Jump to content

I PAYED AND I WANT ALRs BACK!


Recommended Posts

NEWS FLASH!!!!

 

Not everyone who uses all caps is shouting! :) The start of this thread was to be a fun way to express my opinion that the new guidelines were not to my liking, hence the simple song for the OP.

He didn't say you were shouting at your keyboard. I agree with Vinnie. On the internet all caps is equivalent to shouting. Do you think we are hard of seeing? :D It sounds to me he must have read the old usenet posting guidelines where all caps were always discouraged.
Link to comment

 

More importantly: The stages of a multicache are not ALRs. :) A multicache is a specific cache type that consists of several stages, each of which should be found in order to locate and log the final. Cache owners still have the right to delete the logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages.

 

This notion of "the right to delete logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages" confuses me. I've seen it a number of times in the forums today while discussing the dropping of ALR's. My thought has always been "found the cache, sign the cache, log the cache", though I admittedly haven't been in the game as long as the poster of this statement.

 

So now I'm sincerely curious and hope someone who has been around much longer than myself can shed some light on this: Was there ever a stipulation in the guidelines that stated that an individual's found log could be deleted with some sort of evidence supporting the fact that not all stages were found on a Multi or Mystery cache? What is Groundspeak's stance on this matter? I recognize that you lose some of the experience of caching by not performing all the tasks (and I would encourage people to actually do all of them) but it seems Draconian to me for Groundspeak to have ever had such an unenforceable policy.

Link to comment

 

More importantly: The stages of a multicache are not ALRs. :) A multicache is a specific cache type that consists of several stages, each of which should be found in order to locate and log the final. Cache owners still have the right to delete the logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages.

Since when? I can see deleting the logs of someone who was given the coords to the final but what about someone who was either smart enough or just plain lucky enough to figure out where the end would be? How about the person who finds the final to a cache in the same place they were planning on placing their own? Should they not be able to log what they found? What if that person was a brand new geocacher - deleting their log would likely turn them away from the game before they've really started.

 

Deleting logs, according to the guidelines, is meant for getting rid of bogus logs (where someone didn't really find the cache - think armchair logging), not for giving CO's the power to arbitrarily delete logs from people they don't like for whatever reason (including being outsmarted).

Link to comment

 

More importantly: The stages of a multicache are not ALRs. :) A multicache is a specific cache type that consists of several stages, each of which should be found in order to locate and log the final. Cache owners still have the right to delete the logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages.

Since when? I can see deleting the logs of someone who was given the coords to the final but what about someone who was either smart enough or just plain lucky enough to figure out where the end would be? How about the person who finds the final to a cache in the same place they were planning on placing their own? Should they not be able to log what they found? What if that person was a brand new geocacher - deleting their log would likely turn them away from the game before they've really started.

 

Deleting logs, according to the guidelines, is meant for getting rid of bogus logs (where someone didn't really find the cache - think armchair logging), not for giving CO's the power to arbitrarily delete logs from people they don't like for whatever reason (including being outsmarted).

Okay, not the point of my post, but since you and Dr. House both picked on my secondary commentary...I was simply reiterating GS policy that COs have the ability to delete logs. (Sheesh.) I didn't say the CO must or should delete the logs of multicache finders who don't do all the stages (for whatever reason), just that they could. I wouldn't do it, but I know cache owners who have.

Link to comment

 

I can understand not liking ALRs, but banning them because you don't like them stinks for those who like them.

 

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far.

 

Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same.

I've been watching this steady retrenchment for years now. Instead of encouraging new ideas and concepts it there seems to be a march toward minimalism. This one seems utterly unnecessary. No one is forced to hunt any particular cache or even go caching at all. I thought gc.com was originally a tool to facilitate caching not a mechanism to control, regiment and restrict it. People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create an untoward burden on the system. I guess the way of the future is to require all caches to be micro skirtlifters that can be done without leaving your car. That way the numbers people are not delayed by having to actually do a cache.

