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

In Consistent Cache Aprrovals

Recommended Posts

You know it's bad when Jeremy joins in.

 

There are tons of problems with a cache like this... First of all, if you're limiting to one log per fruit, are you limiting to a log for apple or pomme, but not both?

 

If you still want to do this cache, as odd as it is... You might want to do one log per specific word - ie, the first log for the word pera is okay, then peer, then poire (portugese, dutch, french)... and after x number of P fruits you'll change the required letter to a b. Boire (german) could then be logged and it would make the cache much more long lasting than if you limit it and never change the limit.

 

 

(note, can someone tell me why I chose that fruit? I don't even like it)

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.

Nice to know a little scrap of paper has such power.

 

But let's explore this a little. Yes, I'm about make some absurd examples, but who thought there would have been an organized pirate ring?

 

If additional logging requirements was considered okay and you had to do whatever the cache owner said before logging on-line, what about these fine examples:

 

- Post a picture of yourself naked holding the cache or your log will be deleted.

 

- Cross post all of your caches to Navicache.com or...

 

- Post a unique spoiler to a local puzzle cache in your log or...

 

- Place 10 new lame micros or...

 

- You can't have more than 10 finds or...

 

So, just where do you draw the line?

Share this post


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

And I repeat the cache owner determines what that is.

 

You have brought up so many issues and so many examples into the equation that I can't cover them all. I'm in general agreement that we do have a general idea of what sportsmanlike play is. Your example of the 12 mile hike being a good one.

 

We do not play this game in a world of no rules, but we don't need more than what does the job in order to preserve that freedom to be creative to the largest extent possible.

 

Do we need a rule that says you need a GPS to find the cache? No. Do we need to deny a cache that uses a pirates map, and you can find the cache using the map and no GPS? No.

 

From experience I know it's easier to set the rules so they pertain to how you find the cache, and not how you log it. In the end what you propose is that.

 

"Email me the name of a Fruit with a P in it and I'll send you the coordinates", seems to work for you. Where "Please name a fruit with a P in it, in your log" doesn't. They are 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. The difference is where you work your method of finding the cache into the equation. Cachers will work hard to figure out a puzzle living with all rules built into the system, where as after the find, living with the same rules to log the cache...That gives some heart burn.

Share this post


Link to post

OT

 

... and after x number of P fruits you'll change the required letter to a b.  Boire (german) could then be logged and it would make the cache much more long lasting than if you limit it and never change the limit.

 

There is AFAIK no german word "boire". I only heard the word "boire" in french but that is no fruit; at least as long as the fruit is inteact ... ;-)

But "Birne" or "Banane" would be fine. :-)

 

Greetings from Germany,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post
"Email me the name of a Fruit with a P in it and I'll send you the coordinates", seems to work for you. Where "Please name a fruit with a P in it, in your log" doesn't. 
Yep.

 

They are 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other.
Not in the least.

 

Once you've found the cache and can properly verify your find, you have a legitimate find. Logging on line has nothing to do with having a legitimate find. Nothing. In fact, you could not log it on line and still the find would stand.

 

In essence and for all practically measures, logging on line is nothing more than feedback to the owner and fellow cachers, and a way to keep track of your finds. It has nothing to do with a find being "official" and as we all know, folks can log caches they don't find and find caches they don't log. Given that, playing juvenile games with your ability to keep track of your find count is just that, a juvenile game.

Share this post


Link to post
OT

 

... and after x number of P fruits you'll change the required letter to a b.  Boire (german) could then be logged and it would make the cache much more long lasting than if you limit it and never change the limit.

 

There is AFAIK no german word "boire". I only heard the word "boire" in french but that is no fruit; at least as long as the fruit is inteact ... ;-)

But "Birne" or "Banane" would be fine. :-)

 

Greetings from Germany,

Tobias

I probably meant birne.

Can you tell I failed German?

 

As for CoyoteRed's list... There's a cache near me that in order to log you must have hidden a cache within the past week of finding that one.

There's another one that if you have less than 1000 finds you can log it normal, if you have more than 1000, you have to hide three caches to claim it.

