Tequila
-
Posts
3072 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tequila
-
-
The ultimate decision on how to proceed lies with the C.O.
If it was me, here is what I would do.
(1) Remove the line in question and get the event published. Assuming the event is paramount, and I have no reason to suspect it isn't, this would benefit the most people - CO, attendees etc. Everyone can enjoy it just as much as they did in past years.
(2) In parallel, file an appeal with Groundspeak (it would appear this has already been done). This will result in a definitive position with respect to the line in question. If a decision in favour of the CO arrives before the event, change the listing. If it arrives after the event, you can use it for next year. If the decision is not in favour of the CO, you already have the event (with modified description) listed and everyone can still enjoy it.
.
-
It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.
That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently and randomly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings.
Actually, all it says, is that the reviewer missed it in years past. And that may be nothing more than over worked reviewers.
We have significantly increased the number of reviewers in Ontario thereby reducing the volume per reviewer.
.
-
For an event that does not have an agenda, I find it interesting how much is being posted about the children missing out. Why does it matter if that one line is there or not. If the children getting presents is so important, take the line out, have the event, and give the left overs to charity. Seems to me like this is being twisted to make some look like they are against charity just because the CO is not getting his own way.
I agree 100%
.
-
I'm sure it will be a fun event for all attendees -- perhaps we can compare notes afterwards? -- Folks out here in COG-land would probably enjoy the Step 4/Hunt idea at an event once the snow has gone!
All the best,
RCA777
Don't wish away the snow too fast.
I am hoping for a fresh falling for my event. .
-
...
Maybe a better wording will be "any extra toys will be blown up in a dumpster in front of 20 screaming kids on their birthdays."
Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity. Or maybe it is just this one reveiwer. Course, previous actions by this reviewer would set precedent in their books.
That is absolutely absurd!!! Nowhere did Keith make a statement even closely stating that.
Your statement is inflammatory. It is the equivalent to someone stating "We need to tell attendees the excess toys will be donated to a charity otherwise they will automatically assume they are going to be thrown in a dumpster...."
Why do you have so little confidence in your attendees that they will assume the worst?
As I mentioned in my latest, please ensure your supervisor contacts me.
The appeals process is well documented. If you feel you are correct, you should contact Groundspeak Appeals.
.
-
Version 8 of GSAK is incredible. Almost completely eliminates the need to ever visit the gc.com website.
-
Because I'm tired of seeing GSAK suggested as the solution to everything. Somebody who already uses GSAK probably already knows how to ignore a particular CO, or if they don't, they'd ask in the GSAK forums how to do that. But as for everybody else, there's only a certain chance that they would consider to use it to do whatever it is they want. Usually, the more specialized their request is, the higher the chance is that they'd consider using a 3rd party application (and a commercial one at that).
But ignoring a CO? Come on, that's basic stuff, probably one of the most requested features overall. You know we already have an ignore list for single caches, right? Well guess what, you can also do that with GSAK. So technically, the website wouldn't need to have that feature, because you can do it anyway with GSAK! But wait... The website does have an ignore list anyway! I wonder why that is? Could it be so that people don't have to use a 3rd party tool to do something basic like ignoring caches?
WOW!!!!!
I can't imagine the angst you are experiencing because of this thread: GSAK
:).
-
I am sure glad my hobby doesn't cause me the level of angst that it causes for some people.
.
-
Ok, so is it safe to deduce then, that:
1) the unknown cacher is aware that gg wishes to unarchive his cache but is unable to because their unpublished listing has now reserved the location, but they have chosen to hold the spot regardless, for whatever reason they may have
2) they have not been told that gg is willing to discuss the situation with them to come to an agreement one way or another
3) we don't know if the unknown cacher knows of the lengthy history of the archived cache issue (or this thread)
4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived
Yup.
.
-
This whole thing could have been avoided if the CO hadn't rashly archived the cache.
Sure, but that's history, and a previous 'debate' on how it was handled, officially.
