I just tried to submit a cache with "additional logging requirements" Basicly like "can you spell sasquatch".....I guess since April of 2009 you cannot publish them??? Doesn't say anything i can find in the requirements??? BAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!! What's next, no multi-caches?????

I join you in the TICKED OFF CATEGORY. The ALR hassle began over requirements to post photographs ( some of the photo requirements were rather strict and somewhat stupid ) and now has evolved into this current situation. ( A near absolute ban on ALR's ) Once in a great while you will find a reviewer who will flex, however, do not count on it.

Geocaching guidelines are:

1. Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.
2. If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.
3. This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:
4. Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
5. Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
6. Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

The way I read it, you can still have some simple ALRs, but if someone doesn't comply you cannot delete their smiley if they, indeed, signed the logbook.

That has been my understanding as well, however, certain reviewers are playing hardball and have a rather tiny strike zone. Actually they seem to have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY I had to go through the review policy involving folks higher up the food chain for " A " in Ferndale, Calif.

Caps above for emphasis ... not raising my voice.

Rather frustrating

Have been slapped down twice since. Kind of reminds me of the consternation I experienced 14 months ago with a certain CITO

My new puzzle cache had to be changed (prior to approval) because it advanced an agenda. Huh?

Seems to be some rather strict interpretations and perhaps personal agendas creeping into the review process.

On the other hand maybe just trying to please the whole world with one flavor / size for all.

ya, ive had a few problems!

Okay, here's our chance.