignore them.  Cache Owners are trying to prove a point (and daring anyone to do anything about it), cachers hunting these things are also deliberately adding to the weirdness, and that's all fine and dandy.  You can hunt them and ignore the weird parts and log the find without having to first decide if a Not-An-ALR is an ALR (if you can find anything).  But it's remarkable how these seem to linger forever.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is a pretty amusing discussion.  Frankly I am baffled at all of those here that think that this checker is there for the CO to verify a find... How would it do that when it doesn't know who is entering the 4 digit code?

 

It's obvious that the checker is there so that a finder can make sure they have found the correct cache container and not a throwdown.  As in, they know they have found the right container so they can stop looking, as opposed to finding a throwdown, signing it, heading home, only to find out later that their log is deleted because their signature is not on the real cache's logsheet.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/11/2019 at 7:59 AM, LZ33 said:

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.

 

Well, it's still on his profile... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Well, it's still on his profile... lol

 

If a cache has something goofy on its page, it doesn't leave the profile? Go figure. :yikes:

 

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

If a cache has something goofy on its page, it doesn't leave the profile? Go figure. :yikes:

 

 

Read what I quoted again.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

This is a pretty amusing discussion.  Frankly I am baffled at all of those here that think that this checker is there for the CO to verify a find... How would it do that when it doesn't know who is entering the 4 digit code?

I think the verifier sends the cacher info to the CO. Could be wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post

With a cache like that, all that the CO needs is the verification.  The cacher who then logs the find is the one who verified it.  Until that first find, it doesn’t matter how it could work.  After that find on a cache like that... the verification code thing may need to be overhauled. The logs, throwdowns, etc. will get nutty.  Or... Nuttier. :cute:

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I think the verifier sends the cacher info to the CO. Could be wrong, though.

How?

 

It's a web page on the CO's own server, with no connection to the Groundspeak system, so no knowledge of which user is logged in on the geocaching website, therefore no idea who is entering the code for verification.

 

There may or may not be other silliness going on with this cache/cacher (I do not know either way) but the container verification system is clearly there so that a finder can ensure they have found the correct cache and won't be disappointed to find out later they did not.

 

 

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post

So, the CO with the "container verifier" is the same one who has a cache inside a Visitor Center (wonder how the GPS works inside that building) that appears to have led to his/her/its/whatever vacation from website use for a while, and has the "I am the Curse of Atlanta" label flashing on his locked account page.

 

Sounds like the same type of person who really wants to F / mess with the finders in the area.  CO adds a "container verifier" language to a cache page and doesn't bother with hiding a tiny container.  Laughs his/her/its/whatever way to the point where he/she/it/whatever feels vindicated of his/her/its/whatever cache hiding supremacy, then after a long time of claiming his/her/its/whatever that the cache in unfindable, and claiming to visit this park location often, he/she/it/whatever finally places a container out there.

 

I'm happy I don't have CO like this one seems to be this in my area.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, K13 said:

So, the CO with the "container verifier" is the same one who has a cache inside a Visitor Center (wonder how the GPS works inside that building) that appears to have led to his/her/its/whatever vacation from website use for a while, and has the "I am the Curse of Atlanta" label flashing on his locked account page.

 

Sounds like the same type of person who really wants to F / mess with the finders in the area.  CO adds a "container verifier" language to a cache page and doesn't bother with hiding a tiny container.  Laughs his/her/its/whatever way to the point where he/she/it/whatever feels vindicated of his/her/its/whatever cache hiding supremacy, then after a long time of claiming his/her/its/whatever that the cache in unfindable, and claiming to visit this park location often, he/she/it/whatever finally places a container out there.

 

I'm happy I don't have CO like this one seems to be this in my area.

 

 

+1

 

You've summed it up!  I'd add that of course the ALR was not added so a finder "won't be disappointed".  The theme of the cache is disappointment.

 

Also, finders have no requirement to enter any code, whether it's an ALR or a "Not-An-ALR" ALR.  Sign the cache log, log it online.  If the cache is by definition indistinguishable from a throwdown, it's already a disappointment.  B)

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×