Dr. House

+1

The precedent, as I see it, is the fact that the challenge cache that you so desperately want unarchived for the purposes of adoption, is still archived.

You could always request to have the thread closed. Just a thought.

+1 Loved that episode. Borrowed the season from Tequila since he'd moved on to Twilight Zone. Actually, since the OP has demonstrated that it's OK to deviate off topic, I'd like to share a video I found about a guy who, like me, didn't get a rule book with his toilet seat. It appears that he shares some people's frustration. Almost like banging his head against a wall. Or beating a dead horse. Almost...

+1 Actually, I think I'm gonna listen to this request in the hopes that others will do the same so that this forum thread will just vanish like a fart in the wind.

I am pretty sure there is a guideline about that. 1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly. 3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. +1

So, personal attacks are OK provided they aren't directed at you?

"more enticing and simply more meaningful" is subjective and may not be shared by all or even the majority. 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

So why aren't you writing to appeals? You seem too passionate about this one box in the woods to let the fact that you are not the CO of that cache stand in your way. What do you stand to lose? If you truly want this to happen, it seems logical that you don't just bark away in here when you have an opportunity to speak directly with appeals to lend weight to someone else's cause. Who gives a flying fart that the cache isn't yours and that you aren't adopting it? It hasn't stopped you from writing about the perceived unfairness of that decision thusfar, and therefore shouldn't stop you from writing Groundspeak either. To me, that says more about a person's mettle than digging their heels here in this forum and trying to pawn it off as "The Good Fight". It seems fairly evident to me that your foot stomping crusade to have this decision overturned via open discourse in the forum is not changing anyone's mind, and, at face value, doesn't appear to be reaching those who would effort the change you so desperately seek.

Which is why I'll be stubborn too, and ask you again: Those folks who are appealing, when you checked with them, did they happen to give a status update? Are you appealing this decision as well?