It's a different situation now; different solution, different predicament, different ethical disagreement. Not a matter of bad guidelines or rules, just one opinion against another. It seems everyone's made their case. So constantly returning to effectively say "your opinion is stupid" is not helping anything. And I don't think anyone would disagree that reserving a spot out of spite is being an a**.
Where does it say it was reserved out of spite?????
.
-
Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.
Sorry for keeping these so long on you, but I got stuck on
which may actually hold the key to solving this land claim dispute.If you played that episode so many times that the DVD has a "skip" in it, I will hunt you down and break your cane.
As for the previous comments, I think the wrong participant is being labelled an a**. This whole thing could have been avoided if the CO hadn't rashly archived the cache.
Perhaps everyone should just chalk this up to a lesson learned, and move on.
.
-
i'm not sure what rush actions that caused angst you are are referring to, i did get a rash though
It wasn't a 'rush' action. It was a 'rash' action. And it should be painfully obvious. If the CO hadn't archived the cache in a fit of anger, none of this would have happened.
.
-
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?
Bottom of the cache page shows the last edit time. They also have the other edit times in the database so even if they can't see the details of the edit, they can certainly see if you suddenly edit a listing you've sat on for three years then claimed first dibs on a spot.
In other words, the reviewers do have the ability to smell a rat.
You mean the "last updated" time? That's not the edit time. Even if they have a full list of edit times, those say nothing. A precise history of when the listing was at which coordinates would be required.
My understanding is you work in the IT industry.
Do you honestly believe that Groundspeak is using a database software that does not maintain a complete transaction record of every time a record is changed and what is changed in that record?
.
-
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.
Nobody's questioning any reviewer's integrity. It's a simple matter of what they know and don't know, and what the procedure given to them looks like. The age of the listing doesn't matter (the GC code can in fact be used to determine the age of the listing), what matters is when each listing has been put on the coordinates that it's on when the conflict is being looked at. And I don't think that information is available anywhere.
If I read your comment correctly, you are implying that no record is kept of a listing owner changing the coordinates associated with that listing. I cannot imagine a database that would allow a user (not a DBA) to alter a record without some sort of audit trail.
.
-
Ah yes, but I do. The reason being that, as far as I know, the reviewers themselves don't know and can't know who was actually first. The reviewers would simply act (as is the case so many times) upon what they were told to do by Groundspeak in such cases: contact the owner of the unpublished listing and give them the chance to get it published first. Which, in many cases, would be the right thing to do, but as we can see not in all cases.
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.
As for your last sentence, if you are referring to the cache in this topic, the reviewer is doing the right thing. The CO gave up all claims to that location when they archived their cache. We don't know, nor do we have a right to know, that the new cacher didn't create a listing 5 minutes after GC280PA was archived and is totally oblivious to the soap opera that ensued. In fact, it is entirely feasible that the new cacher created their listing before GC280PA was archived, in the hopes of placing a cache there one day, should GC280PA be archived.
If you don't agree with that process, then I suggest you avail yourself of the Feedback system with a suggestion that Groundspeak alter the procedures to prevent the "reserving" of spaces.
-
ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.
I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.
Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??
.
has nothing to do with trust, my problem with this system is that someone sits on a spot for a month, does nothing in most cases, i come along and submit a cache for review...i.e. i went out, found the spot, placed my container only to be told that the spot is reserved by someone else that has done nothing all the time since reserving it and yet they get one more month to decide, the extension would be fine if the spot has been reserved in the last 2 weeks
that is like me standing on an empty parking spot holding it until my husband, who is still at home, comes come with the car
what i want to see is if you had the spot for more than 2 weeks and done nothing with it the person that submits the cache for review gets it
That is not what dfx stated in his comment.
It sure is amazing how the rash actions of one individual can cause so much angst among so many.
Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.
-
ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.
I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.
Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??
.
-
Actually, I just never got around to it. I guess we have to plan for next year. I still have the Tequila. I just don't have Tequila anymore.
Sorry to hear that Tequila, I would say your "81" is now really not complete. I know how much pooches add to the experience, I'm really sorry to hear about you loosing yours.
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate the kind words.
He had a great life. He took me all across the U.S. and as far away as Switzerland. And we made a million friends.
.
