Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Dick & Song Bug

In Consistent Cache Aprrovals

Recommended Posts

It seems getting a cache approved can be a problem when all "approvers" do not use the same standards or interpret the guidelines differently. Take Virtual Cache approval, some states allow them some don't, some approvers let them slide others do not.

 

Some caches require an activity other than finding and signing the log. Why then can you not get a regular cache approved that has an additional requirement?

Share this post


Link to post

they are called people and as such think independantly and even have been known to *GASP* make mistakes

 

comunication with you approver will solve 99% of all problems

 

the other 1% there is no resolution to.

Edited by ralann

Share this post


Link to post

I assume your own cache was not approved and that is why you are complaining? Could you provide the details of the situation. It is hard to comment on them in the abstract.

 

Also have you emailed the reviewer and attempted to politely discuss the matter with them? That will often help toward you being able to change the cache in a way that will allow it to be listed or help you better understand why it was not listed.

 

Generally, the reviewers aim for consistency. Some items such as virtuals are harder to do that with. Also keep in mind that some caches you might see out there were listed before the guidelines changed and are not precedent for listing something like them today.

 

Anyway, without more information, it is difficult to address your question.

Share this post


Link to post

As originally submitted, the cache description contained the following statement:

 

To claim cache you must find cache and sign the log also on the web page for finding the cache you must name a fruit with the letter “p” in it. I will not give an example because there are not that many. No repeats will be accepted. Remember no fruit with a pee no find.

 

The reviewer (not myself) noted that this logging requirement would severely limit the number of finds that could be logged on this cache. The grounds for archival was the cache permanence guideline. With such a limited amount of fruit to choose from, only a small group would be able to log the cache and it wouldn't likely last for the minimum required period of three months.

 

As for consistency, I would also have asked some questions about this submission!

Share this post


Link to post

you sure can get a cache required that has an additional requirement. if your ducks are in a row and all the parts are appropriate to be listed at this site you should have few problems.

 

if there are aspects of your cache that make it unsuitable for this site, i'd like to suggest an alternate listing service. there are alternate listing services out there, one of which will probably be pleased to post your cache exactly the way you intended it.

 

i make a lot of smarty-pants answers in the forums; this isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

To claim cache you must find cache and sign the log also on the web page for finding the cache you must name a fruit with the letter “p” in it. I will not give an example because there are not that many. No repeats will be accepted. Remember no fruit with a pee no find.

 

That seems like an easy fix. Simply change it to allow repeats and then email the reviewer and tell him or her that you fixed it. The cache permanence rule has been around for sometime. I don't see an inconsistency. If you limit it in a way that will only allow a few total visitors, the cache does not appear to be intended to stay in place for at least three months. Fortunately it is easy to fix. :mad:

 

But I will also ask this: Why name a fruit????? Why not just place a cache and have people log it normally? Is there some theme with that? In all honesty the naming a fruit thing seems a little odd to me. Of course you are free to do any odd things you want within the guidelines, but if you are using the fruit thing to try to get around a guideline, such as the permanency guideline, then that is not a good thing.

Edited by carleenp

Share this post


Link to post

If you know of another cache with simular logging requirements like yours, then yes they should be consistant......and archive it.

Share this post


Link to post

The guidelines say

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.  This means that the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache.  If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

Share this post


Link to post
To claim cache you must find cache and sign the log also on the web page for finding the cache you must name a fruit with the letter “p” in it. I will not give an example because there are not that many. No repeats will be accepted. Remember no fruit with a pee no find.

I agree with the approver(s) on this. Why would you want to impliment such a silly requirement for your cache, and why get so upset over it?

Edited by Stunod

Share this post


Link to post

If the cache is intended on being archived within the normal three months minimum duration then that needs fixed.

 

However there is no rule on silly rules for logging a cache online. Even if said silly rule limits the number of finds it's an assumption to say that, that will cause the cache to not last 3 months.

 

Since only a snippet of the rule on the cache is posted it's hard to say if there is another issue.

 

And I didn't see a rule that said once you ran out of English fruit names you could't switch to German, French, Eubonics, Gaelic and other languages.

Share this post


Link to post
If the cache is intended on being archived within the normal three months minimum duration then that needs fixed.

