do the rules of geocaching change daily?

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

You apparently think arbitraray rules applied unevenly guarantees good caches.

---

 

To repeat what I said above, we have been inundated recently with caches that consist of only a container and some amount of random "stuff" inside. While many of these have been really creative, a large portion have been what most would agree is nothing more than trash. You just don't see those, as they don't make it through approval.

 

As you can imagine, the range from good to trash is very broad and very gray. In an effort to minimize the necessary subjectivity of approvals on caches of this sort, we have tried to inject an objective measure that separates a cache from litter - a logbook. I don't think that that's arbitrary in the least.

 

[dboggny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

In an effort to minimize the necessary subjectivity of approvals on caches of this sort, we have tried to inject an objective measure that separates a cache from litter - a logbook. I don't think that that's arbitrary in the least.

 

---

Ah, yeah it is....how do you figure that the inclusion of a log book somehow does this.

 

at one point, many of us thought that this was a novel and cool idea to make a micro without a log book. what is wrong with it. why does having a log book, per se, make it better. please explain the reasoning, i am all ears.

 

also, as the title of this thread indicates, when where the masses made aware of this decision?

 

finally, at least this discussion has begun to move away from locationless and virts

 

SR and dboggny.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

To repeat what I said above, ... In an effort to minimize the necessary subjectivity of approvals on caches of this sort, we have tried to inject an objective measure that separates a cache from litter - a logbook. I don't think that that's arbitrary in the least.

---

 

Since my post on the matter ended the previous page, I'll repost the cogent point here:

 

I respect and appreciate the hard work and efforts by the admins, but will the inclusion of a log book guarantee the quality of a cache? Hardly. It's the uninteresting location and lack of a challenge in locating the cache that makes a cache lame.

 

And unfortunately, there is precious little an admin. can do about that.

[Moun10Bike]

I hear abrasive complaints from you guys, but no solutions. Since I and the other admins clearly don't possess the ESP and superior intelligence that you do, just what do you propose should be the standards for cache acceptance? How would you, acting as volunteers in what free time you have, in a sport that you love, propose trying to assess hundreds of cache approvals a week and at the same time try to ensure a high level of quality? I'm all ears.

 

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

I hear abrasive complaints from you guys, but no solutions. Since I and the other admins clearly don't possess the ESP and superior intelligence that you do, just what do you propose should be the standards for cache acceptance? How would you, acting as volunteers in what free time you have, in a sport that you love, propose trying to assess hundreds of cache approvals a week and at the same time try to ensure a high level of quality? I'm all ears.

---

 

For a start, tackle the real problem: Enlist more cache approvers. How many times has that simple solution been suggested and ignored over the months?

 

I would also offer you the same advice I offer to anyone complaining about a particular type of cache: If you don't enjoy doing it, don't do it.

[+TMAN264]

I am surprised that the simple request for the addition of a log book has led to such an angry thread. If we are to log caches on this site, (which, unless you are a charter member, is free) then shouldn't you go by the site's guidlines?

 

I feel that the undertone of this thread is that somehow the admin's are taking away certain cachers freedoms. I do not feel that the admin's are doing anything of the sort. They are trying to keep some semblance of order to our game.

 

If you can't abide by the guidelines that are in place, and recommended by the admin's, then start your own site.

 

Will cache for food.

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

I hear abrasive complaints from you guys, but no solutions. Since I and the other admins clearly don't possess the ESP and superior intelligence that you do, just what do you propose should be the standards for cache acceptance? How would you, acting as volunteers in what free time you have, in a sport that you love, propose trying to assess hundreds of cache approvals a week and at the same time try to ensure a high level of quality? I'm all ears.

---

 

Clearly, super-intelligent autonomous robotic death droids are the only rational solution.

 

In all seriousness, I'd like to take a moment and say that the vocal minority needs to stick a sock in it. There's always somebody who has a "better" way of doing things. It seems, in most cases, that the criteria for "better" is no different than the criteria for determining if a method is of one's own creation.

 

Three cheers for the approvers!!

 

As for those who constantly cry out, "Add more approvers!", yet at the same time decry the system as being broken: How exactly are more approvers going to fix a broken system?

