Tequila
-
Posts
3072 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tequila
-
-
I assume someone unknowingly placed a cache. I also assume that due to privacy, only the reviewers know where it is and who placed it.
Given my suggestion earlier in the thread, let me be clear that it is not me.
.
-
It sounds like your retirement is well deserved. Thanks for all your contributions over a massive amount of reviews.
.
-
....if it isn't it should be removed from the description for the benefit of those that do not read the forums and if it is valid than it should be added to the Guidelines....
Hence my recommendation that you contact Groundspeak or Miss Jenn directly and/or create an entry in Feedback.
As you mention, not everyone reads these forums and there is no guarantee that anyone from Groundspeak will make note of this thread and respond/take action.
An email to Groundspeak will guarantee a response.
A Feedback entry will document it and also hopefully generate a response from Groundspeak.
Neither may generate a satisfactory response but at least you will have followed the process and taken the path most likely to address your question.
.
-
It should be noted that there are two ways to complete a cartridge on Wherigo.com.
It should also be noted that neither method actually works. At least, I've never gotten any of them to work.
According to your profile, you have only done 1 Wherigo. That is hardly a wholesale condemnation of the methods.
I have completed 36 Wherigos and have never had a problem either uploading the completed cartridge or entering the completion code.
.
-
the fact that MissJenn said is quite irrelevant because what she said is buried in the "archives"...read again how i came across that post
if its still true that statement should be in the Guidelines, its neither here on GC nor on Wherigo site
Have you reported this to Groundspeak (contact@geocaching.com)or posted it to the Feedback suggestion where it will be brought to the attention of the appropriate people? I would think either would be more productive in terms of getting your question answered/resolved.
.
-
I usually wear a law enforcement type jacket that has a "radio clip" on the upper left chest. Oregon clips there perfectly.
Jackets are available at most LE stores or websites. Not sure if I am allowed to recommend one here. PM me if you want a recommendation.
-
Will you be serving poutine?
Wrong Province.
No Joe Louis and No Pepsi either. .
-
Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.
You are forgiven my son. But you really must venture across the border more and become more Canadianized. Perhaps our upcoming BFL event.
.
You're having a BFL event? How does that work, eh?
Too bad it's probably so far away, but I'm equipped and ready!
GC2YVBH Come on up.
.
-
Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.
You are forgiven my son. But you really must venture across the border more and become more Canadianized. Perhaps our upcoming BFL event.
.
-
The reviewer did not slam any doors in your face; rather, the reviewer showed you a new doorway to the appeals group. I'd rather go talk to the paid staffer than the volunteer who felt constrained to apply the guidelines as explained to you.
As cache review volumes increase, and as Groundspeak's customer service capabilities increase, expect to see more disputed submissions sent to appeals. It's what they're there for. Don't be put off by the referral.
If the cache page was locked, don't be put off by that, either. Some reviewers do this to preserve the page as it existed at the time referred to appeals. I've personally seen several cases where the owner fixed the page, and then wrote to appeals -- who then said "huh?"
That's a great explanation, and makes a heck of a lot of sense. I dunno though, there's just something about "going to appeals" that puts people off.
....extreme disappointment on my part...
I think we need to keep this in perspective a bit. This is a parking garage we're talking about
No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip.
Toque is spelled with an 'o'.
.
-
More specifically, I think the OP wants to have a challenge cache with a true D/T of 5/5 on his resume. A lot of challenge caches are 5/5 because of the challenge aspect. The terrain rating is often over stated. In this case, it truly is a 5/5.
-
well well and what a gem did i come across
from this first archived log just follow the trail up...quite an interesting history of archival and unarchival there
Would you care to explain how you found such an obscure entry?
.
-
As long as there isn't more than one person insisting on having the last word, we can be done.
Just stop posting.
.
-
Why don't we just keep creating ironman challenge caches then? It doesn't matter, right? Each is independent, wherever the location, whatever the rating. Who cares if there's 50 in one city? If they want to log the freebees go right ahead. ..there's a reason why having one is more enticing and simply more meaningful, at least to those who care about the challenge (as opposed to those who cheer at the increase of 'freebees'.
"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority.
One very, very simple action would avoid all this extra action and work that everyone else will be taking, or will be prompted to take. Simply unarchive so it can be adopted. Save past logs, save the cache, the listing in its historicity and spirit, no extra actions or work for anyone, no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy.
Or, deny the unarchival, prompting someone to duplicate the listing or list a different one, lose the past logs, and prompt previous loggers to decide to come and find the new cache, either duplicating their past logs or duplicating their stats, else not be listed in the new (let's assume feasible replacement of challenge/D/T) cache.
