Jump to content

Confused?


Roman!

Recommended Posts

I was just reading my local reviewers blog and saw this:

Q:

I’ve decided I need to change my cache from a traditional type to a multicache. Can you do that for me?

 

A: Once a cache has been published and cachers have logged finds on it, the cache type can’t be changed. The best solution is to archive your cache and submit a new one with the new cache type listed. As long as the new cache meets the current guidelines, you should have a new cache with the correct cache type published in no time

 

So what confuses me is this cache, it was originally a puzzles cache and found several times as such but was later turned into a traditional, my question is how and why?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I was just reading my local reviewers blog and saw this:

Q:

I’ve decided I need to change my cache from a traditional type to a multicache. Can you do that for me?

 

A: Once a cache has been published and cachers have logged finds on it, the cache type can’t be changed. The best solution is to archive your cache and submit a new one with the new cache type listed. As long as the new cache meets the current guidelines, you should have a new cache with the correct cache type published in no time

 

So what confuses me is this cache, it was originally a puzzles cache and found several times as such but was later turned into a traditional, my question is how and why?

 

I think they can be convinced to change it under certain circumstances.

 

I know one that was changed from a traditional to a multi. The owner was a n00b who thought it was a clever and new idea to have an additional set of coordinates in the cache that pointed you to a second container with the logbook in it. He was quite incensed when people started finding it and pointing out that it should be a multi. Eventually a reviewer changed the cache type.

 

If you just want to change the cache type because you think the cache needs to be freshened up or something, then you should create a new listing.

Link to comment

It's less "can't" and more "won't. I've seen a cache type changed fairly recently so I know it's possible.

 

Trouble is, if they advertise that they are willing to do it, people would abuse it.

 

"No precedent" and all that. Enjoyed this line in the cache description:

Just a crappy cache in a park with a former life.

Link to comment

The issue for Groundspeak is the integrity of the review process. Simply adjusting the "cache type" is outside of the review process and is open for mistakes/abuse. In this case changing from a puzzle to a traditional was straightforward as the cache site (final) was already validated for proximity and permission. Changing to something other than a traditional cache, requires a re-review. That's presumably how this cache was exempted and why the boilerplate answer is archive and resubmit.

Link to comment

One problem with changing cache types for active caches is that it effects the history of every cacher who has already found it. This isn't a huge problem if the cache has very few finders, particularly if those finders logged that the cache type was incorrect, but it could become a problem as the number of finders increase as it will effect their personal stats, challenge completions, etc.

Link to comment

The complete story is told in the archived logs and (I assume) in emails exchanged between the CO and the Reviewer. So, I wouldn't worry about the issue and I wouldn't be confused.

 

I assume the reviewer had very good reasons to make the change.

 

However, it still stands that the OP could be confused having found the cache prior to the change when he sees the reviewer say he can't make that type of change. In this case, it would probably more accurate to state that generally these types of changes are not allowed. It goes back to the guidelines debate and the use of should rather than will. Or in this case, can't instead of shouldn't.

Link to comment

One problem with changing cache types for active caches is that it effects the history of every cacher who has already found it. This isn't a huge problem if the cache has very few finders, particularly if those finders logged that the cache type was incorrect, but it could become a problem as the number of finders increase as it will effect their personal stats, challenge completions, etc.

 

Since it happens so rarely, one would assume that the change is, in fact, a correction that would make those cachers' stats more accurate.

 

The integrity and accuracy of the cache listing should always take precedence over side games.

Link to comment

I'm confused by that cache, too. I have no idea why anyone would want to change the cache type once the cache has been found. As far as I can see, there's no advantage, so no reason to create the many disadvantages caused by changing it. And I see nothing about that cache the suggests there's any reason to make an exception.

 

But I suppose this goes back to the old argument we often have around here about whether a cache should be archived and recreated when its ratings change significantly. Some people think that the physical cache is what makes the cache, so as long as the same physical cache is hidden in the same way at the same location, the same ID should be used no matter what. I'm in the other camp, so I see a cache that has a different type as a different cache no matter how much it shares with the original.

 

I found Keystone's response a little cryptic, but I still basically agree with the sentiment: just accept that it can't happen and then don't worry about any exceptions when it does.