 

We all work really hard to approve caches in a timely and fair manner, and its really, really starting to piss me off, how thankless this job is!

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Just don't do them if you don't like them.

---

 

Who says I do them? When I see a cache that makes you jump through hoops just to log the dadgum thing, I skip it. It's the hunt that drives me, not the sitting around hoping the cache owner will respond so I can log the find.

 

I've had bad experiences with every one of these types of caches and now simply don't bother unless something stands out on the cache page.

 

It's simply not worth it to me.

 

True, adding a logbook doesn't guarrantee a good cache, but being creative on the requirements of logging the cache doesn't either.

 

CR

 

[dboggny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TMAN264:

I am surprised that the simple request for the addition of a log book has led to such an angry thread.

---

 

some people who have been here a while have either been logging caches or placing caches without logbooks becuase, at one time it was novel, new and fun. (IT STILL IS AS FUN AS A CACHE WITH A LOG BOOK).

 

quote:

---

I feel that the undertone of this thread is that somehow the admin's are taking away certain cachers freedoms.

---

its got nothing to do with freedom, its got to do with the rules changing often, cache approvers interjecting their own personal dislikes and likes on the rest of us without so much as a notification.

 

quote:

---

If you can't abide by the guidelines that are in place, and recommended by the admin's, then start your own site.

---

how very mature of you

 

SR and dboggny.

[+sbell111]

It pisses me off when I agree with Mr. Snazz, but here goes.

 

People complain all the time that the admins don't use the same standards when approving caches. It seems to me that adding additional admins will only make it more difficult to ensure that standards are met.

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaxEntropy:

 

I'd favor a rule or a guideline suggesting that a hider must find 30 caches or more before he hides one. He'd get a better sense of the game and what's fun and what isn't. It would probably cut down on low-quality caches.

---

 

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think it's a good idea. There are places where you simply can't rack up 30 finds without having to do quite a bit of traveling. It's next to impossible to spark an interest in geocaching in an area if there aren't any caches to be found. And how are caches going to be placed if only those who've already found a good number of caches are allowed to place them? It would cause a classic Catch-22 situation.

 

[dboggny]

quote:

---

It seems to me that adding additional admins will only make it more difficult to ensure that standards are met.

---

there in lies the crux of the problem... there are no standards except in the minds of individual approvers.

 

SR and dboggny.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

Alright, if more approvers are needed then I'll volunteer. I'd rather be caching, but if that's what it takes to get the site running smoother then I'll do it.

 

I know I've come up with some really off the wall stuff in the past, but I can follow rules and make sound descisions based on those rules when confronted with fuzzy areas.

 

Tell me what I gotta do!

 

CR

 

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

Who says I do them? ... I've had bad experiences with every one of these types of caches

---

 

Well, you do ... did. Because you no longer do them, it shouldn't bother you if others do enjoy those types of caches.

[dboggny]

i too would be willing to help. if not approving but in some other capacity to lighten the burden on folks.

 

SR and dboggny.

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think it's a good idea. There are places where you simply can't rack up 30 finds without having to do quite a bit of traveling.

---

 

How about the minimum being a percentage of the caches located within 25 miles of your home coordinates? Eg. If there are 50 caches within 25 miles, require 10 finds (20%)... This may also help to throttle cache saturation in high-density areas. The numbers I use here are just examples, I pulled them out of the air.

 

Certainly people could cheat, by placing their home coords in the middle of an ocean, but hey...

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

 

As for those who constantly cry out, "Add more approvers!", yet at the same time decry the system as being broken: How exactly are _more_ approvers going to fix a broken system?

 

We all work really hard to approve caches in a timely and fair manner, and its really, really starting to piss me off, how thankless this job is!

---

 

Two disgruntled approvers have now surfaced? I take that as evidence that the work load is indeed unreasonable.

 

I agree that adding approvers won't "fix a broken system," (if indeed it is broken), but "many hands make work light."

[+Seth!]

...that this is one of the most stupid threads I've ever read. Of course, I try to avoid reading the forums...