Edited by Thot
Link to comment

 

More importantly: The stages of a multicache are not ALRs. :) A multicache is a specific cache type that consists of several stages, each of which should be found in order to locate and log the final. Cache owners still have the right to delete the logs of finders who don't do the intermediate stages.

Since when? I can see deleting the logs of someone who was given the coords to the final but what about someone who was either smart enough or just plain lucky enough to figure out where the end would be? How about the person who finds the final to a cache in the same place they were planning on placing their own? Should they not be able to log what they found? What if that person was a brand new geocacher - deleting their log would likely turn them away from the game before they've really started.

 

Deleting logs, according to the guidelines, is meant for getting rid of bogus logs (where someone didn't really find the cache - think armchair logging), not for giving CO's the power to arbitrarily delete logs from people they don't like for whatever reason (including being outsmarted).

Okay, not the point of my post, but since you and Dr. House both picked on my secondary commentary...I was simply reiterating GS policy that COs have the ability to delete logs. (Sheesh.) I didn't say the CO must or should delete the logs of multicache finders who don't do all the stages (for whatever reason), just that they could. I wouldn't do it, but I know cache owners who have.

 

Not trying to pick on you, just honestly trying to see if such a rule existed from someone who's been around this thing longer than myself. If someone had posted a found log advising the specific whereabouts or obvious hint pertaining to the location of a cache, I might consider deletion asking the individual to re-log their find, but doubt I'd ever actually do it. To me, I've brought you to a nice area and you found and signed a log. The End.

 

I'd rather save log deletion for random instances where people might wax idiotic on the cache page, when clearly inane conversation is not designed to be had.

Link to comment

People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create a untoward burden on the system.

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count?

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

While we are passing rules about deleting logs. I want a rule that says you can't delete a find for no valid reason. The other day a guy deleted my find because I mentioned in the log that the cache description didn't describe the cache. It was like a description of an entirely different cache. He put extreme emphasis on the container type and it wasn't that kind of container at all. He stated condition of the hide (sheltered from weather) -- it wasn't. In short ever aspect of the description was wrong. I wasn't unpleasant about it, I simply explained that these descriptions were incorrect, so other cachers would know. He deleted my find without any notice or explanation. He told a friend that my comments didn't reflect well on his hide. It was a skirtlifter.

 

Simply because He's the owner, he's free to delete a find for any whimsical/capricious reason whatever, but I can't require someone email me and tell me the exact place the found the cache so I can come replace it if need be. [i have a cache people, for some unknown reason, keep moving to places that aren't good.] I don't really have such a requirement, but if I understand the new rule I couldn't delete a log for the cacher's willful refusal to comply with a stated requirement of the cache that I need to properly maintain the cache.

 

If I still have all the right. The solution is, when the person doesn't do what you asked, delete the log and say it was because you didn't like his attitude or his caching handle, not because he didn't comply with the ALR

Edited by Thot
Link to comment

People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create a untoward burden on the system.

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count?

I read it. I don't understand how publishing caches they don't think will ever be found puts an untoward (maybe I should have said great) burden on them. There are challenging caches that will have few if any finds -- should hard caches be eliminated too. Like I said, we can make them all drive-up LPCs

Edited by Thot
Link to comment
No one is forced to hunt any particular cache or even go caching at all.

If I find a cache, and there's a note inside from the owner saying that I have to post my on-line log in the form of iambic pentameter, well, it's a little to late to not hunt it, isn't it?

 

Besides, while people continue to make the "you don't have to..." argument, it is, and always has been, a bogus one. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the removal of all guidelines. While a few might be in favor of anarchy, the majority recognize the need for some structure in the sport.

Link to comment

People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create a untoward burden on the system.

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count?

I read it. I don't understand how publishing caches they don't think will ever be found puts an untoward (maybe I should have said great) burden on them. There are challenging caches that will have few if any finds -- should hard caches be eliminated too. Like I said, we can make them all drive-up LPCs

 

Probably reading this thread and the other one, you'd get the answer to this...simply publishing the caaches wasn't the problem though. At least not all of it.

Link to comment
No one is forced to hunt any particular cache or even go caching at all.

