Jump to content

Keith Watson

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith Watson

  1. West Edmonton Mall was very cool. Mindbender was intense. One of the three killer rides I have been on, and I do mean killer. My daughter was not impressed when she learned the history of it after she we rode on it. The different theam areas are quite cool. Mini Putt At West Edmonton Mall by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Water Slides At West Edmonton Mall by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Santa Maria - 2 by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr
  2. I remember going out years ago and staying in hostels. In Banff we stayed at the university residence.
  3. Glacier - GC9B2B Athabasca Glacier by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Athabasca Falls Earthcache - GC2BB27 Athabasca Falls by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Four Valley View - GC172TB Maligne Canyon by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Great Divide - GC8160 Storm Mountain by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Natural Bridge on the Kicking Horse River - GC1WHDF Natural Bridge by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Burgess Shale - GC16D7W Emerald Lake by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr
  4. A fantastic place to visit. For some sights to see along that route in Google Earth, check this link. West Coast 2010 Some notable caches we did were; One Second Falls - GCXY6Q Kay Falls - Long Exposure by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Mt. Revelstoke - GC9BCD Balsam Lake by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Summit Trail by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Sulphur Mountain - GC134E Banff by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Limestone Hoodoos in Banff - GC16HAZ Banff Hoodoos by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr Mt Rundle Sunset Panorama by Keith Watson aka Keith Watson, on Flickr
  5. This forum topic is not about the consistency of the application of the guidelines. I am sure there is a forum topic about that. If not, feel free to start your own. This forum thread, started by you, is about charities in event listings.
  6. Yet you continue to post off topic after I asked you to stay on topic. I suspect a moderator will be making the request soon. The question was answered. The OP was not satisfied with the answer and they as well as other started posting off topic. If you ask a question you have to accept you don;t like the answer. Just because you don;t like it does not mean it was not answered.
  7. I have been thinking the same thing. Just waiting for the moderator to come in and put and end to this.
  8. You are correct. The original issue has been dealt with. The second issue of inconsistent application of the guidelines is off topic and any further discussion of that should be taken up in another thread. Please limit further posts to answering and or discussing the original post.
  9. The spoken and written English language like other languages has problems when facial and body expressions are removed and more so with the English language. Anyone reading these forums will have to rely on the text at face value as other communication components are missing. This may not be so obvious to those that have not had extensive training in this area. One of the important things to know is that what you type is open to interpretation by the reader. Remember, What you type may not be interpreted the same way bu others. Here s you original post. The first line of this post indicates what it is you wish to know. A valid question to me. If you expected an answer from a reviewer then you should have indicated that. Instead you ask for someone, and a few have responded. So the first line of you original past has been answered. The second line is contradictory to the first line. If what you want is a hidden guideline, then it is meant to be hidden and there fore you will not receive and answer to your question. Ending the second line with the word now would indicate that hidden guidelines have been used before. The second line is not really needed at all as the answer to the first line should cover the second line. The second line is what is sometimes know as a leading question. People who see what looks like leading questions and recognize them may respond differently than you would wish, or may not respond at all depending on what the leading question implies. Another important part of communicating is that the person writing is responsible to make sure their words are chosen in such a way that they can not be misinterpreted. If you post something in the forums and it is read differently then what you intended then you have failed to communicate your thought correctly. Nothing wrong with this as it happens all the time. If it does happen, make reiterate you point using simpler terms. The correct response is not to tell the person reading your post that they don't get it and go back and re-read what you posted. Remember, it is the posters responsibility to convey their thoughts in a way the reader can understand them. Adding a list of caches where there is charitable contradicts the argument that there is nothing in the guidelines about mentioning charities. It would appear more an attempt that the guidelines are being enforced un-equally. This would be off topic from the original post and a different question all together. ..you’re kidding me right? ..you run out of arguments and pick on my signatures? first you tell me to go post somewhere else and now you’re telling me how to think and what to believe in? i always did and always will stand by my opinions, and those quotes are extremely true coming from major figures with a lot of life experience, too bad you find them insulting FYI I did not have these signatures until about 2 weeks ago, and in previous debates I still didn’t get any “positive attention” from reviewers so your theory is invalid. my suggestion to you is to actually stop posting in this thread if you don't have anything to add that is on topic and stop picking on me, personally I am not telling me how to think and what to believe in. This was not any kind of personal attack. It was a suggestion to help you out. I even made that very clear by including the words "Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest." I guess I failed because you did not understand this simple post and chose to perceive it as some sort of personal attack.