 

...that Mr. Snazz is my new forum hero because I can just say, "yeah, what he said"

 

...that there is a great quote from This Is Spinal Tap:

 

"There's a fine line between clever...and stupid."

 

Do the rules for geocaching change daily? No. Do the kinds of crap that get posted as 'geocaches' get more and more lame daily? Yes. If the admins approve every stupid-@ss submission just because it's there, then what happens to our sport?

 

If I were a newbie and the five caches nearest my house were (a) a film canister with a wad of gum in it; ( a rotting bird carcass; © a road sign; (d) a statue of Bill Bixby; and (e) a ziplock baggie with a soggy piece of paper in it, I wouldn't stay in the game for long. Or worse, I would stay in the game and I'd hide equally stupid stuff.

 

What's with the vocal minority so determined to bring down the quality of geocaching? Why not spring for an ammo can, sand it down, paint it brown, then find a really great hiding spot for it. Post a great cache page with a photo of the area, accurate coordinates, a well-written description, and a decent hint?

 

It's supposed to be Cache In/Trash OUT remember?

 

- Seth!

 

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbell111:

 

People complain all the time that the admins don't use the same standards when approving caches. It seems to me that adding additional admins will only make it more difficult to ensure that standards are met.

---

 

Well, I disagree. I think if there were more cache approvers out in the field where they cache, establishing relationships with and offering feedback to the cachers in their area, standards would improve drastically and immediately.

 

I would very much like to hear if this is what the approvers have found in their home regions.

[georapper]

i don't hold alot of potential for geocaching and the trash it creates. i don't care if the cache contains a log book or not, it's still trash. the owner should be required to pick up the cache after a preset time limit, otherwise, sooner or later, geocaching will be outlawed as a game that produces trash on public lands.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

In an effort to avoid getting myself caught up in this whole flame war, I propose one simple solution that would be beneficial to all.

 

It is clear that there is some hostility on the part of bb2 for reasons unknown. All we are doing as the peanut gallery is feeding fuel to the fire to trying to refute any of his arguments, and only complicating the issue.

 

Just let it lie and the fire will burn itself out...

 

Brian

Team A.I.

[+Criminal]

Let me jump into this again, although my prior statements were sufficient. My position on new rules is known (don’t like them), my position on cache owners setting reasonable requirements is known (the cache owner is the cache owner), my position on creativity is also known (want more of it, like, way bad.). Nonetheless, the cache, as I understand it was not disapproved! The approver wanted clarification; owner jumped the gun thinking there was some other motivation.

 

This time, (gasp!) I’m on the side of the admins. First, the approvers are human so subjectivity is inherent in the approval process. Imagine if the approver in question had simply disapproved it and never sent an email with the why. Tell me there aren’t organizations (govt maybe?) that don’t do that to you! He rejected the first because there was no logbook, he sought clarification for the revision, and now we’re debating “what is a cache” again. Give the guy a break! When I hid my first cache, it took less than an hour to be online, now it takes as long as a few days. Does that mean they are slacking off, or does it mean they are getting inundated with new cache requests? The same players who are pissed off by the wait and the subjectivity are the same who’ll be posting a “How did this get approved” thread when they find a cache that appears outside the guidelines.

 

This same approver has disapproved one of my caches, that was previously approved. (I had archived it while it was active and had one finder, and asked if it could be reactivated, he wasn’t comfortable with the cache.) It was a tremendously fun cache, it had more excitement than any I’ve ever hunted, but it was against the rules. The cache was technically against the rules, but in a practical sense was not the threat the rule was intended to prevent. Still, against the rule. I did not complain, I did not start a thread, and I did not email him a nasty letter.

 

Chill folks.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[georapper]

we got off to a bad start. i did not mean to flame you. i was frustrated because the rules for this type of cache placement were not listed. i don't blame anyone for this. it just happened. if there were a written set of rules for different types of caches, then misunderstandings would not occur.

 

even if i had 200 finds and i copied some else's cache idea from Utah, it doesn't mean that it would be acceptable in Idaho. so a large number of finds does not necessarily mean that a cacher understands the rules. a written set of rules that is updated and current is the best way to ensure the integrity of the game. a game without published rules is anarchy, which is what we have experienced the last two days.