If I find a cache, and there's a note inside from the owner saying that I have to post my on-line log in the form of iambic pentameter, well, it's a little to late to not hunt it, isn't it?

 

I agree that any special requirements need to be stated in the cache description for the reason you say. You can't eliminate a cache if you don't know what it is.

 

Besides, while people continue to make the "you don't have to..." argument, it is, and always has been, a bogus one. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the removal of all guidelines. While a few might be in favor of anarchy, the majority recognize the need for some structure in the sport.

 

I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum. Virtually anything carried to the extreme becomes absurd

Link to comment

Glad to see ALRs GONE they distracted from what was important in this game. This isn't affecting things as much as people say it is. I say RIP!

 

StaticTank

 

I have to admit that there's one local cache I have avoided just because I don't own a digital camera to take the Phoon picture of myself that's required............ but I just stayed away........... many have enjoyed it. I wasn't harmed.

Link to comment

People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create a untoward burden on the system.

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count?

 

Ummm.....but isn't it true that, just as no one HAS to seek/visit/'clear' all caches, no one HAS to be a Reviewer?

 

Just sayin'....

~*

Link to comment
Simply because He's the owner, he's free to delete a find for any whimsical/capricious reason whatever

Are you sure about that? I've seen many threads in these forums from folks whose legitimate logs were deleted because the owner didn't like some aspect of the log. The most common response to these complaints has been to contact admin@ geocaching .com, spelling out the issue. In most instances referenced here, the deleted logs were reinstated by Groundspeak.

 

Note: This doesn't apply to logs with negative connotations such as foul language or spoilers.

 

I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum. Virtually anything carried to the extreme becomes absurd

That's what I thought when I saw your post about lamp posts. Lemme see if I can find it...

I guess the way of the future is to require all caches to be micro skirtlifters that can be done without leaving your car.

Yup. I'd call that statement drawn to the extreme, and therefor, pretty darn absurd.

Link to comment
I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum. Virtually anything carried to the extreme becomes absurd

That's what I thought when I saw your post about lamp posts. Lemme see if I can find it...

I guess the way of the future is to require all caches to be micro skirtlifters that can be done without leaving your car.

Yup. I'd call that statement drawn to the extreme, and therefor, pretty darn absurd.

 

Mine was a joke. I don't think his was.

Edited by Thot
Link to comment

People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create a untoward burden on the system.

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count?

 

Ummm.....but isn't it true that, just as no one HAS to seek/visit/'clear' all caches, no one HAS to be a Reviewer?

 

Just sayin'....

~*

True, and no one will be, if we keep increasing their workloads..

Link to comment

I don't really have an opinion on ALR's...In my short time of geocaching I've never come across one.

 

However, I was planning on creating my first puzzle/mystery cache. To increase the difficulty I considered having a key that was needed to solve the puzzle, and to have the key placed at the listed coordinates. Would this be considered an ALR?

 

- ClanBlakley # 3

Link to comment
I considered having a key that was needed to solve the puzzle, and to have the key placed at the listed coordinates. Would this be considered an ALR?

 

No, that's something needed to solve the puzzle and find the cache. Having an ALR would mean that people have to do something besides finding the cache and signing the physical log before they could claim a find on the web site.

Link to comment

So now I'm sincerely curious and hope someone who has been around much longer than myself can shed some light on this: Was there ever a stipulation in the guidelines that stated that an individual's found log could be deleted with some sort of evidence supporting the fact that not all stages were found on a Multi or Mystery cache? What is Groundspeak's stance on this matter? I recognize that you lose some of the experience of caching by not performing all the tasks (and I would encourage people to actually do all of them) but it seems Draconian to me for Groundspeak to have ever had such an unenforceable policy.

That is of course the issue. Groundspeak doesn't want (or didn't want) to be the log police. Instead they wrote guidelines giving that task to the cache owner. Cache owners are told to delete logs which are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements. Of course many cache owners just let any log stay on their cache page. Their attitude is "why should I not trust other caches to use the 'Found It' appropriately" Since the points don't really matter it makes little sense to worry if someone is claiming a found because they did half of your cache or even it they are just armchair logging it from their living room. Other cache owners have taken the approach of deleting logs almost any reason, even because they say something unflattering about the cache. It is precisely because Groundspeak had this policy that ALRs were first created. And at first TPTB seem to tolerate them because the tasks were simple and relatively easy to comply with.