 

The point of both is to give back to the sport and make sure it continues.

Share this post


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

And I repeat the cache owner determines what that is.

Actually - this isn't about deleting finds, it's about deleting online logs.

 

CR is 100% correct. If you find the cache, you found it - and assanine logging requirements will not change that fact.

 

The statement should be "do not delete a legitimate log". If it's changed to that (and from what I'm reading that may be what you really mean CR) then some of the arguements RK has make more sense. However - it's still fairly pointless.

 

What's the owner going to do? Go rip the sheet out of the logbook? Cross your name off of the logsheet? Invent a time machine and go back and prevent you from finding it?

 

It's like the guy here in MS that deleted the legitimate finds of some geocachers because more than 1 person found the cache at the same time (groups of 2 or more - on a rather remote cache...) His rule was 'only 1 find per GPS'. This from a person with less than 5 finds who hid the cache years ago and didn't maintain it - and hadn't logged onto the website in years. How does he know how many GPS's the groups had??

 

If you found it, you found it. You shouldn't be required to do something stupid to log it online. If they ASK you to do it if you CAN that's one thing - but deleting a legitimate find LOG is pointless.

 

sd

Share this post


Link to post

Lets change angles on this. What exactly is a legitimate find?

 

If the owner can't lay out the ground rules whatever they may be then what make it legitimate and a find that the owner under no circumstances can delete the logs for?

 

The catch to any scheme that can be proposed is that in the end the owner is responsible. The pay off for being responsible is that they get to set the rules.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
The statement should be "do not delete a legitimate log".  If it's changed to that (and from what I'm reading that may be what you really mean CR) then some of the arguments RK has make more sense.

Yes. What I mean is to delete the online log of a legitimate find is wrong. Yes, there are exceptions as you will see below.

 

If the owner can't lay out the ground rules whatever they may be then what make it legitimate and a find that the owner under no circumstances can delete the logs for?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but if you're trying to say that I'm trying to make it so an owner can't delete a log, then that's not what I'm saying. Compromising the cache or the hunt can be cause to delete an online entry. It's the responsibility of the cache owner to protect the cache. Attempting to make a finder jump through asinine hoops is an abuse of power and is flat out wrong.

 

Don't even attempt to compare deleting spoilers to naming something with a 'p' in it, it's not the same thing in the least. Logs on a 5 difficulty with the final coordinates and pictures with arrows pointing out the hiding spot of a cache is certainly cause for concern and is most certainly subject to deletion. Saying you'd better do something in order to have the "privilege" to log your find is completely different.

 

Heck, conceivably, you could have caches that are harder to log than they are to find--how screwed up would that be?

Share this post


Link to post

What I was trying to do is pose the question. What makes a find legitimate so that the owner absolutely should not delete it?

Share this post


Link to post
What I was trying to do is pose the question. What makes a find legitimate so that the owner absolutely should not delete it?

While I might miss something, the basic rule that I've always understood was a legitimate find was one the finder can verify. Most of the time it is signing the log of the final stage for physical caches. On virts, it generally is emailing requested unique, non-Google-able verification information to the owner.

 

Logging a "Found It" is appropriate only when you have a legitimate find. Your log should be respectful, legal, and ethical. It should not contain spoilers.

 

Failure to comply with the above could be grounds for a log deletion. That's pretty much the only reason the cache owner has control of the logs, to ensure online logs match cache logs and to ensure compliance with online logging decorum.

Share this post


Link to post
I probably meant birne.

Can you tell I failed German?

Let's see: You only had one minor mistake, so I think you passed easily as I had always many more mistakes and I passed... ;-)

 

BTW, the discussion about caches with special requirements took place some weeks ago in the german subforum. Funny to see all the arguments getting recycled.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post

It was discussed in the Nordic and Baltic countries forum too, and the same arguments occurred there too.

 

Of course a find is a find if you can find the cache and sign the log. Every additional requirement might be creative and fun, but they should be optional. Geocaching is about finding hidden containers. Believe me, I've jumped through many hoops in order to being able to find that plastic box under that stump. Why should I have to bake you a cake after all that?