 

However there is no rule on silly rules for logging a cache online. Even if said silly rule limits the number of finds it's an assumption to say that, that will cause the cache to not last 3 months.

 

I suppose, but I see the concern about the time frame with it. Regardless, the best approach is to work with the reviewer on the matter if that is not already being done. And like I said, it is an easy fix.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

That's enough posts listing fruits that have a "p" in them. Point made. Please limit further posts to those which discuss the cache, the decision to archive it, what might be done at this time, etc.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

d'oh. Note that the dates of the two posts are identical. Did I get under the wire?

 

Back on point, be nice. It will solve even the 1% of problems.

Share this post


Link to post

Cantaloupe!

 

It only has to have the letter P in it somewhere. Pay attention people! This is going on your permanent record!

 

I've seen a lot of caches with some sort of logging restriction. I have one myself. The original objection was that there are a limited number of "p" fruits, and with the no-repeat clause, it comes a temporary cache. The english language is big, but finite. After a while, no one will be able to log it. So I think the original objection was correct.

 

However, in this case, I think the logging restriction is both silly and useless. These are usually done to confirm that the poster actually found the cache or solved the puzzle. You may put a note in the cache box saying that the finder must include the name of a color in the on-line log, to prove that they actually found it. But in this cache, he's put it right on the cache page. It servers no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Hello,

 

That's enough posts listing fruits that have a "p" in them. Point made. Please limit further posts to those which discuss the cache, the decision to archive it, what might be done at this time, etc.

 

Thank you.

Hi,

 

Although I can see why the decision was made to not approve this cache, I do have a couple of questions or concerns.

 

Was there a specific reason for the restriction? Or could it be changed to something less limited?

 

How limiting was the restriction? Would the cache owner have accepted the same fruit but in a different lanquage? Or, as in the case of the two examples that I gave, how is he defining fruit? A maple samara is considered to be a fruit, but most people would not believe it. Would the owner have deleted my find if I had named that in my log?

Share this post


Link to post

There are enough fruits with the letter P in the name to easily support a cache lasting well over 3 months. At least thats the case here in Miinnesota.

 

If you don't mind, can I steal your idea?

 

-Rick

Share this post


Link to post
... Regardless, the best approach is to work with the reviewer on the matter ...

Well hell, no matter what bad advice I give in the forums it's always going to come down to that when it's a topic about getting a cache approved. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
There are enough fruits with the letter P in the name to easily support a cache lasting well over 3 months.  At least thats the case here in Miinnesota.

 

If you don't mind, can I steal your idea?

 

-Rick

Isn't it too cold for fruit to grow in Minnesota? :rolleyes:

Edited by Team GPSaxophone

Share this post


Link to post

Did you reflect that this is a global activity and it can be different rules/regulations around the world? For example are you in Sweden not allowed to publish webcams where you can identify the persons on the webcam. In some countries are you allowed to place caches almost everywhere, including national parks. In some countries are you not.

 

Also, if you want to use the rating system here on GC.com will there be a problem since the system is based on american lifestyle/nature/and so on.

 

In some countries are there not overgrown bushy jungles, but what about going thru a hot sandy desert in Africa to climb a vulcano to find a cache hidden in the lava? :rolleyes:

 

So the rating system vary also between every country, what you might consider to be a 2/2 can be a 4/4 in an another country, or 1/1.

 

And since the reviewers (approvers) are located all over the world must the of course use the GC.com standard but also adjust it to local requirements and standards.

 

And yes, they are just humans like the rest of us.

 

I forgot one thing: Just because someone else had a cache approved doesn't mean that you can get a similar approved also. It can be special circumstances that made the other one approved. For example became a number of virtuals approved in Netherlands a year ago or so, and they were actually locationless. Perhaps did the cache owners change the text after the cache was approved, I don't know. But that can also make it more difficult to get virtuals approved, since USERS have misused their chances to make good virtuals. They tricked the approvers... Or the approvers in the Netherlands approved them as locationless caches registred as virtuals. In either way, it might have made it more difficult to get new ones approved.

