So what are you doing post-ALRs?

[gotta run]

So you cache owners out there who had caches with ALRs, what have you done–and why?

Archived your caches?

Found other ways to incorporate challenging/extra elements into your caches?

Just changed “requirement” to “request” and lived with the inevitable?

Other?????

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Mathman]

@gotta run wrote:

So you cache owners out there who had caches with ALRs, what have you done–and why?

Archived your caches?

Found other ways to incorporate challenging/extra elements into your caches?

Just changed “requirement” to “request” and lived with the inevitable?

Other?????

My daughter, “Cutie Pi” had a cache that had an ALR which wasn’t monitored entirely. It will remain a request. I also put out a new cache that has a “requested” ALR. If cachers choose to do the “extra” task I will allow an extra smiley. So far three or four people have done the extra task but only one has taken the extra smiley. It’s all for fun.

[sweech]

I am not an ALR cache owner…but as a cacher, I have yet to NOT do a suggested ALR since the change. I figure if that’s what was meant when the cache was created that’s what I’ll do. (Of course, it will be nice to perhaps someday skip a suggestion. 😆 )

[kc9gbo]

I wonder how many casual cachers that are just going out and doing a cache even know about the dropping of the requirements? I’m thinking they most likely don’t know about that.

[Trekkin and Birdin]

We don’t own any of these…well, unless you count the challenge caches, and those are different, anyway…but when we’ve done ALR caches, we continue to meet the spirit of the placement. We are still seeking Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane for one, though!

I agree, Joe or Jane Average cacher has no clue about any of this. Which really, is probably the majority of folks out there.

[sandlanders]

@Trekkin’ and Birdin’ wrote:

We are still seeking Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane for one, though!

So are we! That one’s a toughie, but we’re still looking.

@Trekkin’ and Birdin’ wrote:

I agree, Joe or Jane Average cacher has no clue about any of this. Which really, is probably the majority of folks out there.

I have seen many logs by newer cachers for caches that were “suggested” ALRs. No mention of the ALR being done or “will try later”, etc. Wonder if they think it’s standard to ignore this part of the cache, just like it’s “standard” to write “TFTC” and not to log a DNF.

Gosh! Been at this less than two years and already starting to talk “old”.

As for our own caches, no ALRs, so no input on that topic.

[Todd300]

I started caching after ALR’s were no longer required. Glad I did so then. I don’t think I would want to do ALR’s. I would rather just sign the log and move on. I would think some ALR caches would be on my ignore list depending on the requirements.

[bartrod]

Like Mathman, I give the ‘extra’ smiley on my one cache that once had an ALR, but nobody is really taking the opportunity. Oh, well 😕

Oconto...the birthplace of western civilization:)

[-cheeto-]

I had one. I followed the direction of geocaching.com and had it changed to a traditional and modified it to a request rather than a requirement. Most cachers (99.9%) have ignored the task which is unfortunate. It was a great idea for a KFC cache and I wish it could have remained an ALR because now it just get’s found by the numbers people who move through and don’t even read the cache page at all. The ALR would have probably prompted many adults to interact with their children/families to fulfill the requirement. Minus that you have adults who log just another geocache. As an owner, if my intent was to place just another geocache, don’t you think I would have done just that??

I still fulfill the owners intention on every cache I do, period. Anything less and you are not finding the cache and you are disrespecting the owner. That’s my opinion. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion on the subject.

I still believe ALR’s were a good addition to the variety of the game and getting rid of variety benefits no one. Same on virtuals.

I had fun great fun phooning around in green bay yesterday…

-cheeto-

[odysseyuwrf]

As a new cacher myself, I have tried to fulfill the requirements. The only ones that I have any experience with are Marc’s WSQ series. I have taken the approach of signing the log, and then being on the look out for the pictures I need later. Often the goal is not present and needs to be added later anyways. In fact this is a good reminder, because I have a couple pictures I need to upload.

Since I am new, why was this change needed after it was allowed for so long?

[gotta run]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Anything less and you are not finding the cache and you are disrespecting the owner.

Absolutely.

If you don’t do the ALR, you haven’t found the cache as it was created and rated by the owner in terms of difficulty, period. It also disrespects all the work an owner has done to put together a quality cache experience.

Lazy logging does really reflect most negatively on the logger, but unfortunately it also cheapens the accomplishment of people who do put forth the effort necessary to truly log the cache.

Well, you can’t turn back the clock on this one, and the question we posed was “what do you do as an owner?”

In our case, we had only a few ALRs to begin with, but the ones that were left we turned into bonus and multiple log opportunities to at least give considerate cachers a little extra bonus. However, we will NOT change ALR caches into traditionals, because at least having something classified as an “unknown” cache does filter the gene pool a little bit.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[gotta run]

@odysseyuwrf wrote:

Since I am new, why was this change needed after it was allowed for so long?

Enough people complained, for whatever reason. Groundspeak decided that ALRs essentially detracted from the raison d’etre of geocaching, which is finding a container using your GPS, period.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[labrat_wr]

@gotta run wrote:

@odysseyuwrf wrote:

Since I am new, why was this change needed after it was allowed for so long?

Enough people complained, for whatever reason. Groundspeak decided that ALRs essentially detracted from the raison d’etre of geocaching, which is finding a container using your GPS, period.

…and if you are really interested in the why, if you search the GC.com forums, I am certain you will find much more than you care to know about it all. Like Gotta Run said…..enough people complained that they were required to do more than sign their name on the log, granted, some of the ALRs out there were rediculous requests and had nothing to do with geocaching or ecology or CITO or geology or…….

and instead of policing the cache owners, they just took the option away.

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[gotta run]

@labrat_wr wrote:

…and if you are really interested in the why, if you search the GC.com forums, I am certain you will find much more than you care to know about it all.

Here’s the whole 1000+ – post thread.

http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=218388&hl=

The nut of it is that some people lacked the cerebral capacity to figure out additional logging requirements or the opposable thumbs to deftly manipulate a keyboard, so it was an effort to dumb down the game for the masses.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[sweech]

@sandlanders wrote:

@Trekkin’ and Birdin’ wrote:

We are still seeking Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane for one, though!

So are we! That one’s a toughie, but we’re still looking.

For the 900 series? I got one! 😀 Quite a few in the cemetery where I got mine.

[Author]

Posts