Share this post


Link to post

We are in agreement that a legitimate log should stay. Lets step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

First of all, cache owners are responsible for their cache. Any listing site with half a brain, and especially the ones with legal representation are not going to claim any responsibility for a cache. Nor will finders. That leaves ultimate responsibility in the hand of the cache owner. Cache owners being responsible, set the rules. Some rules may not make any sense. I have a virtual that I will not let anyone log during winter months. It doesn’t matter that you can go visit the cache as described and find the answer, there are no winter logs and it’s not negotiable, there is a reason, and there is a reason I don’t explain the reason.

 

What you are calling an abuse of power admits that it is the cache owners who should have the power. They have the power because they are responsible. That’s what it comes down do. This RASH didn’t start with a finder rushing out to a spot and waiting for a cache to be appear with the requirement that it have a can of beans in it. It didn’t start with a listing site posting a coordinate and saying “gee it sure would be nice if a cache was located here and that it was half buried.” It started with a cache being placed, then listed, then found. In that order. The first cache set one of our more universally agreed on rules. ‘use a log book’. A letterbox stamp pad would have been just as valid, so would a codeword. But pretty much everyone buys into that rule so it’s a non issue for most.

 

Who should have the power to abuse? At least with the cache owner, it’s self correcting. To many lame rules for a find and nobody will bother finding the cache. They will learn that if they want people to find their cache (and that’s why they place them) they need to cut back on the anal retentive rules. Because it’s self correcting nobody should place a sharp line between reasonable and stupid rules. To have a line you have to have a body of what, Finders? Listing sites? who are going to enforce the line. That body would not be self correcting and would create more problems in the long run than they solve. The cache owner should call the shots on legitimate or not when it comes to finds. Given time they will learn the ins and outs of how to set up rules for a cache so that finders hunt the cache as intended by the owner. They will also learn that some things won’t lend themselves to rule form that work as intended no matter how you try. They will either quit the game, adapt to reality, or finders will just ignore them and never bother. Self correcting at it’s best. Plus they get to hit a home run every now and then with a creative variation even if it took 100 flops to do it.

 

I'd love to see how it could be done differently and with better overall results, even with the potential for another type of abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post

In the meantime, these flops are sitting idle on a person's nearest list because the person can't log it for some stupid reason even those they've found it.

 

Your logic is valid except for one thing.

 

Your examples of putting the cart before the horse are valid, but there is a failure of logic for restricting logging to control finding. You find the cache first, then log. You can't control finding by controlling logging. That's bass akwards.

 

If there is a reason a cache can't be logged, then it shouldn't be hunted for that very same reason. Dontcha think? Then if it can't be hunted, it can't be logged. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post

Simple solution: provide an "honorable mentions" list on the cache page of everyone who complies with the extra requirement.

 

Such is used around here for "bonus caches" and the like, or figuring out the extra puzzle along the way, etc.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post

I have a cache that requires you to walk like an Egyptian to the cache. But since I can not watch the cache 24 hours a day I put people on the honor system. <_<

Edited by MedTexPlacer

Share this post


Link to post
Your examples of putting the cart before the horse are valid, but there is a failure of logic for restricting logging to control finding. You find the cache first, then log. You can't control finding by controlling logging. That's bass akwards....

That's a lesson cache owners need to learn. I know I did. Ever see how many archived caches I own?

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

I know two caches where you:

 

* In #1 shall locate the cache, log your find in the logbook, and then do some GPSdrawing. From the beginning did the cachepage just say that there were a note in the cache, and you should read it. I read it, but didn't find it interesting and I wrote it in the log, and the owner got quite upset about people not doing the GPS-drawing part. But I said to him "The cachepage only stated that I should find the cache, not doing something else."

 

* In #2 shall you locate the cache, take a card out of the box. On the card is there an email address printed. You shall write a text and save it is PDF-format and send to that email. If you don't send an email with a PDF-file will your log get deleted.

My concern: Not everybody has a PDF-maker program.