 

I can also agree with the approvers that the idea of geocaching is to find an hidden treasure that are gonna be logged. But there must also be space for making different versions of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Generally speaking, regarding consistency I have to stand up for the approvers. They get other approver's opinions/input if appropriate and share a dialog. I blind-sided my local approver with something and he didn't just shoot it down out of hand. (Well he did, but revisited it...) Now obviously doing that for everything would be pointless. Fortunately they aren't automatons and apply reason...

 

However I would like to see one change, rather than delivering the harsh message, "So and so permanently archived your cache", were the word "permanently" removed it wouldn't be such an affront. More importantly, were the approvers to suggest a solution they would be perceived as, gasp, helpful!

 

Sure, one could argue, "but then I made the suggested change and it STILL wasn't approved"--however presenting it as a suggestion tempered with "for reconsideration" would alleviate that.

 

Either way it would streamline the process which now goes...

 

Day 1) submit cache

Day 2) permanently archived for X reason

Day 3) email approver asking why or how X applies in this case

Day 4) approver explains

Day 5) alter it or justify it

Day 6) approver approves it

 

versus

 

Day 1) submit cache

Day 2) archived with suggestion

Day 3) apply suggestion

Day 4) voila!

 

Just a thought to mitigate the bad feelings the current system generates...

 

hth,

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of input. We did change requirement to make any fruit with a p accepable and also would accept repeats and askd the CO Admin, approver how to do such a cache and what to name and how to do it. His answer indicated that he had not reread the requirements after the change. I agree other languages could be used even made up names.

 

Leaving a message on the web page of TNLNSL of TFTC is OK but sometimes you can draw people into a little more description or log by asking a question.

 

The CO Admin, approver, to me, did not fulfill his obligation to reread and reconsider our new cache. He even indicated that pee is slang for urine, well DUH. The question is now moot. I withdrew the listing and will take my chances on getting a different approver on my next attemp.

Share this post


Link to post

The bottom line is that it is ok to have a cache with an additional requirment. You can require a themed trade, Require the log be in the form of a poem and so on. That is 100% your choice and barring something that is unsafe or against the law it should be a non issue. That includes fruits that have the letter P in them. How well your particular theme is recived by the communtiy is an issue separate from approval.

 

The question of duration was an indirect concern. Especially since as described your intent wasn't to archive the cache before the accepted minimum cache life of 3 months.

Share this post


Link to post
The bottom line is that it is ok to have a cache with an additional requirment. You can require a themed trade, Require the log be in the form of a poem and so on.

Hmmm... That goes counter to discussions I've had with the veterans back when I was a newbie.

 

Many folks are like myself and consider the rule for the meaning of "find" being fairly simple; "you can verify your visit" which generaly translates to "you found the box and signed the log." Of course there are exceptions but only when there is something wrong with the box like a wet, full, or missing log. You can cheat, phone-a-friend, stumble over it, or a whole host of other ways--even get it off a walk-thru spoiler board--to find the box other that the way the hider intended, but it's still a find.

 

Far too many people lose sight of what logging online really is.

 

Logging online is only a courtesy, not a requirement. It is also a way to increment your find count on this site. Logging here only means your find count goes up, not that you've actually found the cache. The only thing that means your actual find count goes up is actually finding the cache. Proving it is a simple matter of verification. A legitimate find is nothing more than being able to verify your visit to the cache. Stupid rules about logging a cache online has nothing to do with this in the least.

 

It will be very hard for this hobby to really solidify unless the basic concepts are clear. In this instance, the concept of "what is a find and when am I able to log it" should be very clear.

 

I will now echo something told to me back when I was a newbie, "it is wrong to delete a legitimate find."

Share this post


Link to post

Well said, CR. Signing the logbook is all the verification that should be required. Anything in addition to that is redundant and really just a waste of everyone's time.

Share this post


Link to post
"Approver" != "Volunteer Reviewer". Just an FYI.

Just because they volunteer does not mean that they can not do good and consistent work.

Share this post


Link to post
The bottom line is that it is ok to have a cache with an additional requirment.  You can require a themed trade,  Require the log be in the form of a poem and so on.

Hmmm... That goes counter to discussions I've had with the veterans back when I was a newbie.

