as77

What, you think the cache reviewers didn't discuss it once the uproar started? Same thing happened with the Tsumani caches. They were approved, because the reviewer thought they were ok. Someone complained, so the reviewers likely discussed it in private until a decision was made to archive them. How should I know if they discussed it or not? OK, so they discussed it. Why? Just because a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) raised some objections in the forum doesn't mean the cache has to be reconsidered. Once it is approved, leave it alone for at least a month and then look at the cache logs to see what the reaction of the community is. What I'm saying is that I would appreciate reliable approver decisions that can be trusted. If an approval is never sure because it could be withdrawn the next day then we have an absurd situation where nothing is certain. When is a yes really a yes, when can a hider know for sure that his cache was indeed approved and it can stay? Never? You mentioned the Tsunami caches, so I will comment on that, too. Apparently several approvers were involved both from the UK/Australia and the US, extensively discussing those caches and in the end they decided that they would make an exception, bend the rules and approve these caches as special cases. It was a process that took several days and the outcome was an OK to these caches. The placers sat back in satisfaction that their fight finally succeeded. And then the next day a Groundspeak employee unexpectedly archives the caches. What is this? Then the whole earlier discussion and approval process was completely pointless? No decision can be trusted for even a day? That's not an environment that cachers wish for. What a cache owner wants is: say yes or say no to my cache but then stand by your decision and don't go back and forth on it on a daily basis. We have a similar situation in WH's case: he contacted an approver before placing his cache to find out if it would be approved. The answer was sure, go ahead, no problem, so he placed it and it was indeed approved, everything seemed fine until the next day when the decision is suddenly reversed. No wonder WH felt frustrated.

I don't see that. As has been pointed out, the fact that he expressed interest in how the cache is received does not mean that he reserved the right to withdraw the approval. That's correct, you should not. Think BEFORE you approve a cache. This is what is expected from you, it is your responsibility. I strongly doubt that. What you don't seem to have, however, is the respect for the cache hiders who suffer from your inconsistent behavior when you go back and forth on a cache, approving it on one day and archiving it on the next, just because you happened to change your personal opinion.

I support a decision to archive a cache if it actually violates the listing guidelines, rules, etc. However, this is not the case here. It just that an approver has changed his opinion. That's not enough reason to withdraw an approval that had been given earlier. And as I suggested earlier, it is very unfair to the cache hider. Approvers should be consistent and not give the runaround to cache owners (like: today I approve it, tomorrow I archive it, then maybe the day after tomorrow I approve it again, depending on what I eat for breakfast that morning, etc.). Yes, an approver might realize he had made a bad decision by approving a cache. So what? He can live with the consequences. It's still better for him to live with the consequences than to cause hard feelings to the affected cache hider. ("Oh sorry, on second thought, I'm archiving your cache.")

From the original thread, when WH posted his log to the reviewer and the reply. Sounds conditional to me. It's interesting and he would like to see how it is received -- there is nothing conditional in this sentence.

Once you decided that the cache is OK to go you should stick to that decision because it is utterly unfair to the hider that you suddenly change your mind and withdraw your approval to a previously approved cache. BTW I don't think the "agenda issue" is real, it seems a made-up excuse to me. There is no fundamental reason why this cache should not be allowed. Jeremy also said it should be listed. You still have the right to reject it but you should have thought of the issues you are mentioning before approving the cache, not thereafter.

It wasn't just "on a whim" read the original note, it was basically given "conditional approval" to see how the geo-community would react to it. Those in the community that responded, for the most part, didn't like it/think it was right. The "conditional approval" was revoked. Where did you see that "conditional" part? It's not there. The cache was approved, period. The fact that the approver has changed his mind is his problem. Next time he should think harder before approving a cache. And even if the approval had been conditional (which I don't believe it was), a test period of 1 day is ridiculous. Also, to judge a cache based on what a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) write in the forum is absurd.

