Trinity's Crew
-
Posts
1282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Trinity's Crew
-
-
Bryan,
Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.
We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.
I'd also like to point out that GS allowed ONE abusive CO to reverse a policy that's been in place for YEARS! I'd suggest you send him a refund and let the logs stand. If you'd like I'll send you the money for the lost revenue.
Alternatively, I will re-iterate my offer to gift deskdata one year membership if you will re-instate his logs.
-
Bryan,
Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.
We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.
This is good news. While you may not be able to re-instate deskdata's logs due to a cacher that I consider to be a (insert appropriate descriptive term here) I'd hope you would delete the notes from the CO referring to deskdata as a "cheater" and a "hacker". As NYlimb pointed out these notes violate your rules as well.
I am hopeful you will be able to convey your intentions for non-PMs to be able to log PM caches in the future.
I'd also suggest you do it ASAP. It probably won't be long before other COs want to delete logs for this very same reason.
-
I think we should frangellate the glortum glimmo and postantulate the aponypeous. As a group, of course.
-
I don't see any evidence that indicates an official policy shift here, so I don't fully understand all the pitchforks being pointed towards Seattle. Having said that, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
In the meantime, I would suggest that basic members who want to log Premium Member Only caches continue to do so until they are instructed by someone in a position of authority to desist.
Everyone continue to log PMO caches? You mean everyone but deskdata, right?
-
Well if Groundspeak will agree to re-instate deskdata's original logs on these caches if they become a premium member I will personally gift deskdata a one year membership subscription.
I'd like an explanation for the flip-flopping but I won't make it a requirement for gifting the membership.
-
If the correspondence is accurate it appears that GS initially determined the logs were valid and re-instated and locked them. Then a month later they did an about-face and deleted the logs??
Even if they are planning a change or have just made a change to the back-door PMO cache logging policy they shouldn't have reversed their initial decision on these caches.
-
<snip>
i have two children and 99% of the time i dont have the time to write a giant story..... thats just my thing. for caches that are fun and i enjoy i write about. x
I agree. "Giant" stories have been done to death, but if you could somehow work in the two kids WITH the giant... Sort of "Hansel and Grettel Meet Jack and the Beanstalk" treatment then maybe we've got something.
Now on topic... It's obvious that you've let this cacher get under your skin. It isn't worth the angst. Let it go. The cache that got archived deserved to be archived. The need for special tools got addressed shortly after you posted your log. Seriously, you should try to relax and enjoy the hobby. It's not worth getting upset over any of this.
-
If you throw out the "arbitrary" numbers and look at Toz's proposal on it face, it seems to be a very good idea to me. The idea is to have a different "arbitrary" number for hidden waypoint proximity. This way, as an area becomes saturated, (which I believe is Groundspeak's goal), one can't simply look at the map for the hole that must contain the puzzle they have been trying to solve since 2004.
If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.
And archive active caches that are currently 0.1 mile apart?
-
I smell pork chops.
I also seem to find a trend lately on the forums where people come in to complain about a situation, hope for an answer that they likely won't get, and expose what the root cause is simply through their posts in the thread.
There are "spiteful" geocachers out there, simply because there are "spiteful" humans in the world. Now, to call "them" out as spiteful, I'm wondering at what point the OP will step back and see how some of what they are getting defensive about might just be the mirror they need to look into?
+1
-
What will happen if you place a cache too close to another??
Real wrath of God type stuff.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
-
I feel that the situation is worthy of discussion. I just don't understand why the specific cache has to be named, or why anything has to be reported to the park manager. There is no reason to share the specific cache info with anyone but the local reviewer. I feel very strongly about this.
According to the cache page, the current incarnation of the cache was placed in May of last year. The OP posted a found log in August stating "Great camo, and interesting hide", so it baffles me why this is suddenly an issue, seven months later.
Seriously? August? Jellis did you report it in August and bring it here to get some action on it? If not, what prompted you to report it now?
Apparently she didn't want to make a big deal out of it, or be known as the bad guy and figured an e-mail to the reviewer would be sufficient. Since he basically ignored her e-mails, and with the guideline violation being glaringly obvious, she is left wondering why. Sometimes we are told in these situations that this is a "private" matter between the CO and the reviewer which is rather silly, as the hide is publically listed for all geocachers to find and imitate, and does not have any permission information listed on the page whatsoever. If it is so "private", it should be archived and available for invitation only. With the amount of hides which violate the guidelines that are being listed, it is only fair to conclude that a few reviewers knowingly are quietly allowing it.
Thanks for that answer but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the information I've read in this thread. I wasn't able to determine when Jellis actually reported the cache, which is why I asked. Which post(s) state that she reported it in August?
-
I feel that the situation is worthy of discussion. I just don't understand why the specific cache has to be named, or why anything has to be reported to the park manager. There is no reason to share the specific cache info with anyone but the local reviewer. I feel very strongly about this.
According to the cache page, the current incarnation of the cache was placed in May of last year. The OP posted a found log in August stating "Great camo, and interesting hide", so it baffles me why this is suddenly an issue, seven months later.
Seriously? August? Jellis did you report it in August and bring it here to get some action on it? If not, what prompted you to report it now?
-
Well, the cache is up to 960 notes. 1 extra reviewer note from France, 56 watchers and it's been visited by 195 trackables, despite the fact that no one has actually found it.
I also notice that the count is increasing at a faster rate. I wonder how many reviewers were sandbagging because cache submitters were requesting that they do so?
Edit to add: Why is a .1mi walk through a basically flat desert a 4.5T, and why was it raised from 3.5T after it was published?
Can anyone pinpoint the exact date that integrity died?