 

There used to be a multicache also, where the final stage disappeared right after the owner hide it. So he said instead "Take a photo of yourself at the place and send to me". The problems? There were not an email address on the cache page, and I can't send an email with attachments thru GC.com <_< And since it was a calculation thing between stage 2 and final stage, and that final stage were within closed fenced area, what are "at the place"? I might be somewhere else and think I am at the right place. This cache got archived since it was approved as a multicache with a box at the final stage, and not as a multicache with a touch of virtual in the last stage.

Share this post


Link to post

Get over it. They're human and do their best to stick to the guidelines (they're guidelines not rules or laws). It's just like people having trouble spelling "In Consistent" :lol:

 

Shall we have a discussion about what makes a fruit a fruit (and not a veg or legume)? Or are you going to include a written in stone definition on your cache page along with this silly finding requirement? I think it's funny that the OP thinks having people enter "TNLNSL Apple" is a much more descriptive and/or interesting log entry then "TNLNSL". I know that'd definately enhance my experience with the cache logs <wink> <_<

 

Thorin

Edited by thorin

Share this post


Link to post

After all this, the question remains, why are'nt all approvers agreeing with one another in their methods of approving.

 

If you do not want to follolw the request or demand of the cache owner do not log the find. You can still find the cache and not log it. The log page is for keeping track of bragging rights or proving you do something better than somebody else.

 

The game is to find caches that are placed by cache owners, if that requires you log on the web page so be it, you have alrady found the cache and signed the log.

 

Get back to the question of why not all appovers agree on how, why and should a cache be approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Its time to let this go.

Yep, I've moved on and stopped posting ... to ... this ... DOH!

Why are chickening out now? The question has never been answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Its time to let this go.

Yep, I've moved on and stopped posting ... to ... this ... DOH!

Why are chickening out now? The question has never been answered?

Mainly, because the folks who can give a definitive answer won't and those that can't don't matter.

 

From the guidelines:

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.
All of the arguments for or against additional logging requirements doesn't answer your query.

 

I'd just be happy if no cache pops up around me that have dumb logging requirements. If they do, I'd probably just boycott them until they go away.

Share this post


Link to post
The question is now moot. I withdrew the listing

Perhaps the topic originator ought to review his own posts to this thread. There is no question to answer since there is no cache.

 

A cache probably could've been listed had it been clarified as suggested, and if clear communications had taken place with the volunteer reviewer. Further opportunity to do that was closed when the cache was archived.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, the cache still exists, but in a slightly different form. Still, if you don't post a log with a 'p' in it, it is threatened that your log with be deleted. The language keeps changing as the last time I looked it didn't have the threat.

 

Short walk up hill. Park under cottonwood. On web page, when you log find, please name a fruit with the letter "p" in it. If you can't think of a fruit think of something else. The pretty pink sun parted the clouds like a fruit picker parts the branches on a pear or apple tree, get it? No fruit/word with a "p" no find. Any language can be used, even made up names, repeats accepted with an excuse, be original in excuse. All previous finders are grandfathered.

Share this post


Link to post

On web page, when you log find, please name a fruit with the letter "p" in it. If you can't think of a fruit think of something else.

That would be enough of a change for me to find the cache. Can I make a cache log (beyond TNLNSL) that DOESN'T contain the letter "p"? Next time I'm in Colorado. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

On web page, when you log find, please name a fruit with the letter "p" in it. If you can't think of a fruit think of something else.

That would be enough of a change for me to find the cache. Can I make a cache log (beyond TNLNSL) that DOESN'T contain the letter "p"? Next time I'm in Colorado. <_<

After leaving the trail head, took the wrong fork at first, but turned around and got on track.  What a great view along the way!  Found the cache without much trouble.  Took:whistle and "Lucky" Travel Bug.  Left:rubber ball & carabiner.  Thanks for the cache!

 

The thing is, if this is okay then what's next? I think I illustrated some undesireable results above. Do we really want to go there? I think not.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>

 

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

I've never had it work like that. I have had it work like this twice (with two different approvers):

 

Day 1) submit cache

Day 1) archived with suggestion

Day 2) apply suggestion

Day 2) approver approves it

 

I think it works quite well like this ;)

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...