 

There were of course people who complained their logs were deleted. Perhaps they didn't comply with an ALR. Perhaps they stated that they didn't do all the stages of a multi. Perhaps they wrote an unflattering log. In most case, Groundspeak sided with the cache owners. If a cacher was so concerned that his find count was going to be off, they were told to log one of their own caches or some archived cache so their number would be right. There were some cases however where Groundspeak's investigation turned up a cache owner who was deleting logs just to be vindictive. Groundspeak has the capability to restore deleted log and they can lock the cache page to prevent the owner from changing it.

 

Eventually people were getting logs routinely deleted by cachers who had ALRs. I think some were cachers who are somehow convinced that the smiley count has some special power over others were pushing the limits to see what that power was. TPTB stepped in by requiring that caches with ALRs be listed as mystery types. That was supposed to allow finders to know that there was an ALR before they sought out the cache and not be surprised that they had to fulfill an ALR or risk getting their 'Found It' log deleted.

 

After that change was made, ALRs took off, since they now had "official" status. The people who had always objected to them continued to complain that they were being forced to do something in order to log a find. Nonsense. Once you see this is an ALR that you don't want to do either don't find the cache or go and find it and log a note instead of 'Found It'. If you really want your find count to be "right", log a find on one of your own caches.

 

However it seems that a few people were creating ALRs that had no point to them other than to see what you could make people do to get a smiley. The reviewers and TPTB likely looked at ways to control these lame ALRs much like they looked at ways to limit virtuals when it looked like lame virtuals were getting out of control. Back then, TPTB added what came to be know as the "Wow" requirement. This required virtuals to be at truly unique locations with special geographic, historic, or geocaching interest. The "Wow" requirement was successful in stopping the runaway explosion of lame virtuals. But a a price. The reviewer were spending a significant part of their time not just turning down virtuals that didn't make the "wow" standard but also explaining to people why their virtual got turned down while another persons virtual didn't. The reviewers vowed never again to take on the task of implement such a subjective guideline.

 

It looks like the suggested ways to control lame ALRs all reminded the reviewers of the "Wow" requirement.

I keep going back and forth as to whether or not a reasonable guideline could have been constructed for ALRs. But I can understand the reluctance to try. In that light the change to guideline was inevitable. (If all buried caches were buried with permission and were clever hides that didn't require finders to dig up a location when searching for them - buried caches wouldn't be banned).

 

The wording of the new guideline however does indicate for the first time that Groundspeak is in the log policing business. They are now going to enforce a rule that says cache owners cannot delete logs for failure to do an additional logging requirement. Because of the way it is worded, it is not clear if a cache owner can delete any log so long as the finder has signed the physical log book. So cacher owners can enforce the narrow puritan definition of a find - i.e. that the finder signed the physical log - but they cannot take a tougher stand. And since they are told to delete bogus logs there is a question as to whether cache owners can take a less strict stand and accept all log or accept logs where the finder indicates they didn't sign the log for some reason.

Link to comment

I did a Video for an ALR Challenge cache. The long part was completing the challenge. The Cool thing was doing the video. Of course, 4 DAYS later, they pulled THIS KRAP!

 

Give Geocachers the Right to post ALRs. IF they were Published with the ALR, then they should stay(within reason). If its related to the cache, then ALR is Ok...

 

The Steaks

Link to comment

I did a Video for an ALR Challenge cache. The long part was completing the challenge. The Cool thing was doing the video. Of course, 4 DAYS later, they pulled THIS KRAP!

 

Give Geocachers the Right to post ALRs. IF they were Published with the ALR, then they should stay(within reason)If its related to the cache, then ALR is Ok...