  10. Exercising my right to disagree You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.- Winston Churchill The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.- Napoleon Bonaparte Removing those from your profile may help attracting positive attention from the reviewers. To me that looks like you are looking just to argue. Taking a less confrontational stance may surprise you. Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest.
  11. yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts I gave you a point for my post error. However, Events DO count in your find count just as any other caches does, so one could argue that yes, events are caches. However, as I have previously argued that event caches should NOT be counted in your find count, I will just have to award you that point for catching the fact that I sometimes type faster than my mind works. So, other than an error in leaving out EVENT, do you care to stop playing words games and address the content of my post? there is nothing else to address, my comment about knowing what the thread is about was strictly related to the cache reference as opposed to event yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though. huh? can you for once try reading something without misinterpreting it? Nope again, I am sure I got it. Here is something to ponder. Cost to the user for listing a cache = $0.00. Cost to the user for having a listing published = $0.00. Cost to the user view a cache listing = $0.00. The fact is that geocaching in its basic form is free. You can pay for some extra features, but the basics are free. From where I see it, no one has the right to expect any kind of explanation for what Groundspeak, lackies, or reviewers do with regards to a service that is provided for free. I could see that if you are paying for caches to be published then you would want some value for your money. If you pay someone to do something for you, then you would have the right to know how they spent your money. In the case of listing caches, this it not the same. Some may say that this wasn't even your cache, so why are you pocking your nose into something that does not concern you. I will accept that you are standing up for the little guy. But in this case the little guy has left you hanging because they capitulated in favor of what meant more to them. Here is a challenge for you. It may be possible that the reviewers are not answering because they don't understand what you are asking, or may not like the way you question has been worded. If you have any unanswered questions and want it answered here try this. Ask you questions in a clear simple manor with nothing extra like sarcastic and or inflammatory remarks, commentary, or leading questions to try and push the result you want.
  12. yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.
  13. I bet that there are a lot of waymarks as well but I can't tell right now as the system appears to be down. The "main" geocaching.com site is showing a "Down for maintenance" message with the hamster video but the Waymarking.com site just gets a "500 - Server Error" message. There are also hundreds of "Hidden Mickey's" that can be found. We did all the virtuals at at all the Disney parks in Orlando a few years ago. Some of them are really interesting.
  14. that is one heck of a comparison there, drug dealing vs geocaching listing, yeap the latter sure is a major criminal activity Not a big leap. It is exactly what happened.
  15. If this were my forum, I would remind folks that categorizing other members posts or opinions as "whining" is insulting. It seems to be acceptable here, especially when one doesn't agree with another person. It's still insulting, even if it's not chastised for being against the Forum Guidelines. It's especially shocking when the insulting posts come from reviewers/moderators, the people who should be models of forum behaviour. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules Ok, what has that got to do with charities in event listings? I guess this thread truly is dead as I no longer see anything new or insightful. Please, if you want to post something for the sake of posting something, I am sure there are forums somewhere else that will appreciate it.