 

Many folks are like myself and consider the rule for the meaning of "find" being fairly simple; "you can verify your visit" which generaly translates to "you found the box and signed the log." Of course there are exceptions but only when there is something wrong with the box like a wet, full, or missing log. You can cheat, phone-a-friend, stumble over it, or a whole host of other ways--even get it off a walk-thru spoiler board--to find the box other that the way the hider intended, but it's still a find.

 

Far too many people lose sight of what logging online really is.

 

Logging online is only a courtesy, not a requirement. It is also a way to increment your find count on this site. Logging here only means your find count goes up, not that you've actually found the cache. The only thing that means your actual find count goes up is actually finding the cache. Proving it is a simple matter of verification. A legitimate find is nothing more than being able to verify your visit to the cache. Stupid rules about logging a cache online has nothing to do with this in the least.

 

It will be very hard for this hobby to really solidify unless the basic concepts are clear. In this instance, the concept of "what is a find and when am I able to log it" should be very clear.

 

I will now echo something told to me back when I was a newbie, "it is wrong to delete a legitimate find."

The cache would not be there if not for the owner placing it. The owner has the right to ask for whatever they want. If they do not get tough luck the find "stands", or should stand. The problem there is that the owner of the cache can delete the find and subsequent resubmissions if they care to. Grounspeak has this built into the interface.

 

Play the game, comply with the owners wishes, after all if you want credit for the find give some credit back to the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
The owner has the right to ask for whatever they want.

Guess again. The "game" is not in complying with asinine logging requirements. The "game" is about finding boxes in the woods. You can set up a cache so the finder jumps through all the hoops you want to find the cache, but once the cache is found, it's found, and no kind of logging requirement can change that fact.

 

By your logic, if the owner requires you to send him a dollar for each find log, then that's okay. If that's the case, it would be equally valid for someone to move the cache and ransom the new coords.

 

I'll give credit where credit is due. Dumb logging requirements is simply juvenile and adds nothing to the game. Same goes for virts that require you to answer more than one question.

 

I should add that on a physical cache the primary and accepted way to verify a find is to sign the logbook. Nothing more is required. Period.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post
I should add that on a physical cache the primary and accepted way to verify a find is to sign the logbook. Nothing more is required. Period.

That sounds right to me, but evidently there is no agreement.

 

Also on the back of a log is a Code that you will need to email me before logging your find. If Your email does not have the correct code then I will delete your log until you have found it.

 

The above is from a nearby cache recently placed. Is this because the cache owner doesn't want to take the trouble to read cache logs?

Share this post


Link to post
Also on the back of a log is a Code that you will need to email me before logging your find. If Your email does not have the correct code then I will delete your log until you have found it.

 

The above is from a nearby cache recently placed. Is this because the cache owner doesn't want to take the trouble to read cache logs?

I wonder why the approvers are now letting such caches get approved considering this is little more than a codeword cache which are supposedly no longer approved.

 

To answer your query directly, the only reason I can think of is because the owner is lazy or has placed a cache that is too much trouble to maintain. Neither are valid reasons to have two forms of verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Also on the back of a log is a Code that you will need to email me before logging your find. If Your email does not have the correct code then I will delete your log until you have found it.

 

The above is from a nearby cache recently placed. Is this because the cache owner doesn't want to take the trouble to read cache logs?

I wonder why the approvers are now letting such caches get approved considering this is little more than a codeword cache which are supposedly no longer approved.

Codeword caches attempted to use emailed codes in place of a logbook. If there's a logbook, it's not a codeword cache.

Share this post


Link to post

i have a couple that require an additional requirement or two; these are not simple hoops for me to make the finder show me they were there.

 

in one case, there's a very specific thing i want them to realize, and it has to do with location. it's about getting the big picture.

 

in the other cases, the additional rules are the entertainment themselves. kind of like party games. nobody is obliged to play, but it's funny when they do. "the stupid rules cache" just isn't funny without the stupid rules.

 

i have a dim view of codeword caches, though. some people like 'em a lot, though. there's no accounting for taste.

Share this post


Link to post
...I should add that on a physical cache the primary and accepted way to verify a find is to sign the logbook. Nothing more is required. Period.

