Bear & Ducky

Best bet is to ask them. contact@Groundspeak.com Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:You checked the box when you submitted your cache stating that you had read the guidelines. It is rather hard to overlook them when you are reminded about them when submitting a new cache. I'd encourage you to actually read them! Perhaps you might wait for the new version, however, which we are hard at work on updating and clarifying for the benefit of the community. I work in IT, ever install software? I check a lot of boxes that I long ago decided were just same junk different pile. Not to say the guidelines are junk, they serve a purpose much like the guidelines for using the servers you have running at gc.com and the operating system you use, etc.. etc.. I would seriously doubt I am the only one gulty of skimming and I did originally read the entire thing..heck I printed it out. But that was over a year ago and that single tiny paragraph really didn't stand out as important then when I'm not worried nor had I had any problems with archived caches. However if I wanted to get real picky it should say archived or disapproved caches. But I understood what it meant after reviewing it. Ultimately I can admit I made the error (I've made at least 3 such admissions I think in these forums....). The error still does not invalidate other statements made. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:]If there is something about this statement that is unclear to anyone, please feel free to ask and I'll be delighted to assist. EDIT: Bilder beat me to it... thank you. I should remember that I am to stay out of the forums. Its clear, again I'm falable as anyone. Good thing I just didnt go take my toys and leave as soo many have suggested because I wouldn't have had the chance to be wrong and see that this is here. I still think its a good idea, any comments welcome on this, that the approvers make a point to tell cachers the same thing. "Go to the forums if you question my ruling...the forum you want is here ....." This would help in some cases avoid hard feelings and helplessness. I know I'm not the only one to skim over instructions here. Keith Bear & Ducky

Yes Bilder, I edited my message.... I saw it after looking again twice. Its not as obvious when your simply trying to figure out what are the rules to place... how many of us actually read 100% of our instructions? So yes I missed that, and to be honest I knew the basic rules so I dont read guidlines a year or so after I started caching and thus when the time came up and the caches are disapproved, it still seems like theres no recourse because you are only looking at what seemed to be the relevent sections ( I often tdo a Find on page to get me to the spot and read that section entirely if I have a question.) At anyrate I know now for the future and yes I will post to the forums my issues. But I still think to help those others that could overlook the guidelines the approvers should tell them if they wish to bring it up in the forums for further debate they could and then if needed point them to the right forum. Just to be helpful right? Keith Bear & Ducky

Bilder, Again I appreciate the suggestions on the way to get a cache approved. The cache in that specific example is long since past and the cache was an example I brought out about a cache that belonged to a fellow geocacher and not myself. I consider him a great cacher and great cache placer and have talked to him about these issues and listened to the responces he got from the approvers. At the time it was not appearent (nor do the responses from approvers say to go there...I realize its a tiny sentance in the guidlines which says if your cache has been archived go and post...its not something you draw attention to when reading that as I looked several times to see it.) to go to the forums to question a cache. Now that is perfectly clear and if in the future I wish to argue a cache I will. It still does not address the fact that guidelines are being interpreted differently and potentially biased by peoples preferences causing inconsistency in the approval process. This is again not about any one particular cache. It is simply to say that I would like the admins to tell the approvers to follow the "LETTER" of the law in all cases. If then the "LETTER" of the law doesn't apply, update and change those guidelines. A cacher should not have to post to a forum to argue a cache that is clearly valid 100% with the posted guidelines. That being said.....a new suggestion would be to have all approvers include a note in any correspondance on cache approvals that anything could be brought up for review by posting in the forum. That would make it far clearer to those out there that assume they have no power to debate once an approver says no. Keith Bear & Ducky