 

is a detailed written set of rules for specific types of caches going to be available soon for the SE Idaho area, because what is acceptable outside idaho is not necessarily acceptable in idaho.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by billybob2:

i don't hold alot of potential for geocaching and the trash it creates. i don't care if the cache contains a log book or not, it's still trash. the owner should be required to pick up the cache after a preset time limit, otherwise, sooner or later, geocaching will be outlawed as a game that produces trash on public lands.

---

 

From your posts I've come to the conclusion that geocaching is not the hobby for you. 11 finds and think caches are trash. I can tell you won't be around much longer.

 

CR

 

[+TMAN264]

I'll be brief and say I disagree with SR & dboggny's comment on the maturity of my comment. The person who started this thread isn't a charter member, so who is he to starting a 2 plus flame thread regarding the regulations of a volunteer cache approver. He should abide by what the approver's recommendations were, and move on. If he can't accept that, then find another Geocacheing site, there are plenty to choose from. How is that immature??

 

On a nicer note, I do appreciate you volunteering to be an approver, as I do agree that it may be a valid solution to similar situations.

 

Peace

 

Will cache for food.

[+Criminal]

I have the solution!

 

We need to involuntarily enlist some of the “older” players to act as pre-approval advisors. These advisors would have no approval or disapproval authority but would simply make recommendations to you about a cache you intend to submit.

 

If you have a new cache, email the details to Eraseek or Briansnat and seek their advice.

 

EDIT: Markwell too.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

 

How about the minimum being a percentage of the caches located within 25 miles of your home coordinates? Eg. If there are 50 caches within 25 miles, require 10 finds (20%)... _This may also help to throttle cache saturation in high-density areas._ The numbers I use here are just examples, I pulled them out of the air.

 

Certainly people could cheat, by placing their home coords in the middle of an ocean, but hey...

---

 

Home coordinates are simply an option. No one is required to use them. The only information you are required to enter (besides a name and password) is a valid email address, and what country you're in.

 

[eblack]

lol...

 

Quality post

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Home coordinates are simply an option. No one is required to use them. The only information you are required to enter (besides a name and password) is a valid email address, and what country you're in.

---

 

Of course, I do realize this. I thought I made this clear when I acknowledged that one could cheat by entering incorrect coords.

 

So long as we're discussing system changes to require a minimum number of finds to hide a cache, perhaps valid-appearing home coords would be a requirement as well.

[+Allen_L]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

I have yet to see a container too small for a logbook. You just have to be creative:

---

 

How about this one?

 

The Smallest Cache in the World

[dboggny]

quote:

---

The person who started this thread isn't a charter member, so who is he to starting a 2 plus flame thread regarding the regulations of a volunteer cache approver.

---

 

i didnt realize that you had to pay in order to voice an opinion here, or to have it respected or to have it count for something.

 

SR and dboggny.

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

i didnt realize that you had to pay in order to voice an opinion here, or to have it respected or to have it count for something.

---

 

You're kidding, right? Nobody's opinion counts unless they've logged at least 100 finds and have a clever avatar.

[dboggny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

i didnt realize that you had to pay in order to voice an opinion here, or to have it respected or to have it count for something.

---

 

You're kidding, right? Nobody's opinion counts unless they've logged at least 100 finds and have a clever avatar.

---

 

i dont have 100 finds. event have precluded me from caching as much as i would like. i do have the only cats @$$ avatar i think. thats clever

 

SR and dboggny.

[+IV_Warrior]

quote:

---

Originally posted by billybob2:

i don't hold alot of potential for geocaching and the trash it creates. i don't care if the cache contains a log book or not, it's still trash. the owner should be required to pick up the cache after a preset time limit, otherwise, sooner or later, geocaching will be outlawed as a game that produces trash on public lands.

---

 

If that's how you feel, then why are you getting so worked up? Why do you insist on doing something that BY YOUR STANDARDS is LITTERING?

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

[Bryan]

The bottom line is that the admin in this case was faced with a situation where something didn't feel right. He asked a follow-up question and was met with hostility.