-
And I have gotten two bottles of Tequila out of it.
That reminds me, when's the reunion event?
I couldn't get it published. Tequila is a business name. And there was another cache within 160 meters of the location. And I was too busy watching Seinfeld episodes with Dr. House.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Actually, I just never got around to it. I guess we have to plan for next year. I still have the Tequila. I just don't have Tequila anymore.
.
-
Kinda makes the "caching for stats and numbers" sort of irrelevant doesn't it?
With that logic isn't finding geocaches just as irrelevant? They'll all be archived sooner or later anyways. There's something more to it than just the find. You have a history of your finds on the site and when a cache gets archived you still get to keep your find along with it's log entry.
Unfortunately the site doesn't grab a complete picture of your find. It would be nice if it would record the coordinates, size and D/T ratings of the cache the moment you log it. This would make keeping your own stats more accurate and even let the site generate its stats much quicker and easier.
Caching for stats and numbers is a good way to get people out of their comfort zone. We've had numerous adventures all because of stats and numbers. So have a lot of other people.
And I have gotten two bottles of Tequila out of it.
.
-
It is the CO's prerogative to change the D/T rating any time they wish. They own the listing.
I recommend contacting the challenge cache owner and explain the situation. They will most likely accept the find at the original rating. Especially since the change was made in good faith. And you made your find in good faith.
In the Tequila 81 forum, I have documented a few caches that were changed by the CO after T81 was published. I accept those caches at the original rating.
Although, I agree with Canadian Rockies and recommend you find an alternate if it is reasonably possible.
I also agree with Shiloh and recommend you create a separate GSAK database that reflects the ratings at the time you found the cache.
One other suggestion: Use as many archived caches as possible when presenting your grid. Archived caches don't typically have their ratings changed. Although there was an incident where a CO changed the rating and immediately archived it.
D/T ratings were never invented to accommodate challenge caches. It has been an evolution and ratings changes is a hazard of the challenge game.
-
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.
How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?
LOL
He would have created a listing with a set of coordinates that are somewhere within 160 meters of the archived cache. Anything more he might have done with respect to completing the process is irrelevant. Now he has been contacted and asked his intentions. Based on CD's post, he has decided he is going to publish a cache there. End of story. Oh were that last sentence only so.
I was asking about your example. You said Fababoo had the spot first so you think it was ok that he was given a chance to publish a cache there first. I'm asking how you (or anyone, for that matter) know that he had the spot first.
I ABSOLUTELY think it is ok for him to be given a chance to publish. Some people put a lot of time and effort into creating a cache listing (at least back in the day, they did) and it is not unreasonable to take a few days or weeks to bring everything together.
I KNOW he had the spot first because a Reviewer told me so. And that is good enough for me.
.
-
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.
How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?
LOL
He would have created a listing with a set of coordinates that are somewhere within 160 meters of the archived cache. Anything more he might have done with respect to completing the process is irrelevant. Now he has been contacted and asked his intentions. Based on CD's post, he has decided he is going to publish a cache there. End of story. Oh were that last sentence only so.
-
More appropriately, whoever has created a listing (unpublished) first is asked if they intend to publish the listing or would they be okay giving the area to someone else.
I don't think that's accurate. AFAIK the age of the listing isn't taken into consideration. It's a simple matter of whoever wants to publish first, and they will have to wait for the other party, who don't actually want to publish yet. Which I think is backwards.
In my case, I submitted a cache for publication. The reviewer responded that another cacher (in this case, Fababoo) already had an unpublished listing within 160 meters of my cache. He was given the opportunity to publish his cache (in a reasonable time frame). He chose to give the space to me.
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish. The same is true in the case. A cache was archived. Another cacher 'reserved' the area by creating a new unpublished listing. He should be given a reasonable amount of time to publish. And it appears he is being given that opportunity.
.
I am hoping for a fresh falling for my 
:rolleyes:
Charities in Event Listing
in Canada
Posted
For greater certainty, can you clarify that, because of the line in question, you support not having the event, at the expense of the cachers kids who otherwise would have had a fun event and gift? Is that what you are saying?
.