Hi There... Me Again! Ya know, something about my toilet seat analogy just didn't sit right with me (pun intended), so I decided to take it upon myself to do some investigatory work to see if there's actually explicit instructions on when to lift a toilet seat. I figured, gosh, if all these people know when to use it, and how to use it as designed, there must be instructions, right? So, I went here: Toilet Seat Manufacturer. It was the first manufacturer that appeared in a Google Search, so I guess that means they're pretty popular insofar as toilet seats go (though I haven't seen a rule book on how the Interwebz work, so I suppose the jury is still out on that). Strangely, not one of the frequently asked questions seems to mention the proper time to lift (or lower, for that matter) a toilet seat to prepare it for incoming waste. I sat back in my chair, and muttered "WOW" to myself. I wondered "Sheesh... how do all these people figure out this complicated device and function in society? How the heck did I ever come to possess the knowledge required to keep the seat dry and women in my life happy?" I called my mom. She raised me as well as a single mother could, and though standing and aiming was clearly not her strong point, somehow she still taught me how to work the thing(s). She said that there was no rule book for that since it should be pretty self-evident that it works best for all who might use it if it were lifted prior to use by men. But I pushed back to my mom. I just couldn't believe that there was no proper answer written anywhere that explained to people the awesome mystery of the incredible toilet seat. She said it was true whether I liked to believe it or not, and suggested I ask my dad. I guess there's just no changing her mind. So I emailed my dad. While my dad didn't potty train me, surely he must've read these rules somewhere along the line. He, too, is quite obviously a human male, and thus must've had the same training as me in order to know how to properly use this seat. His initial response was "You're kidding me, right??". I replied back to him that I wasn't joking, and that this question was of paramount importance and that I deserved to have an answer from someone who raised me and taught me right versus wrong cuz surely someone must've pointed him in the direction of the rule book for toilets. Frustratingly, he also told me that no such rule book existed and went on to further explain that one wasn't necessary since common sense people work out the logistics of toilet seats on their own, without the need for explicit rules. He said something about "It's absurd to require a Funk & Wagnalls for every petty inconvenience in life, so don't sweat the petty things and pick battles that really matter", but since I'm stubborn, I decided to persist with this question even further, even if it meant that I was beating a dead horse while the fat lady sang and the ships had sailed. Then I searched on the computer. I found a site that allowed a person to have open discourse and posted my rant. I was just so absolutely beside myself at this point that I figured surely there must be many people who feel that this "non-existant toilet seat rule book" was an absolute travesty that needed me to fight for that oversight to be recitfied. I became very annoyed. Would you believe that almost nobody saw my grievance as anything to get upset about? Most of the people couldn't understand why I couldn't just enjoy the toilet seat for the convenience it provided. Some people offered suggestions on how a toilet seat should be used, though they also had never seen a rule book. One guy actually said that the answer I was seeking was a rubber stamp that said "42"! Like, what the heck does that mean, anyway?? Dispondent, I went for a walk. I ended up at a donut shop and had a few donuts and some chocolate milk. As I was sitting there, still steaming mad about the lack of toilet seat rules, my irritable bowel syndrome kicked in, and I raced to the restrooms. I pretty much ripped my pants and boxers off so that I didn't burst in my clothes. And then I sat down... right in a wet spot. At that point, I understood everything. The reason there isn't a rule book for toilet seats is because nobody would be happy with how it was written anyway, and would still interpret the content to allow them to dirty the seat if that was how they chose to use the toilet. Clearly the guy who used the stall before me didn't care about the well-being of future toilet seat users (even though it was a "public" toilet) and I kinda figured that he likely wouldn't have even if there existed a set of laws to use the seat. In fact, I figured he'd find away around the rules that somebody wasted time drawing up anyway, and I became glad that nobody had bothered write a rulebook. Since I was affected (moved, if you will) by my sit down experience in the donut shop stall, I made a pact with myself to strive to be a better person and not burden other people with my poor toilet seat experience. It made sense to me to not leave the seat soiled in any way so that the next person to frequent the bowl could have as pleasant an experience as possible in the hopes that they might pay it forward and not affect the next person, and so on. In the end (pun intended), we all use the same pot. And we seem to use it quite well without the need for hard-fast rules. I suppose that we could continue to try to make it messy but in my opinion, it's probably better to just get off the pot rather than stir up crap all the time when we feel crampy. Just flush your cares away and get out and enjoy the game as I know you do.

Cool cool... And those folks who are appealing, when you checked with them, did they happen to give a status update? Are you appealing this decision as well?

So... How is the appeals process progressing?

For the sake of sanity, you should step back, take a few days away from this nonsense and enjoy a donut. This thing is a box, beside a rock, on an island, in some park with co-ordinates listed on someone's provided service. Nothing more. The lack of sanity I'm seeing is the continued notion that this container is somehow more than just a box and deserves special treatment over the other thousands upon thousands of other archived caches. Last time I checked, toilet seats didn't come with explicit instructions telling men that they should lift the seat prior to relieving themselves either, so I'm amazed that we managed to figure that out on our own without the availability of black & white absolute laws.

Check earlier in the thread as to why there's ample desire to have this cache re-instated. A new cache is not out of the question, no one said it was. Be by far the favourite resolution (and point of the 'parade') is to have this cache re-instated and adopted. That's great! Can I ask: Other than the conversation in here, is there some sort of status update that includes the CO actually having sent a request through appeals to have this one re-instated? Has anyone in the "Ample Desire" camp even tried on his behalf? It seems reasonable to me that if there's an exception to every rule (or guideline, in this case) that if enough people actually contacted TPTB about this cache, you might get some response in your favour. Understand, I'm not averse to seeing this one unarchived, I just fail to see why it should be as opposed to creating a brand new listing.

Oh yes. I forgot about that. I have been absent from forum drama for quite some time. But it looks like a number of the big players have come out for this little debacle. Hey, at least I get to be a part of the ruckus that helped bring y'all together in agreement it seems, no? ... which then brings the "Constructive Results of This Thread" count to... wait for it... one. I'm still wondering if anyone's gonna offer to relist this cache? I admit, it's much more fun to wax sarcastic than to actually move forward, but that just amounts to a bunch of dogs barking in a kennel: It might sound scary, but the dogs are behind an immovable wall and you realize they aren't able to harm you. Besides, the dogs eventually get tired and stop barking which makes the neighbours happy. I'm sorta waiting for someone to just list a cache in that location so that this becomes a non-issue. Perhaps they should call it "He Who Hesitates"... Just create a new listing for this one, and stop this foul smelling entitlement parade.