Guess again. (Good intro, it makes everyon so defensive)

 

Owners cache owners rules. Period. Your rules apply for the physical log. Foe one thing you can't stop it from happening anyway. However for the online log, even stupid inane rules are ok. They will always be ok so long as the site allows caches to be approved that have any rule more complicated than "log the physical log" When they start that up, they should also remove the option for the cache owner to delete logs. That ability is what gives owners The Power. You don't have to like it but it's reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Codeword caches attempted to use emailed codes in place of a logbook. If there's a logbook, it's not a codeword cache.

So, to make a codeword cache not one, all you have to do is put a scrap of paper in there? Uh-huh. :lol:

 

Does this person who has this cache reconcile the logbook? If not, it is a codeword cache because the logbook means nothing. If he does reconcile the logbook then there is no need for the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Owners cache owners rules. Period. Your rules apply for the physical log. Foe one thing you can't stop it from happening anyway. However for the online log, even stupid inane rules are ok. They will always be ok so long as the site allows caches to be approved that have any rule more complicated than "log the physical log" When they start that up, they should also remove the option for the cache owner to delete logs. That ability is what gives owners The Power. You don't have to like it but it's reality.

Nice. The only reason that it is perceived to be okay is because some people say it's okay. Even if the majority don't think it's okay one person saying it's okay others will point to it and call it gospel.

 

If you want to let people play games like that because you think there isn't anything you can do then you're part of the problem--especially coming in here and saying it's okay. That stance is defeatist.

 

The cache owner only has control of the cache page and only then so that illegitimate logs are removed. Deleting legitimate logs is an abuse of that power and the owner should be called on it. Just because you can abuse your power doesn't mean it's okay.

 

Yes, you can stop it from happening. You demand that it not happen and let the owner know it shouldn't happen. Just because you don't have the power to force them to comply doesn't mean you can't do something. You show your displeasure at their actions as if they were a pirate moving caches or a maggot stealing them. In essence, it's the same. A pirate steals your cache, a stupid rules maker tries to steal your find. No need to give up because you can't force them to comply.

 

Another reality is cache maggots, but I don't see you saying it okay just because you can't stop them.

 

Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
..Nice.  The only reason that it is perceived to be okay is because some people say it's okay. ..

The cache owner only has control of the cache page and only then so that illegitimate logs are removed.  Deleting legitimate logs is an abuse of that power and the owner should be called on it.  Just because you can abuse your power doesn't mean it's okay....

If you maximize the freedom and creativity in the game you are going to get lame rules. But you are going to get excellent ideas also. It's the price you pay for a larger reward.

 

So I do say it's ok. I will continue to say it's ok. Because lame caches with stupid rules get weeded out via natural selection. That being they are not any fun. No fun to find, so nobody finds them. They are also no fun to maintain so owners archive them. However we need the freedom to learn those lessons.

 

But with that freedom we get some great ideas and worthy caches that would never come about if it was "Just signing the frigging log book" We are looking for a box but we don't have to think inside it.

 

Edit: A comment on Cache Maggots. Yes it's a rule that I made 'Don't be stealing my cache'. It's hard to enforce but if I can I will.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, who says you want maximum freedom and creativity? This is a prime example of why you don't. So is the old cache pirates--it was just a creative part of the game, right?

 

Let's not confuse a "law" and "socially acceptable." Obviously a "law" is like "cache must be described with coordinates" or "can not be on an active railroad." These are things this site has deemed as a litmus test of whether the cache should be approved or not. These are rules where you simply cannot go beyond.

 

OTOH, "socially acceptable" are rules like "don't send someone on a 12 mile hike and 'forget' to mention a special tool required to open the container," or "don't intentionally give false coords to artificially inflate the difficulty." Though you could get a cache approved with these, it's not okay to do these things. These are rules that while you can go outside the box, you are firmly yanked back by your peers.

 

Playing games with the online log fits well within the latter category. Besides, there is plenty of room for creativity within the socially acceptable box.

 

I notice the OP changed his cache page to request you name something that has a 'p' in it. I don't have a problem with requests. It's the threats of log deletion that I have major problems with.

 

I repeat, "it is wrong to delete a legitimate find."

Share this post


Link to post
So, to make a codeword cache not one, all you have to do is put a scrap of paper in there?

Yes, that's right. If it has a logbook, it's not a codeword cache. It's a traditional cache with a logging requirement.

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...