 

I ask you all to consider that this is still a new game and we are still working out the rules, guidelines, etc.

 

It is in all of our best interest to have admins make inquiries in situations that just don't feel right. There is nothing wrong with that and certainly no evidence to suggest that the cache would have been denied had a reasonable answer been supplied by the cache owner.

 

Please cut the admins some slack. They are doing a hard job that becomes increasingly harder each day. Most importantly, they are doing it for you, the Geocaching community.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

Sincerely,

 

Rothstafari

Groundspeak

[+Frolickin]

If I understand correctly, the need for the logbook in a traditional cache is needed to help curtail the plethora of caches that are being submitted.

 

My Question

If a traditional cache needs a logbook so a finder can log his find at the site, he will need a writing instrument. Yet, we all have seen micros that, although may be able to host a log, cannot host a writing instrument.

 

A hider around me is famous for this style of cache. Most are interesting to hunt. If I need to read beforehand to bring a writing instrument so I can log the find, how different is that from being asked to note a code to e-mail it once I arrive back home?

 

Conclusion

I think the requirement of a logbook, while helping with one problem, creates issues for someone who is trying to be creative.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frolickin:

A hider around me is famous for this style of cache. Most are interesting to hunt. If I need to read beforehand to bring a writing instrument so I can log the find, how different is that from being asked to note a code to e-mail it once I arrive back home?

---

 

Its different in that, when folks visit the site, the site with the logsheet will have the names and notes of those who have come before to find the cache. With a code site, since there is no logsheet, there are no names, no notes.

 

As to why this is desireable or not, I don't care to speculate. But it is a difference.

[+crashmore]

You guys are missing the point here, this whole thing has gotten way off track and seems to have become a forum for disgruntled cachers to bash the admins. billybob2 stepped way over the line with his attack on moun10bike. This whole issue could have been avoided if he had simply kept his cool and stayed civil with him. Posting his name to these forums for one was way out of bounds! If he had a personal problem with moun10bike he could have emailed Jeremy privately to express his concerns.

 

The admins (myself included) are reasonable people. I think you will find that if you treat us with some civility when coresponding with us you're alot more likley to get positive results.

 

If we have a question about a cache during the approval process don't immediately go on the defensive or attack us. Instead take the time to work with us so we can come up with a solution.

 

Also, why is it that nearly every time I or a fellow admin has a question or concern about a cache we get an inbox full of hate mail?

Yet I've never received an email expressing thanks for a quick approval etc...

 

-------------------------------------

Hope is the destination that we seek.

Love is the road that leads to hope.

Courage is the motor that drives us.

We travel out of darkness into faith.

 

-=The Book Of Counted Sorrows=-

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashmore:

Yet I've never received an email expressing thanks for a quick approval etc...

---

 

No????

 

I find that hard to believe. cough cough

 

I also think the idea of local old timer cachers being available to newer cachers for advice is a great idea. Not an approval just a nudge in the right direction and maybe keeping the flames here in check.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashmore:

You guys are missing the point here, this whole thing has gotten way off track and seems to have become a forum for disgruntled cachers to bash the admins.

---

 

I don't read the thread that way ... it looks to me like billybob's particular problem wasn't even addressed by most people. The issue that has been addressed was cache verification and who decides what is "permissable."

 

I also see precious little "admin. bashing" ... most of the insulting language came from an admin..

 

The rule/solution that has been primarily discussed is the apparently new "rule" that traditional caches won't be approved if they don't contain a logbook. I did not see mention of how an admin. would determine that fact unless the cache owner mentioned it on the cache page submitted for approval, while at the same time I did not read anything that stated that a cache owner is required to divulge that information on the cache page.

 

I have read that admins. will not approve traditional caches that require an alternate means of verification ... that's big news, since such caches were still being approved recently. An admin. suggested it was being done to uphold "standards." While that very well may be true in the case of billybob's cache (I don't know if it is), it really is very silly to suggest that the inclusion of a log book is a "standard of quality." And to say so is not "admin. bashing" ... it's common sense.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashmore:

This whole issue could have been avoided if he had simply kept his cool and stayed civil with him.