Cacheketball anyone? Just check for bees under the skirt first Aboslutely! I like the hide, but they are seriously the one that scares me the most simply because of the bees.

they're planning on putting lamp posts in the woods? I certainly hope so! I'd happily search for them!

i don't think that's something to worry about, for every archived cache there's at least 10 new lamp post micros being published There, I fixed it for you ...but i do know someone that really likes those, they may pop in here defending the hides any minute I like lamp post cache hides. Was it me you were expecting?

So has anyone offered to relist this one rather than continuing to bang their head against the wall (aka Working against the Reviewers)?

It's rather evident that there seems to be a fair amount of angst about this new feature. As such, I imagine that Challenges will be a hot topic and will be discussed at length with the numerous lackeys in attendance at the Block Party this weekend. I hope that the in-person discussion about the good and bad aspects of this initial rollout don't take too much away from what is supposed to be an awesome time for those attending. By the same token, I hope that the feedback given doesn't fall on deaf ears (similar to the feedback threads) either. I am hoping that when the dust settles on this new toy, it becomes a fun part addition to Geocaching as we know it, so I'm not about to take any firm stance on Challenges just yet, but I have to admit to being slightly unimpressed with the format thusfar.

I sure hope they are on vacation. I would hate to think they are at work wasting company IT resources. Or worse yet. They work for some poor company with a stock at a 52 week low and about to get squashed by the competition. +1 Tequila, can I now borrow season 2 of Seinfeld?

From what I graft from the video and some of the discussion going on in this thread, I have a few questions in my head that will likely be answered over the coming weeks: 1. It seems as though a photo challenge requires you to go to a specific location and take a picture of yourself standing at that location. If so, is Waymarking finished? Could a person translate their WMs to photo challenges on GC.com or is this something already in the works, since they seem particularly similar at first glance? 2. Along the same vein, if a person is required to take a photo of themself at GZ to get credit for a photo challenge, why remove the photo requirement from EarthCaches? 3. Is an "Action" challenge similar to the current "Challenge" Caches, minus the container? Does a Reviewer manage the verbiage contained in the "Action" text using the current guidelines? 4. Some folks have mentioned that these count for smileys. If this is true, would that mean that WMs will also generate smileys? That would seem to be quite the boost for that game if this were true.