 

The Steaks

 

You have indicated the exact root of the problem here. What is 'within reason' to one person may seem totally ridiculous to others. TPTB don't want to have to make an arbitrary decision as to what they feel is 'within reason' since it may not match up with other's definitions. Making a long list of what is reasonable is not something that will work either. There are some out there who would invent a new thing just to see if it would be included or excluded from the list. This could go on forever, debating what is on the list of 'reasonable' and what is not.

This is similar to the agendas problem. ALL agendas are excluded from caches because it's not practical for TPTB to decide for others what is a reasonable agenda and what is not. So all agendas are disallowed from cache page listings. Just as now all ALRs are disallowed. However, Additional Logging Suggestions are still allowed. Knock yourself out with them. Just realize they are suggestions and you can't force others to be in line with them with the threat of deleting their log.

 

I'm sure that every cache owner out there with ALRs thought their demands were 'within reason'. Otherwise, they wouldn't have required them for the cache. If they didn't think they were within reason when they designed their cache, then that's a different problem all together.

 

I am happy with the decision on ALRs. You can suggest as many things as you want to on any cache, you just can't require them now. Those who want to participate in the extras may do so and enjoy themselves at length. Those who feel that the specific requests at any given cache are not 'within reason' now don't have to perform what they feel are unreasonable tasks to log a cache.

Link to comment
Except, one significant difference is that ALR are not grandfathered. So that begs the question, why are virts and moving caches still grandfathered?

Guideline changes are "generally" grandfathered if they are likely to affect an existing situation on the ground. In the case of ALRs, all that has to happen in the short term is that cache owners stop deleting logs. The updates to the cache listings can be done over time. I don't expect the jackbooted GeoStashPolizei to be breaking down anyone's door in the next couple of weeks. :blink:

 

As an analogy, think of what happens when the law changes about what equipment an automobile has to have (seat-belts, airbags, etc) versus when the traffic regulations change. In the first case, you generally don't have to take your car in and get seat-belts retrofitted. But when they change the rules about who has to yield at an intersection, the new rules apply to everyone.

 

What bugs me most about this change is TPTB inconsistency in rule changes.

On the basis outlined above, the main "inconsistency" would be that virtuals were grandfathered whereas locationless caches weren't. But I can live with that degree of inconsistency. A couple of weeks ago, I was eating at my favourite restaurant and they offered me a schnapps on the house. They didn't do that before, and they didn't do it yesterday evening. Guess I should complain about their inconsistency too.

 

Thank you for the clarification!

 

Make a lot of sense.

 

TPTB are off my naughty list.

 

The GeoStashPolizei are still on notice as they let this whole thing get out of hand in the first place.

 

Thanks again riviouveur!

Link to comment
The wording of the new guideline however does indicate for the first time that Groundspeak is in the log policing business. They are now going to enforce a rule that says cache owners cannot delete logs for failure to do an additional logging requirement.

I don't think that very much has changed. There has always been a tacit understanding that COs should not delete logs without good reason. Those that do will get whispered about behind their back (or not) at events. For a lot of people that's quite a deterrent.

 

In the example given above by Thot, I would have kicked and screamed and probably appealed to Groundspeak if my log had been deleted in that way. However, I have no idea what Groundspeak would actually do as a result. For all I know, they might well say "sorry, sounds like the cache owner is a real hard case", but whether they would agree to restore my Found log and make it undeletable, I don't know. (Maybe they'd archive the cache, but that doesn't help my found count.)

 

If this was about home insurance or college admissions or property rights, I would want there to be a complete and coherent schedule of my rights and the sanctions available to make sure I got them. Since it's just hunting tupperware containers, I'm happy to take my chances with an honour-based system. With a million members and no realistic way to police them, I don't think there's another way.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

Glad to see ALRs GONE they distracted from what was important in this game. This isn't affecting things as much as people say it is. I say RIP!

 

StaticTank

 

I have to admit that there's one local cache I have avoided just because I don't own a digital camera to take the Phoon picture of myself that's required............ but I just stayed away........... many have enjoyed it. I wasn't harmed.

And nothing's stopping people from continuing to post Phoon pictures.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...