---

 

Who's missing the point? It turns out that despite his efforts, billybob has done us a service by alerting us to these new "standards."

[+mtn-man]

These standards are not new. I guess that everyone is so focused on the guidelines and requirements page at this point. You have to go back to the genesis of Geocaching and the old "Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache" page and the "FAQ" page.

 

Ah yes -- the old days when Geocaching was hiding Tupperware in the woods and trading trinkets and having fun. I remember those days! Time to jog the old memory banks...

 

First the "FAQ" page:

quote:

---

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

---

 

Sounds simple enough. Now from the "Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache" page:

quote:

---

Step 2 - Preparing Your Cache

 

First, you need a container. Anything water resistant, snow resistant, etc (depending on your climate), will do, but geocachers have had good success with plastic buckets, tupperware (or rubbermaid) containers, ammo boxes, or unused sewer pipes (really!). You'll also want to invest in some zip-loc baggies to put the items into in case your container leaks.

 

Whatever the container, make sure to mark your cache so that someone who doesn't play can figure out what it is. Most folks mark the container with Geocaching.com, the name of the cache, and any contact information they feel is necessary. More info is better than less.

 

Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen. A small spiral notebook does the trick. Make sure to put a pen in the cache as well! The author always forgets to bring one when searching for a cache.

 

(11/20 note: If you are an an area where the temperature dips below freezing, make sure to bring a soft lead pencil to place in the cache. Pens tend to freeze and are rendered useless

 

It's also recommended to have a note to welcome the cache finder and let them know what it is all about (if they accidentally found the cache). We have a letter you can use in both Microsoft Word format and Text format.

 

Lastly, you can put goodies in the cache. It's recommended, but not necessary! Some ideas of items to give as gifts:

 

Disposable camera - Put one in and ask everyone to take a picture of themselves and put it back in the cache. Later you can develop the photos and place them online.

Cheap toys - play-doh, silly putty, action figures, etc.

CDs, VGA Cards, gift certificates, dollar bills, gold bars, etc.

It's up to you what you want to put in your cache, budget permitting. If you are a Dot com millionaire, I would hope you would pony up a bit of cache (err cash), but most of us can spend less than $10 to place a decent cache.

Do not put food in a cache! Critters have better noses than we do, and will bite, nibble or swallow your cache in an attempt to get to the goodies. Bottled water is a good alternative (and refreshing to geocachers).

 

Please! No alcohol, tobacco, firearms, prescription or illicit drugs. Let's keep this safe and legal.

---

 

It has been there from the beginning. There you have it.

[+Frolickin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtn-man:

Next, you'll need a logbook and a pen.

---

 

This was my question. A pen is required. So, what is to become of caches submitted that state a writing instrument is needed because one cannot fit into the cache?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

An admin. suggested it was being done to uphold "standards." While that very well may be true in the case of billybob's cache (I don't know if it is), it really is very silly to suggest that the inclusion of a log book is a "standard of quality." And to say so is _not_ "admin. bashing" ... it's common sense.

---

 

BP, rather than complaining without offering reasoned solutions, why don't you propose a set of guidelines that would better define the criteria for an acceptable cache? Please try to come up with a workable solution that would solve the complaints of subjectivity, could be easily understood by the community without the requirement of wading through pages of regulations, and that would keep cache quality high.

 

I am asking for a "reasoned" solution because your assertion that you know the real problem, and that it is a paucity of admins, is anything but. Please indicate how you reason that additional admins would have prevented the issue that launched this thread.

 

What we are trying to prevent is a trend toward caches like, for example, the one in which the hider throws a cut tennis ball into the woods and requires finders to tell him what random piece of garbage he jammed into it. This was an actual cache submission that was rejected. It is not the only one we have received of this nature.

 

What we need is a set of guidelines that clearly explains why the quality caches that you want to seek are acceptable, and why the infamous sneaker cache and the above tennis ball cache are not. The admins felt that inclusion of a logbook was a step in the right direction, although certainly not a perfect solution. The logbook has been the defining element of a cache since the inception of the game, and the logbook also carries with it an implied intent to maintain the cache.