It was not a mistake, and it's not "the admins" that want to archived it. It's the same guy who approves a cache on Friday and archives it on Saturday, on a whim. This is unacceptable.

So first the approver says this: and approves the cache. Then the next day he says this: and schedules archiving the cache. Consistency rules! It is accepted on Friday and rejected on Saturday. Do the website's rules depend on the day of the week? WH, I think you should not accept gpsfun's decision. Appeal. Your cache has been approved. Now it should be left alone.

Sure, this section is strictly for threads about geocaching. Like "Happy birthday to Jeremy" and "How did you serve?". Both closely geocaching-related.

Yes. I suggest the moderators prepare a list of the subjects that they don't want people to discuss (e.g. charity caches, Buxley's maps, gc.com's mistakes and so on) and pin it to the top of the page (give it the title "Banned topics list"). Then everyone will know what they are not allowed to talk about. Just make sure the list is always up-to-date and distinguish it with some eye-catching color because people tend not to read pinned topics otherwise.

I have found all my 100 finds with a GlobalSat BC-307 CF unit and I never used the external antenna. If yours doesn't get a fix without the external antenna then it may be faulty.

The other thread has been closed by some Groundspeak employee who doesn't like people talking with each other.

OK, guys. Moderator mtn-man has asked that the discussion about Mopar's and GeoHo's controversial log continue in THIS THREAD instead of here. His request is that this thread should remain a generic discussion. So let's do this.

Have you thought about offering other file formats besides .loc, perhaps using gpsbabel on the server side as a converter? E.g. the Hungarian geocaching website offers 16 different file formats for download, including Garmin Mapsource, OziExplorer, etc.

www.thesupplynet.com has PDA-GPS cables but they are a bit expensive, around $60.

Interesting concept ... let's give the mods a weeks vacation, send them on a cruise so they can't cache or log-on to the website. While they are gone, we all try to be civilized and see how long we can make it work. I'm guessing two days max. before Jeremy pulls the plug on the whole kit and caboodle. Let Jeremy go on the cruise, too.

Where is the off topic forum? I don't tihnk I've ever seen it. It's for premium members only... but you haven't lost anything.

I have another suggestion. Let's disable the moderator rights for one week and let's see what happens. I bet everything will be much smoother and more relaxed. Controversial topics will actually be discussed as they should.

When someone writes a negatively sounding log, it is helpful to look at whether he or she actually found the cache. When one doesn't find the cache, one is much more inclined to write negative comments. I know, I did this myself once. I wrote that the place was not nice at all, too many muggles, and so on. A couple of visits later I found the cache and wrote a quite positive log I wonder how much Mopar was influenced by the fact that he couldn't find the cache...

Hey mods, loosen up please. Let people discuss what they want to discuss without constantly being threatened with closing the thread. Conversations have a natural course, let them just evolve. Don't be too rigid about this "on topic" rule, please. Forums are about communication. Let people communicate freely as they see fit. There is nothing in this thread that needs moderator action.

Well, this thread was opened by Mopar, so locking it is obviously out of the question

When I want to find the best deal on something, I usually search pricegrabber.com and Froogle for the best prices, then check resellerratings.com for ratings of the merchant. Also, in the case of goods that cost several hundreds of dollars, I prefer buying from a merchant in my state so that I can pay the tax together with the price, as opposed to having to worry about the "internet sales tax" (or "use tax" or whatever it's called) we are supposed to pay next year when filing our tax returns. Since I'm in NY, my choice would be tigergps.com (Legend C for $293, Vista C for $334).

The problem is that gc.com doesn't simply consider itself "a listing service", i.e. a service that helps folks who geocache. They consider themselves the creators, providers, rulers, owners of the sport itself.

If the moderator deletes the entire post, that is completely OK. However, if the moderator modifies the wording (or the meaning) of someone else's post to his liking, now that is completely unacceptable. He can of course ask the poster for permission to publish a derivative work of the post and post it under his own name.

Yeah, that's what some of them do... their retirement is long overdue if you ask me.