KG6EAR: Per Groundspeak:
"Greetings KG6EAR, and thank you for writing to Groundspeak about your puzzle cache with the additional logging requirement.
Generally we have been requiring cache owners to make their additional logging requirements optional, after which a reviewer could change the cache type to traditional. I do not believe that approach would be appropriate here for two reasons - it would reduce the value of the find to those who have followed the instructions, and their finds would be changed from a puzzle cache find to a traditional cache find. While this might be of little consequence to some, it would be quite troublesome to me and probably many others.
The best way I see to preserve the integrity of your puzzle cache is to archive it in its current state, thereby keeping its history intact and keeping the statistics of the finders in place.
Concurrently, you could create a new cache page with essentially the same design, but making the experiments and reporting the results optional. I feel confident that the majority of visitors will conduct the experiments even if they are optional.
I appreciate the creativity of the cache design and its educational value. Regrettably, granting an exception in this case would lead to "me too" exception requests for far less worthy caches, and we choose not to start on that slippery slope.
Sincerely,
Brad Webb
Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location
home of: Geocaching, Waymarking, Wherigo
www.groundspeak.com
Ticket Details
Ticket ID: DZX-955004
Department: Cache Appeals
Priority: Medium"
Dear cachers:
Groundspeak has chosen to permanently tie the hands of the cache owners in a way that enforces that we can't enforce quality on our caches in an appropriate manner of our own chosing without requiring users to send in emails with answers. This robs the logs of the content therefore unless users choose to duplicate the answers into their logs. Asking people in my opinion to log experiment results on the cache page as part of a LOG REQUIREMENT was way better in terms of the quality of logs from users, and sharing between the users, than if they get secretly emailed to me, the only thing I can now enforce. I feel that this decision has lowered the overall quality of this cache, and am thus forced to archive it for respect to those who did follow the ALRs when I could enforce them. Thanks everyone who found this once-fine cache. It may appear again some time later, in another form, but it just won't be the same...
-Regards,
Matt