 

We as admins want to hear feedback from the community we are volunteering to serve, and adjust the guidelines in response to that feedback. You can help us now, as well as the geocaching community as a whole, by submitting creative solutions for avoiding the trend toward entropy in cache submissions. You have suggested that you know of better ways to handle the process, and I am eager to hear your ideas.

 

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frolickin:

 

This was my question. A pen is required. So, what is to become of caches submitted that state a writing instrument is needed because one cannot fit into the cache?

---

 

A pen is not required, and we could argue all day about where to draw the line between reasonable requirements for a cache and absurd requirements for a cache. My question for you is the same as that which I asked of BassoonPilot: How do you propose to objectively, succinctly, and positively define the difference between a cache and trash?

 

[+mtn-man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frolickin:

This was my question. A pen is required. So, what is to become of caches submitted that state a writing instrument is needed because one cannot fit into the cache?

 

Fro.

---

Well, I don't see us retroactively archiving caches because they dont have a pen. I found several micro-caches over the weekend. All were film containers. All but one had broken off pencils tips and the broken eraser end in them. I usually carry golf pencils with me anyway in case a cache needs a pencil in the winter time so I do have a writing instrument with me that is larger than 1" long. The one that I did do that did not have a pencil clearly stated on the cache page to bring a pencil or pen with you. The main point I was trying to make was the logbook aspect. Granted the hobby/sport/adventure has expanded dramatically, but the root of the concept is a container and a logbook.

[Team Sidewinder]

Boy the poor admins have a thankless job. Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Somebody has to lay out the rules of the game and we play within those confines. I agree that two ways of getting verifications for this cache was getting off on the wrong foot and being told the right way to do something as the rules for caches stand doesn't mean you should hacked for it. Keep up the good work admins. IMHO

sidewinder

 

LOST AND FOUND DEPT.

[+Mudfrog]

I have found some micros with very small logbooks and some without. To be honest, the logbooks, which usually consist of a wound up cash register receipt, kinda suck! Most get used up after only a few logs and then there are those that get wet, faded, and ruined. Trying to log on one of these doesnt make the cache any more fun to find.

 

Ive gone through this myself with one of my caches and yes, its very frustrating. It seemed new rules were popping up out of thin air! Now ive read all of the posts here and you know what? I still have no earthly idea why a logbook is required on a physical cache! I do cache maintenance all the time and i check to make sure the logbook is in good shape, but i hardly ever read the logs. In other words, im not verifying a thing! I also cant see how having a logbook makes the quality of the cache any better. Someone said they didnt want to jump through hoops to verify a cache with an email. Shoot, we get on to log our finds at the site, so how hard is it to email the owner while we're on? I dont see any problem with not having a logbook, as long as there is some other way to verify the find.

[+The Tungsten Jihad!]

Lets see here:

Billybob vs mtn10bike

 

One has 12 finds and an attitude, one has played a big part in shaping geocaching into the great game we enjoy today.

 

I know whos judgement I trust.

 

If one of the admins questions one of your caches billybob, you should be asking yourself whats wrong with this cache, not whats wrong with this admin.

[+ron50eli]

First, JMO, I think this whole thread has either gotten out of hand or misunderstood. But par for the course.

Second, I'm working on a three step cache. Three steps only if the cacher wants. They may stop at the main hide or go on. First cache will be a regular cache with the coords to the second hide that is a 1st bonus & is a micro with a code word & coords to the 2nd bonus cache. which is a regular cache. Now does my micro have to have a log book? I wrote the code word & coords on several pieces of paper so all the cacher has to do is grab the paper & run. And put them on the container too in case it runs out of paper before I get back to check it out. for credit code word must be emailed to me. We have these types of micro everywhere in our area. Makes it soooo much easier. But like I said..JMO.

rocker51

P.S. This message is not meant to target anyone.

[max2extreme]

You know what my vote is? We should let this thread go. The cache was accepted. Keep doing what you were doing. This might have been a miscommunication. Everything more that can be said about this thread is already in the tread. If you wanna post, can you post in my thread??? extreme caches. jk. have a good one.

 

max