[Don McLean] A long, long time ago...[/DonMcLean]
-
We generally try to stick to the Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications published by the United Nations Statistics Division. This list does not yet recognize Kosovo as a country.
Even after the Beach Boys wrote that great song about it?
-
I'm just curious. You started caching again in 2010. Did the old cache finds disappear recently, were they missing when you started back up or you aren't sure and just noticed it?Is it common that old cachelogs just get lost in Geocaching.com:s database..?
All of my old cachelogs are just lost somehowe...
Anyone more that have the same experiance?
When I go to your profile, I can see 71 pages of "found it" logs there, going back to 2010.
If you want to see ALL the logs you've posted, go to http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.aspx and click the "Geocaches" link under the area that says "Your Logs (Last 30 Days)
Show all logs for: Geocaches, Trackable Items, or Benchmarks"
B.
I know that it looks like I started in 2010.
But I did start in 2001 but I did no caching for about seven years from 2003-2010.
And the caches before that is just gone from my finds.
Edited to put the question at the bottom rather than up in someone elses quote. OOPS!
-
I agree with Mr. Yuck that I've not seen that many threads about the information on caches pages; though there have been some.
Some thoughts/observations:
- The owner may not know of the historical significance of that spot.
- Many caches are themed based on some interest of the cache owner. In these cases the pages usually talk about that theme more than the history of the location.
You and Mr. Yuck are right. I was reacting more to the thread title than the meat of the complaint. I also didn't initially notice that this was Redants first post. So I apologize for my misplaced attempt at humor.
-
This thread will likely be moved to geocaching topics but this topic has been discussed to death, reanimated, discussed again, had a stake driven through its heart, revived again, killed again, and then resurrected as a zombie. I wish you well in your quest.
-
Just like Katrina and other natural disasters, the caches are a very low priority and there won't be any massive archivals.
There will be plenty that will get maintained eventually and plenty that will not. And it will take months for it all to be sorted out. I doubt any of the reviewers will be aggressively working towards the massive archival you seem to be hoping for.
Seriously. Where is this coming from? The OP never even hinted at hoping for a massive archival. They simpley wondered if it might happen.
-
As most have surmised here you appear to be dealing with a kid or a 'tween. Why do you believe him when he says he took it home but totally dismiss his assertion that he brought it back? From my perspective this makes no sense.
Edited to remove snarky comment.
-
Really people, it's not that deep. I cannot see how there are sides to take.
Agreed. I would do exactly as you have done. If you cannot verify a find by the logbook, it can (and should) be deleted.
The solution is simple: kid shows you the cache, with his signature in the logbook, you allow a find.
All the rest is just forum nonsense.
So i suppose he should delete all of the logs he hasn't been able to verify due to the missing log? Talk about forum nonsense.
-
Is anyone actually reading this thread? I am reading the most ridiculous replies. Okay, one last time for the band wagon jumpers:
1. He was NEVER called a thief
2. He Publicly ADMITTED he removed the cacher and took it home. This is a FACT. It is NOT in dispute.
3. I immediately deactivated the cache
4. The situation WAS handled privately. Let me say it again. The situation was handled privately.
5. The finder was emailed TWICE. Repeating: He was emailed twice.
6. He REFUSED to write back.
7. He only wrote back when his log was deleted.
Enough, please. :0(
As someone already said, you take him at his word that he took it home but refuse to believe he brought it back. It would appear that you are dealing with a child or a 'tween here. It is entirely possible he was observered returning it and it was taken within minutes of its return.
You assume he logged it immediatley after returning it. I doubt that. And as someone else already pointed out, if he took it why would he log it that way? I think you are off base on this. Just my humble opinion.
-
I recently had a log deleted by the CO of a cache. My log stated, "This was a quick find. I wish COs of nanos wouldn't put huge logs in them -- it is always a big hassle getting them in and out without shredding them. (Team 100)".
When I inquired about why my log had been deleted, I was told that it had been done to give me a chance to relog it and that logs on their caches should not be used as a forum for complaints.
While I agree that the tone of my log could have been more constructive, was the CO within Groundspeak Guidelines or commonly accepted practice to delete my log (and without asking me to edit the log before deleting it)?
They're being a jerk.
Just re-log it 'TFTC', and consider using the same for any more of their caches you might visit.
EDITED to mention:
Nano caches deserve nano logs!
Which is why the appropriate nano log is simply a ".".
I prefer this one... ( ! )
It kind of looks like what I think the CO was being.
-
This is like a tax debate but.. if you lower your cost of yearly admission you will explode you contributing members.
Why not try and see.
Ten bucks membership will eventually explode the numbers and partisanship,
It just the facts,,
Why do we want an exploding membership? I can see why Groundspeak might, but I'd kind of like to see fewer, myself.
Can I give exploding memberships as gifts? A couple of people come to mind...
-
In order to log this cache you must dance The Funky Chicken all the way from the parking lot to the cache site. To prove you've done this, either e-mail me with a clip of you doing so (AVI format only please)...OR...send me 2 notorized affidavits from witnesses attesting to the fact that you did this. Only after I received verification will allow you to post a log.
*****NOTE 1/17/2005!!!!!!!! Please be advised that The Funky Chicken and The Chicken Dance are not the same dance. Future logs (as of today) accompanied by videos of the finder doing The Chicken Dance (or any dance other than The Funky Chicken) WILL BE DELETED!!!!!!******
Where did I see that before?
It's time to make the FTF game legit.
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Ok, it's now April 2nd. Roman! it's time (past time actually) for you to post "APRIL FOOL!!". Roman!?...Roman!?...