Team Microdot

A full week in and no response from Groundspeak ☹️

There's a link from the cache page to that video ?

There's nowhere in that mall that I would describe as not family friendly. Well, if you pushed me, maybe the underground car park - it does get very busy and might be considered hazardous. The car park also isn't on the list of places one need sto visit to complete the Earthcache though. Or should I say it wasn't on the list of places one used to need to visit to complete the Earthcache.

Certainly a possibility but based on the reviewer's comments the complaint landed in his lap from above.

Comments like this one. Conversing with you on this forum is purely voluntary so I'm responsible for taking any abuse thrown my way. Now If it was my job to deal with you and these comments I'm sure I'd have built up a little resentment over time. Now I don't hold grudges and regardless of what I may think of someone, I would always be fair. That's me though. I'm not saying this is the case but it did cross my mind. Which reinforces my view which is to wait for the appeals process to take its course and to engage in open and honest dialogue with Groundspeak in a bid to achieve the best outcome for all concerned which, in my view, is to get the Earthcache unarchived.

Don't start trying to read into things. It's just seems to me you've had more troubles like this than anyone I've encountered and I don't understand why unless........ I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way. I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?

Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?

My view is that where a group photo has been uploaded the person uploading it should identify each individual group member by their caching name and position in the photograph i.e. from left to right this photo shows x,y,z,a,b and c at the cache location. Anyone not on the photo / not named = delete log. Simple and effective.

Not sure I understand... I thought the OP covered that already with this... "The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across. You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question. If you had to stop and press your face against the glass and fog it up with your breath that might be different - but that's absolutely not the case". Just noticed this one - thanks for the pointer

Thanks for noticing that and pointing it out There also seems to be a misunderstanding about the store ownership and some belief that it has changed hands in the time the Earthcache has been in place. For clarity, hold on - I think I've already covered this once... There is quite a lot to this thread - admittedly not as much as the thread our new poster here has been involved in for the past few days, but this one's managed to remain pretty concise and on topic until now - and I'd like to keep it that way if we can. I thought I might have heard something for Groundspeak today but it's not happened yet - unless I've missed it. Fingers crossed.

I didn't realize you were following it in the first place. Thanks for the update. I'm sure your not the first. Oh G**! I'm still getting emails about it! ?

This is the first topic I have ever unfollowed.

Rest assured, that store does not feature in this EarthCache. Heard nothing from Groundspeak so far ?

To me, this pretty clearly states that the problem isn't necessarily with the underwear shop. ('Family Friendly'? Don't they know how families get started?) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Reads to me like it could very well be some other store that they have a problem with. Have you tried to figure out what that could be? Could there be some sort of competing enterprise there? Does anyone know of any historical problems between GS and some other business? I would hate for that to be the reason behind this. That's pretty petty. How about asking the Mall to let GS know that they like having your EC there? Oh, wait - bad idea. That puts a commercial spin on the cache. Permission is one thing, but endorsement is another. True enough - it doesn't identify one shop over any of the others in the vicinity. I might well be putting two and two together and getting five - but I doubt it. Then again, the idea that there are any outlets in that mall which aren't family friendly puzzles me. What I can say is that none of the stores visible from the Earthcache locations have changed in the two years since its publication - although admittedly it may be as much as a fortnight since I was last there. Part of the reviewer's response to my communication after re-enabling the Earthcache makes me think that there can only be one shop that TPTB might be classing as not family friendly - or maybe it's the original complainant's own classification that portrays it as such? Of course, without some solid feedback from Groundspeak all we can do is speculate ?

That's really for Groundspeak to say. As things stand there was no attempt at dialogue from their end, no opportunity to engage like adults. Removing that part is a possibility but it would detract quite significantly from the Earthcache overall as the rock used in that floor is something of a rarity - and it is rather beautiful to behold To begin with though I'd like to know why the reason given for archival was very different from the reason given for disablement. I'm also concerned that removing that part is tantamount to an admission / acceptance that women's underwear is somehow offensive and there's also the question of where the line is drawn - is swimwear, for example, also considered offensive?

Now that made me LOL ?

The current EC though features the most rare, beautiful and expensive of the rocks - AND the way these rocks are arranged facilitates straight-forward navigation within the mall. Part of the whole strategy of the thing was to make it straight forward for all - including the novice Earth cacher. Let me tell you - it's not easy nagivating people around a mall without mentioning anything commercial - which is why it took me months of mulling over to finally come up with something workable that I was happy with.

Fear not - I'm hoping TPTB will see fit to unarchive this one rather than do a new one.

If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a: DNF - because you found it coachstahly is correct.

Indeed. I was a bit surprised to get a reply at all from the Lackey who archived it with it being weekend.

Thanks Jack. No news yet.

As I say - I can only assume that there's been some confusion, a breakdown in communication or even misinformation behind the sudden archival because the cache has never contravened commercial guidelines and nor is the location family unfriendly. Heck, the place even has miniature cars you can push your kids around in as you shop! ?

Keep us posted! Thanks - I will ? Hopefully it will be good news ✔️

Appeal submitted. Fingers crossed ?

Thanks for the support I was shocked too. I'm inclined though, because of the way things happened, to imagine that there was a breakdown in communication and/or a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. The reviewer disabled the cache on the basis that a complaint had been recieved that it was necessary to enter the store - and that this in turn contravened the commercial guidlines. I expect he forgot the lengthy discussions he and I had to ensure that the cache would fully comply with the commercial guidelines - which it always has. He left me to decide what to do so, as the complaint (at the time) had no basis, I enabled the cache again with a note to the effect that there was no need to enter the store (I expect many here have worked out which cache it was and know this part of the story anyway). Perhaps me re-enabling the cache was seen as some sort of challenge to the powers that be - I don't know - but that's the only reason I can imagine for the lack of engagement preceeding the archival. And I still don't know why the nature of the complaint changed part way throught the process. I'll need to try to address that though and establish the actual nature of the complaint if I'm to understand what might be expected of me in return for (hopefully) getting this cache unarchived.