  16. The problem with that it assumes that knowling the guidelines means following the guidelines. As you have clearly demonstrated, that is not always the case. It is a problem when the empowered customer knows of the something wrong, does nothing about it, and them complains that nothing was done about it. In this thread and poster claimed to have a list of caches that violated the guidelines and did nothing about it. Then after nothing could be done about it it, the list was displayed for all to see as some offer of proof that wrong had been done. If they person holding the information really believed that the listing were in violation then they could have reported them to reviewers. please allow me to LMAO at that...thanks report them before so you can venture into the name calling and accusations of ruining someone elses fun? sorry to see that you missed the whole point of this thread i know that comment will come back to "bite" you one day this is becoming quite entertaining now I have not missed anything. Lets have a recap. 1) Someone violated the guidelines and got caught. 2) A third party took it upon themselves to start a forum thread about it. 3) The cache owner asked to have the event and their account deleted if their demands were not met. 4) The cache owner gave up the offending content in order to have the listing um-archived. Clearly having the event listed was more important than any charitable reference as indicated by the content being removed. I am not sure what is going to come back and bite me? Years ago I went to the forums with this very same issue and it erupted into a flame war. I have learned from that and now go through different channels. What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it. Geocaching is a community and we have been given the tools to act in the forms of log types we can use to indicate there are problems with caches. These tools also include contacting reviewers. A route you can take if you wish to remain anonymous. If you don't like what you get there you are free to contact Groundspeak themselves. If you don't like what you get there, you are basically stuck and have to deal with it. Once these paths have be used, using the forums is not likely to get you anywhere as the people that can actually do anything about it have already spoken. 5) This forum thread continues to debate the issue.
  17. It is a problem when the empowered customer knows of the something wrong, does nothing about it, and them complains that nothing was done about it. In this thread and poster claimed to have a list of caches that violated the guidelines and did nothing about it. Then after nothing could be done about it it, the list was displayed for all to see as some offer of proof that wrong had been done. If they person holding the information really believed that the listing were in violation then they could have reported them to reviewers. I don't believe that is quite true. Are there more events that have not been mentioned? Again, this could have been taken up with a reviewer and there would have been no "unfairly vilified for "ratting" on them".
  18. Actually Google and Yahoo are publicly traded companies.
  19. You should care if the wording was there before it was published as those other events were given as some sort of proof. If this is not the case, what was the point them of being referenced. I personally find the use of "not a known figure in the community" offensive in this example. This implies that lesser know cachers can not be trusted and well know cachers can. I would expect that the reviewers do not subscribe to this and treat us all equally. I don't expect any special treatment when I submit a cache listing or post a find on a cache. I have been caching for over 8 years, found 4,854 caches, and have owned 96 caches / events that have been visited 9,400 times by 2,446 different cachers. Does this mean I should be treated any different than a cacher that started a week ago? As for this not being an issue until a "copycat" listing was submitted, I don't see that being confirmed by the owner of the "copycat" listing or reviewer. Again that would be an unconfirmed speculation from what I can tell. Other than suggesting again that the reviewers are treating us based on our standing in the geocaching community, do you have any new evidence that has not been presents to support your claims?
  20. putting words into my mouth again? again, there is nothing for me to prove further the point of those links was to show that there is indeed some latitude that the reviewers can use without going to extremes Not putting words into your mouth. I made a statement. Take note of the word IF. The only thing that those links show is that the listings were published and currently contain content to do with charities. There is no proof that I see that the offending content existed in the listing when the event was publish. It does not prove that there is any latitude used by reviewers. It is possible that if it was pointed out to the reviewers when the listings were active, they may very well have had the listings corrected. By waiting until they were over we may never know. You have yet to prove anything other than presenting anecdotal evidence.
  21. Last time I check the burdo of proof was on the accuser. If you are serriously expecting the reviewers to post something here saying they are being unfair, lazey, carless, or anything else tha can be twisted and or thrown back at them, I think you are in for a long wait.
  22. It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so? yeap, it sure looks like that is exactly what happened That does not look like any supporting evidence to me. Making accusations that are not backed up does not help either. If you have proof of your claims than present it. Otherwise it is pure speculation. ctrl+F does not always work. At least one of the present examples did not contain the work charity. Can you provide a list of all the words the reviewers ahould search for in every listing the publish. That would be more helpful than "i expect the reviewers to read what they publish" I assume they do otherwise no cache would ever have problems getting listed. Again, inflammatory statements do not generally help. Try asking a direct question nicely and you may get surprised with an answer. Demanding an answer while making inflammatory remarks and accusations will most likely end up in nothing from the reviewers.
  23. I would say that the players themselves are being inconsistent. If one truly believes that the rule / guidelines are being enforced inconsistently and they have knowledge of caches that are published that violate the guidelines, then why complain about it after the fact when something could have been done to level the playing field. In the case where a reviewer has honestly made a mistake, why not contact them privately and let them know?
×
×
  • Create New...