What is the extra work that everyone else will be taking or prompted to take? Everyone does not have to do every cache. If it stays archive no past logs will be lost, and the history of the cache will stay in tact. What some seem to have a problem with is not the history of the cache but rather the future of it. "no harm done to anyone, anywhere, and everyone's happy" I beg to differ on this point. I for one would want to know why this cache has more merit than other caches with historical significance as I bet others would.
I am still wondering about the D/T issue. For something not so important, it keeps appearing in your posts.
+1
I am really starting to feel sorry for the residents of hell who are no use to all this freezing weather, but:
+2
BTW, Mr. Yuck. This is all your fault. This thread had pretty much died a typical forum death until you resurrected it and tore off the scabs.
(Said in total jest, my friend) .
-
Yes, this needs to stop.
I think most would agree with that.
Since you are the OP, it is within your power to ask the Moderators to close this thread.
-
Albert Einstein: Will, what do you think of this?
Will Rogers: Seems pretty simple to me. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
.
Albert Einstein: Good advice Will. However, it has one serious "gotcha"
Will Rogers: What would that be Al?
Albert Einstein: You have to realize you are in a hole.
.
-
Albert Einstein: Will, what do you think of this?
Will Rogers: Seems pretty simple to me. When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
.
-
Joe Cacher: Albert, Have you been following this thread?
Albert Einstein: Yes. It demonstrates one of my greatest quotations.
Joe Cacher: And what would that be?
Albert Einstein: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-
We repeatedly mentioned identical listings. I thought the D/T would have been a clear element be included in 'identical except for code, owner, and past logs'.
You missed my point.
I am suggesting that someone could create a brand new totally unrelated traditional cache that is not a challenge within 160 meters of the archived location. If that happens, you have missed the opportunity to recreate this challenge cache.
It is clear that the un-archival is not going to happen.
Therefore, I am suggesting, if you care about the challenge, create a new listing before the location is no longer available.
.
-
If someone doesn't create a new listing shortly, you run the very real risk that someone else is going to create a totally new cache within 160 meters of this archived cache. That will put an end to the discussion.
-
Another hypothetical conversation:
Player : Hello again Reviewer!
Reviewer : Hello again Player!
Player : I'm still hoping that you will unarchive this cache (passes now worn out piece of paper with GC code across table) so that the owner can adopt it to someone!
Reviewer : Huh?
Player : I know you said that caches would not be unarchived for the purposes of adoption -- but I don't *see* that exact line written anywhere in the Listing Guidelines.
Reviewer : <Let's it sink in for a moment><Feelings of deja vu all over again>
Reviewer : You've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says the "Archival is permanent", right?
Player : Yes
Reviewer : And you've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says that "Archived caches cannot be adopted", right?
Player : Yes
Reviewer : If every Archived cache was Unarchived to allow folks to adopt them... that would kinda make the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" thing kinda redundant, wouldn't it?
Player : I don't like what you are saying. You aren't very flexible.
Reviewer : I've heard that. Recently in fact.
Reviewer : OK, let's try a different approach to answering this.
Player : I'm all ears! Anything that gets me what I want!
Reviewer : Are you the cache owner?
Player : No.
Reviewer : Has the cache owner contacted Appeals and asked for their cache to be Unarchived so that it can be adopted?
Player : That's not the point. The point is, you have the ability to unarchive this cache, and you have decided not to.
Reviewer : You do realize that Groundspeak Appeals have the authority to override my decisions?
Player : Yes. But I want to know why you interpreted the Listing Guidelines in this way. It doesn't say it cannot be done.
Reviewer : When the Listing Guidelines say "Archived caches cannot be adopted", I interpret THAT guideline as saying it cannot be done.
Player : Until I see it written in plain English that "Archived caches cannot be unarchived for adoption", I won't be happy.
Reviewer : The cache was archived. Archived caches cannot be adopted. Think of a big red stamp going on to the cache that says "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED".
Player: Huh?
Reviewer : Yup. Sure, I might be able to Unarchive the cache... but the red inky stamp saying "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED" is still there.
Player : I don't agree with that analogy.
Reviewer : .....And only Groundspeak have the ability to circumvent that big inky mark.
Player: Why can you not make an exception in this case?
Reviewer: You mean the cache that the CO knowingly Archived? We've covered this haven't we? Is there an echo in here?
Player : I still don't see it written in black and white.
Reviewer : You could also visit Geocaching.com and post feedback to indicate that you think that Listing Guideline needs to be clarified.
Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?
Reviewer : Why isn't the Cache Owner asking?
Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?
Reviewer : Has anyone contacted Appeals?
Player : Why can you not mak--- oh, it's a safe presumption that Appeals will not reverse your decision; they'll just agree with you.
Reviewer : I disagree. I've been overruled by Appeals on many occasions!
Player : Well, I don't see it that way.
Reviewer : Ah. So, at the risk of being told definitively "No", you are going to keep asking the person who assertively said "No". Gotcha. OK, so to recap.
Cache is archived by CO.
Once it is archived by CO, I imagine a big red rubber stamp on the GC code that says "CANNOT BE ADOPTED".
If the cache is unarchived for whatever reason, that big red "CANNOT BE ADOPTED" stamp remains.
This is where the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" guideline comes into play.
The CO stated clearly they wanted the cache unarchived with the intention that it would be adopted.
As a result, it stands to reason that this nullifies the request to Unarchive the cache for the purposes of adoption, from my perspective.
I don't believe there IS an exception to be made; I'd be whacked over the back of the head with a copy of the Listing Guidelines VERY quickly, as I believe that many people interpret this Listing Guideline the way that I do.
The CO can contact Appeals to request to have this decision reversed.
Someone who wishes to potentially adopt this cache could also conceivably contact Appeals; it carries less "umph" than the CO, but it's still a possibility.
Appeals are there for a reason.
Player : Why can't you make an exception?
Reviewer : I understand where you are coming from. Truly, I do. And I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts and feelings on the subject.
Reviewer : A decision was made, based on a Reviewer interpretation of the Listing Guidelines. Reviewers make mistakes. And that is why Appeals exists.
Player : You sound like a broken record.
Reviewer : Your horse was dead. I figured we should stop beating it.
Reviewer : Let's concentrate on something else. If you think the Listing Guidelines aren't clear... make the suggestion that they be enhanced.
Player : That doesn't get me what I want, now.
Reviewer : No. And there will always be decisions that a Reviewer makes that won't be accepted by 100% of the people. This is one of those decisions.
Player : I don't like that.
Reviewer : Are we just debating things now for the sake of it.
Player : You're missing my point
Reviewer : <Looking longingly towards a window> Shouldn't we be out there caching?
I don't know you real identity (and I don't want to) but in the words of that great '70s philosopher, David Cassidy, I THINK I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!
.
-
... which then brings the "Constructive Results of This Thread" count to... wait for it... one.
Actually two.
This thread has demonstrated the glaring need for "A Users Guide to Geocide".
.
-
How has this turned into a discussion about the consistency of the reviewers? Well it started out from what i can tell with the following archival log;
I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by.
I know some of you were looking forward to finding this cache however I will not maintain it. If you wish to hide a similar challenge cache in the area go for it.
From that I read that this cacher has given up on geocaching. The owner acknowledges that people are looking forward to finding the cache yet it is archived anyway. This was not an "ooooops" type of archival. Now there is disappointment over it and people are looking for someone to blame. The reviewers have the power to change this yet they have declined. Does this make make the issue at hand the fault of the reviewers? No, the fault lays squarely on the shoulders of the person that archived it in the first place. Is this cache any more important than any other cache? To the people that want it back it looks to be so. But then step back and look at why they want it un-archived. I can understand the disappointment of not being able to find a cache you are looking forward to finding. That's life, suck it up and stop trying to blame others because you can't get what you want. If you don't like that you can't go find a cache, take it up with the person that archived it. If you don't like that a cache you have found that means a lot to you has been archived, take it up with the person that archived it. Commenting about how the reviewers behave because they choose not to reverse what someone else has done is not fair to them. They didn't archive the cache. If people really wanted the find that bad they could have not filled up the cache listing with logs complaining about it forcing it to be locked, visited the cache to sign the log book, and quietly logged they find afterwards when they completed the challenge.
+1
P.S. Hell just froze over.
.
-
Lackey Moun10bike reported that was coming on Twitter about a week ago, I personally didn't see it leaked anywhere else.
Ironically, my on again off again subscription just ran out, and I doubt I'll get that issue. Glad they put it up on the web, but I bet the whole article will disappear from the web in a week or two.
Coincidentally last night, I downloaded the Outside iPad app and bought the August issues. The September issue is not available yet.
Kudos to Groundspeak for taking care of their employees.
GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge
in Canada
Posted · Edited by Tequila
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 have first hand experience with this and the other person relinquished the area (Thanks Fababoo
) .
I would think that there is an expectation for the first person to publish within a reasonable amount of time.
.