Edited by dprovan
Link to comment

One problem with changing cache types for active caches is that it effects the history of every cacher who has already found it. This isn't a huge problem if the cache has very few finders, particularly if those finders logged that the cache type was incorrect, but it could become a problem as the number of finders increase as it will effect their personal stats, challenge completions, etc.

 

Since it happens so rarely, one would assume that the change is, in fact, a correction that would make those cachers' stats more accurate.

 

The integrity and accuracy of the cache listing should always take precedence over side games.

That's true and I have certainly taken that position in threads regarding adjustments to D/T ratings (and others). That doen't mean that the issue isn't a real one for those affected. This is especially true given that GC.com has embraced challenges.

Link to comment

Well, I know why it happened. There was a log from the CO which stated:

 

The point of this cache is to use the device to obtain the coordinates. Indeed, the point of all puzzle caches is to solve the puzzle. However there will always be those who prefer to cheat as the numbers mean more than anything else. It is a pity, but they are only cheating themselves.

 

Next, there is a find two weeks later from a geocacher:

 

Not being a fan of puzzle caches I have become somewhat of an expert at finding unique ways to get final coordinates and once again my ingenuity paid off. As for cheating, the only real rule is one must sign the log so I have no qualms about counting this cache as a find even though I didn't find it in the manner the CO intended.

 

And the very next log is the change from puzzle to traditional. It's odd that the CO was able to convince the reviewer to do this, as it messes up every finder's stats, but perhaps that one cacher gave them that special inspiration to do that anyway.

Link to comment

Well, I know why it happened. There was a log from the CO which stated:

 

The point of this cache is to use the device to obtain the coordinates. Indeed, the point of all puzzle caches is to solve the puzzle. However there will always be those who prefer to cheat as the numbers mean more than anything else. It is a pity, but they are only cheating themselves.

 

Next, there is a find two weeks later from a geocacher:

 

Not being a fan of puzzle caches I have become somewhat of an expert at finding unique ways to get final coordinates and once again my ingenuity paid off. As for cheating, the only real rule is one must sign the log so I have no qualms about counting this cache as a find even though I didn't find it in the manner the CO intended.

 

And the very next log is the change from puzzle to traditional. It's odd that the CO was able to convince the reviewer to do this, as it messes up every finder's stats, but perhaps that one cacher gave them that special inspiration to do that anyway.

 

Assuming the cacher did not simply obtain the final coordinates from someone who solved the puzzle, it certainly is not cheating to find a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle. Quite to the contrary it is quite an accomplishment and something most cachers don't have the skills to achieve. Personally, I am quite inept at solving puzzles yet skilled at finding puzzle caches without solving the puzzle or having actual coordinates. It's a whole different type of caching that some people enjoy quite a bit. Can you picture entering woods without being certain where the cache is or not being certain the cache is actually in those woods, yet finding it anyway? That's not cheating, it's skill.

 

I published a very difficult puzzle once and the FTF was claimed by one of the area's outstanding cachers who found it without solving my puzzle. His methodology was quite ingenious. I almost claimed an FTF on a puzzle cache myself (without a puzzle solution). Work duties held me up and I was second on the scene. I published an entire series of caches based on this type of cache finding, and those with a knack for it loved it.

 

.

Link to comment

One problem with changing cache types for active caches is that it effects the history of every cacher who has already found it. This isn't a huge problem if the cache has very few finders, particularly if those finders logged that the cache type was incorrect, but it could become a problem as the number of finders increase as it will effect their personal stats, challenge completions, etc.

 

Since it happens so rarely, one would assume that the change is, in fact, a correction that would make those cachers' stats more accurate.

 

The integrity and accuracy of the cache listing should always take precedence over side games.

That's true and I have certainly taken that position in threads regarding adjustments to D/T ratings (and others). That doen't mean that the issue isn't a real one for those affected. This is especially true given that GC.com has embraced challenges.

 

If the cache you found for a challenge was not correctly listed, then it shouldn't actually qualify you for the challenge.

Link to comment

Assuming the cacher did not simply obtain the final coordinates from someone who solved the puzzle, it certainly is not cheating to find a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle. Quite to the contrary it is quite an accomplishment and something most cachers don't have the skills to achieve. Personally, I am quite inept at solving puzzles yet skilled at finding puzzle caches without solving the puzzle or having actual coordinates. It's a whole different type of caching that some people enjoy quite a bit. Can you picture entering woods without being certain where the cache is or not being certain the cache is actually in those woods, yet finding it anyway? That's not cheating, it's skill.