Firstly, a Preamble: I’m glad that there’s interest in this challenge cache. I’m even happier that the folks who are choosing to take on the challenge are reporting back to me and advising that it is a positive experience. For me, it augments the way I choose to cache since I am more likely to visit one of these “lonely” caches or choose one of these as a target and cache in the same area. For others, it harkens back to the by-gone days when cache opportunities were mainly available in remote locations. Your experience and preference may vary, as it should. The beauty of our game is that for the many different styles and options available to millions of people around the world, all provided under one roof, enjoyment is possible if you look for it. So enjoy the cache idea and the experience and effort that will go into qualifying, should you choose. I am. Secondly, the Meat and Potatoes: From the standpoint of the owner of a challenge cache on this website, I manage the verification component through the logs on individual caches. To that end, I, like every other challenge cache owner, rely on the validity of logs on other people’s caches to facilitate and manage the requirements of my challenge. As such, the basic premise that I operate on is that I will assume a "Found It" log is legitimate if it was allowed to stand by the owner of that qualifying cache. Bogus Logs – My viewpoint on "Bogus" logs on any particular cache is quite simple: Unless the cache in question belongs to me, this isn’t my concern. My suggestion would be to take it up with the owner of the cache in question who, as I read it, may or may not be performing their Maintenance Duties as outlined in the KB article 6.7 found here. Understand, I am not suggesting that you inundate every potential "Lonely" cache owner with this concern, but rather, I’m shifting the focus to those who actually control their own listing content, including the logs therein. Should you not wish to pursue that avenue or don’t find the resolution you’d hoped for, strive to be the better cacher and choose another cache. Backlogging – This really comes down to 2 different scenarios as I see it, both of which are managed by me through common sense and the pre-existing “Muggle” clause on my listing: Scenario 1 – You find a cache that based on my listing guidelines appears “lonely” on geocaching.com. Once you open the logbook, you notice that it was last found by some people who signed as “northernpenguin”, “The Blue Quasar”, and “Dr. House”. Common sense should apply here, since most folks will recognize these folks as cachers. If the date that those folks signed the log would render that cache “Un-Lonely” or decrease the point total, I’d suggest that you move on to another cache because these folks are quite likely to log their find eventually, and thus, you’ll still have more work to do. You still have a find, and there are plenty others to find that do qualify. Scenario 2 – You find a cache that based on my listing guidelines appears “lonely” on geocaching.com. Once you open the logbook, you notice that it was last found by some people who signed as “Mulva”, “Gipple”, and “Delores”. Common sense will also apply here too, since these folks are not likely cachers, but rather muggles that have stumbled onto that cache. I’d suggest that in this scenario, you’re probably reasonably safe to claim the points until such a time as those who’ve signed the logbook create an account with geocaching.com. Depletion of Qualifying Caches – The KB article on Challenge caches is 4.14, found here and the specific point in question by a member of this thread is point #7 that states: "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". This, indeed, is a challenge cache that is affected by the actions of others. This fact is undeniable, so I won’t bother trying. The amount of caches that do qualify in Ontario alone is so large, however, that I hardly see how it matters. Add to that, the fact that caches anywhere in the world qualify, and hopefully you’ll see why it really isn’t an issue in the grand scheme of things. I will also point out is that the verbiage of this point that may have allowed for some leeway during the review process is that it states "should" rather than "must", though I am merely speculating since, like all other cache owners, I was not privy to the decision making process. I am going to add this to the listing: I will verify your qualifying caches once all required points have been attained and you’ve either logged a note or a find on the listing and attach a bookmark list to my challenge. My goal is to review that list within 72 hours. Keep any records you feel necessary to verify your qualifying find(s). Common sense says that a picture works best for verification purposes. Should you have a question on an individual, specific cache listing that you feel directly affects you, please email me and I’ll happily review your concern on a case-by-case basis as it pertains to qualifying for this challenge cache. Lastly, a Few Words: This will be the last time I address this forum thread. I did not create it, and thus believe I have no responsibility to address the content within. I had politely requested on my cache listing that all questions should be directed to me via email, and yet, I feel dragged into these forums once again to address something that is better self-governed with some individual caching ethic and common sense. Occasionally, on items that I feel strongly about, I will come to the forums to speak, but for the most part, it just ain’t my cup of tea. I’d rather go out and enjoy the game than debate the fluff any day. I have addressed, and will continue to address, fairly and efficiently, any and all queries that have come or will come through to me. If I feel it warranted, I will modify the requirements on the cache page based on specific situations that arise and post a note for all to see. As far as I’m concerned, the questions posed to me in this thread about my cache have been satisfactorily answered, and since any further queries will only be addressed via email, I’d be OK if a moderator chose to close this thread.

Actually, for the most part, I could live with most of what you suggest in your post. I think it's a tad more heavy-handed than the guideline is looking to manage, but for myself personally, I would be OK. The only thing I can't really see as a valid argument is the part I bolded above. I'm not an overly clever individual, and some of the puzzles out there are just beyond my noodle. So I'd have to ask if this "clever" clause would also apply to brain busting puzzles that a cacher might need help to solve? Perhaps exceptionally well camo'd caches which are near impossible to find (placed as such on purpose) might then be considered overly clever, and thus should be denied also? Again, I, personally, could probably live with all that, though there's clearly a segment of cachers that enjoy a good challenge from time to time, whether in solving or searching.