 

I published a very difficult puzzle once and the FTF was claimed by one of the area's outstanding cachers who found it without solving my puzzle. His methodology was quite ingenious. I almost claimed an FTF on a puzzle cache myself (without a puzzle solution). Work duties held me up and I was second on the scene. I published an entire series of caches based on this type of cache finding, and those with a knack for it loved it.

 

Well if most were not solving the puzzle, why would they be upset over the loss of the icon?

 

My girlfriend and I found a difficult puzzle paddle-to about a month ago without really solving it. The CO did not provide any type of checker, and was not confirming coords which may have annoyed a few others. We checked several possible solutions, and then stumbled upon it accidentally. I don't think that it's cheating, but without providing any type of coord confirmation, that invites it. Another difficult multi we found had a few puzzles for stages. One was gnawed away, but we found the final anyhow by luck. I don't really think that there is anything wrong with that, unless you are intentionally trying to defy the CO's wishes.

Link to comment

Since it happens so rarely, one would assume that the change is, in fact, a correction that would make those cachers' stats more accurate.

 

The integrity and accuracy of the cache listing should always take precedence over side games.

What side game are your referring to in this instance?

 

 

The logs indicate you need a duino device.

 

...how pleasing to have a Duino cache close to home to figure it out without having to go out to the 'burbs! Do you have to make arrangements to get the device from whoever has it?

 

Update Coordinates

 

05 Feb 14

 

N 49° 14.440 W 123° 06.870

Coordinates changed from:

N 49° 14.569 W 123° 06.586

 

Coordinates changed to:

N 49° 14.440 W 123° 06.870

 

Distance from original: 1373.3 feet or 418.6 meters.

At the request of the cache owner

 

05 Feb 14

 

I'm sorry guys, but I had to change this cache to a traditional (see previous logs). One day I hope to learn how to reprogram the puzzle and make a new cache. Thank you for your notes.

 

The fact that the cache was moved before conversion blows my initial theory out of the water. I was confused from the suggestions you need to make arrangements with the CO (or previous cachers) for the duino device, as that is almost an ALR and would put of many cachers. As to why it was requested and approved only the CO and the reviewer know. I don't buy the cherry picked log from 4wheelin_fool as the sole deciding factor.

Link to comment

To find the cache you had to make arrangements to get your hands on the duino device. There was a group that found the cache because they were out with the person who programmed the duino for the co. After that the CO posted a note calling them cheaters. I got my hands on the coordinates from one of the people that were in that group, I wouldn't have bothered finding the cache if not for my friends being called cheaters as I knew I'd never get my hands on the device. I then found the cache and posted my log after which the cache type was changed.

Link to comment

Well, I know why it happened. There was a log from the CO which stated:

 

The point of this cache is to use the device to obtain the coordinates. Indeed, the point of all puzzle caches is to solve the puzzle. However there will always be those who prefer to cheat as the numbers mean more than anything else. It is a pity, but they are only cheating themselves.

That doesn't tell me why it happened. In fact, that's a perfect reason to archive the cache instead of changing the type. The only thing I can imagine is that he wanted to punish everyone that had already found it by yanking the unknown count from them, but the reviewer shouldn't have supported that plan.

 

As a side note, it sounds sad that the CO takes it so seriously. He should try to have more fun. It's funny that he starts out with the note about cheating themselves, but then gets into a huff when it keeps happening.

Link to comment

To find the cache you had to make arrangements to get your hands on the duino device. There was a group that found the cache because they were out with the person who programmed the duino for the co. After that the CO posted a note calling them cheaters. I got my hands on the coordinates from one of the people that were in that group, I wouldn't have bothered finding the cache if not for my friends being called cheaters as I knew I'd never get my hands on the device. I then found the cache and posted my log after which the cache type was changed.

 

If this is the case, then I am confused as well. Seems like a perfect example of needing to archive a cache. It wasn't like the type was a mistake. It was meant to be a puzzle from the start.

Link to comment

I just looked a little more carefully at the description, and it's an even better argument for archival and recreation and against retyping. In the revised description, he refers to this clever puzzle that everyone cheated on, but since he reused the cache page, he can't point to the old archived cache so the rest of us could see what a cool puzzle it was.

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...