What am I doing? I'm working to build a souther ontario geocaching association, I've gotten involved with both people from the City of Brantford and City of Hamilton through business relationships to get them aware and interested in geocaching. (Both cities I cache in and have caches in.) They have helped spread the good pr throughout. I've done a spot on the radio with one of our popular stations morning show and newspaper interview with the local paper (servers 500,000 people or so) Hamilton Spectator. I am trying to get our local tv station (CH part of canwest global) to do a spot on geocaching...They are interested and its just a matter of setting it up. I'm continuously offering support to those interested in doing events, attending events and I always think about the other cachers before my self when going out to do events/caches. I think if you want to evaluate or equate these things its not practical. This is not a pissing contest. I'm not proud nor arrogant nor competitive about my involvment. I simply am involved in any way I can to be a part of a larger stronger community of cachers. I've been in on discussions with cachers where we would love to get involved in helping talk to our provincial parks people, but too many hands in the pot can meddle or cause problems so I've not got involved there. Even with my disagreement with Cache-Tech, I'd help him with this if he asked, my disagreement has nothing to do with my continued love of going caching, its just soured me on placing them. As for who would want to be a reporter...well hey its an idea, its an idea that others supported as well, obviously approvers are all jumping up and down saying they use local cachers already. GREAT! But these policies are not in the public eye, so when they are hidden they do not give cachers a sense of what is going on and if something is going on. Actually to be clearer I believe it was not ever stated as policy...only something like "Oh I already do that" Were just presenting ideas to make things better from a perceived lack of guidelines, I understand you don't like the suggestion of reporters...so noted. I like the idea of more localized personal connection to the approvers. Reporters was a suggestion that seemed like a good compromise from an earlier suggestion I made which was to set a max area that an approver can approve based on home coordinates. Its not going to kill gc.com to have a few more people working to better the sport. Keith Bear & Ducky

Its a waste of time talking to you since you've missed the posts with examples that are specific in them. Good example: Virtual cache disapproved at the tomb of Laura Secord, there are no other caches in the area and the spot is historically significant. The location does not want a geocache on it. The approver has said virts have to be something significant like CN Tower, Niagara Falls, not a tombstone...tombstones do not count. Thats a specific example. Now for the guidlines, they expressly say tombstones count. Theres a direct contradiction...or inconsistency. Had you read all the posts you would have read this example. I know others posted examples as well. I can give more but like I said it seems pointless. Keith PS - I'm at a point where I could care less if you support or back me with this or any other specific example because its generated too much noise just trying to get people to read the ***** posts in the entirerty. Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by martmann: So the only Specifics I see are, they had a multi not approved, and lots of caches have not been approved, even though everybody liked them (how many could say they like them, if they were never approved? Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem like people would feel comfortable telling you to your face that they don't like them, for fear of never ending prattle). So it seems you have Chosen to whine in the forums about unapproved caches, without trying to work with the approver who denied it. at least you don't mention trying to work with them anywhere, or what their reason may have been for not approving them (except maybe because they don't fit in the rules). Just ignore my messages then. You quote part of the message which gleans it one way and leave the beginning of it as well as don't consider the context of the thread it was posted in, here was the paragraphs before what you cut quote:The rest are only true if the cache meets the ultimate guidelines for the standard ordinary traditional cache. As stated before, many locations do not want traditional caches in there because of potential damage. Off site caches don't get people out to areas you want them to see, or if they do they get them to fly by the area only to get to the final cache location. Geocaching was more than getting the box and signing a log, it was about a good healthy adventure and seeing places you'd never have seen without having looked up that coordinate and searching for it. This is clearly a discussion about the virts being restricted more because some people at gc.com don't like them. My point I was trying to get accross by saying mine were not approved and yet local cachers liked them was that not all people like all caches and that when it affects good ideas from getting approved it seems wrong. Again your trying to make it all about :B&D whinning in forums their caches not approved. I've already taken my personal actions and archived them, even my approver stated I made those decisions and archived them before they did. Anyway your not interested in any effort to consider the whole context so this really is pointless. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Any IT person can tell you the software company Computer Associates has made billions while ignoring the customer and often being downright hostile to them. Being such a person yes I can agree, however that only lasts so long. People will and do eventually move on and it always starts with just 1 person, then a few more and then a few more. Thus it may not happen tommorow, or this year or next year. But if you want longevity down the road then its best to pretend your serving customers now for 10,20 years from now. That way you'll always be in business. In the end I suppose its all speculative, in 10 years time any of us could say" I told you so..." and we have no idea who would be right. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by martmann:You seem to be the quitter. You archived your caches (in my opinion a fairly childish thing to do, just for effect). Come on....there are how many messages like this already back in the original threads which I keep saying started in the virts discussion and carried over. This is why people say there is such a low signal to noise ratio, and accuse me of posting a dozen posts all the same. Because I have to make a dozen replies it seems to get people to actually read what I've said. I archived my caches in a protest, I'm not the first, I wont be the last. I have said in my early posts (search against my name and read if you missed them) that I am still going out caching. Just not placing any more. If I were a "quitter" I'd stop caching, stop posting here, stop it all, instead I'm participating in a public forum with hopes that at some point the issues I have will either go away or get discussed more civilly at some point.(again read the early early early posts...not the noise in the last few threads) quote:As for a position, I've asked before, What the heck is your position? All I see is WAAAAAAA I don't like the way approvers are... yet you never really get to what it is they have done that causes you to constantly whine on several threads about approvers without specifically saying what they have done wrong, (not a general 'the approvers are biased...', but specifics). Boy people like hearing me repeat myself...those "constantly whine on several thread" messages is the general response I get from people who never read or bothered to do as I suggested which is go back and read the virts discussion. I think if I try to spell it out any clearer than :GO READ VIRTS DISCUSSION we'd have yet another thread accused to be spoiled by continued whinning. Please go and do that to stop both my repeating myself in here and to clean up the noise your now helping generate (Yes I consider this message noise as well since its pointless to have another message say the same thing but it seems I keep getting the same reply over and over and over again rather than anyone looking.) quote:If you are done with geocaching, why are you still here? I really don't mean to be too harsh here, it's just, you go on and on and on without really saying anything. WHAT IS THE POINT? I'll ask once more, then I promise I will just ignore you (like I should've from the start), specifically what have YOU witnessed an approver do, that has gotten you all worked up into a tizzy? Again read the virts.....repeating myself constantly now. The sumation of it all is inconsistencies that do exist. That is the issue and has been from the beginning. That is all I'm debating but it gets blown out of proportion when you have to send out 20 messages explaining that it is not about whining (which is the messages you seem to have read because those are the only ones that seem to go on and on without much point.) So yes please either read from the beginning or ignore me and we'll clean up the noise in either case. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:I do disagree emphatically with the idea of deleting legit "Found It" logs if the cache owner doesn't approve of the person's trade. I don't think it's appropriate to delete legit Found It logs for any reason (_even if you don't like the person!_). If the cache owner feels its really important express his displeasure, a polite and carefully worded e-mail is the better way to go. But be prepared for a defensive and angry response. I agree totally, deleting logs is a hard lined response when you may not even know the situation (financially or otherwise) that the cacher was in at the time and they may have intended well. As for trading... I agree and always try to trade up but sometimes trade even or not at all if the cache seems depleted of anything I'd want. At the same time when I cache if I see a cache that is lacking anything beyond the mcdonalds toys or potential junk then I always keep a spare bucket of items ( up to 15.00 ) in my pack that I unload into the cache and take nothing myself. I usually note in my log entry that the cache was looking sparse so I topped it up for the next visitors. After all caching is suppose to be fun and to me it really doesn't add to the fun that much if I find something neat in the cache container...only the find itself. to that end I'm one that often logs: "TN Left something but can't remember what..." because I don't put any emphasis on it in my mind. Thats also when I remember to log online (I've logged a cache online as late as 3 months after the cache....I have 12 currently that I need to log which were done in the last 30 days or so.) Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Team AshandEs:The problem is when the signal to noise ratio is so low that it becomes difficult to seperate the bashing from the genuine concerns. note this is difficult regardless of which side of the issues your on. quote: If they make similar posts a dozen times in a dozen different threads and then make another dozen posts about how they're being censored and then another dozen about how everyone else is narrow minded and doesn't understand them. I'm afraid I'm probably going to end up writing that off as bashing. Its hard not to write a dozen posts in a dozen threads when the counter parts do so as well. If you look back it all started in the virts debate, then someone started a new thread, and it continued. Next messages started disappearing and people starting saying go play elsewhere. Next we start talking about approvers and get statements like "Tough Nuts" I don't want to have to be as vocal to simply get a fair chance to express an opinion but whne you have every other person trying to scream over you talking it becomes difficult not to post a dozen messages in a dozen threads just to defend your very opinion so it gets seen. All of this is fact, not argument, not noise, fact to what happened if you sorted all messages from me by date and start at the first then go through you'll see it goes downhill fast trying to keep up with the noise from the other side. Again it seems that signal to noise is being referenced like its approver to coplainer ratio. This is not accurate or a fair statement to make but has been made in some form or another many times. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by martmann:Whatever your goal is, it isn't working, please give up. Why don't you just pretend there are no forums? My goal is to continue to defend that my position is something more than a "waw waw my caches were denied" Since it seems easiest for people to dismiss the forum posts that way. Also to rebuke comments like "Just go away","Just give up" I never knew just how many people here want to make quiters out of everybody. As to your last suggestion. Why don't you pretend this reply post isnt here? Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Navdog:B&D, you somehow have not answered my question above. I doubt that you would have posted so much in so many threads recently if your own cache was not approved. I still haven't seen you consider how you can make your cache idea fit within the current guidelines. And I still haven't heard you consider how a relaxed ruling on virtuals would ultimately affect the website as a whole. Again, you need to look at the big picture and not your frustration with your own cache idea, which with a few adjustments and an open mind, would be a good cache. Actually I wouldnt have, because I would not have had the time to look into the forums if I was out doing my regular cache placments scouting...I spend a great deal of time hiking picking spots I like and checking into their history so that when I do set up a series like I did its not just to get 10 caches online. Your doubt about my convictions is falsly placed since I stand still by my debate with or without my caches in the discussion. Had I submitted them one by one with the description as it existed I can almost guarentee they'd have been approved without the approver asking further questions or knowing any better. As for how to make it fit, I've already had great support in email on ways to make my cache fit and I know whow it would fit and would consider it however I'm not ready to decide to bring anything further to gc.com anymore. Its my choice ultimately right? So thats why I've left it. I keep trying to say its done leave it be, I would have far fewer posts if people kept from trying to reinvent my motives into a "I'm a mad stomping child trying to get his way" I still have my opinions and I still have my principles which say there is still an issue with consistencies and the tendancy to deny virtuals which make good caches because some people value the box at the end. (which is *NOT* *NOT* *NOT* related to my cache series being denied...I never suggested mine would get approved if the virt rules lightened up) Anyway again I say this is the worng debate, can you leave it at that so I dont have yet another post to reply to when someone continues to tell me that I am in fact debating for my caches.. geesh. If you'd like to debate it join me in email..my links to the left..I welcom the good and the nasty emails I've gotten since this started so one more wont bother me. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by logscaler:And UMC, If this cr@p keeps going along this line of personal attacks, Please lock it - this thread and all offending parties - and through away the flipping key. logscaler. Good idea since you obviously read past and through messages rather than taking the content I posted as what it was. I spelled it out, this is not about my caches, geesh go back to the virtual rules too strict thread: http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=58660529&p=5 Then there are others...you still make assumptions it would be best to lock the thread and drop it since your not willing to see any side but one. Keith Bear & Ducky

I find it continuously funny how this keeps coming back as only demoralizing to the volunteers. Only the bad cachers are bad mouthing the volunteers. This is really a very two way street. Several things keep reoccuring: People keep saying its always these 4 or 5 ->geesh I'm new to the forum aspect...and yet I hear there are more than 4 or 5. I suppose now I make it 5 or 6 by those counting Topics which seem to have potential to disagree with approvers get bashed and or edited quickly -> would you like your local elected government to act this way to you? every time you disagree, send the police over to push you around, maybe change your tax assessments etc.. Not only is it pointed out that the same group of cachers are complaining but its really only the admins and a few cachers that are defending. -> Given the number of cachers on gc.com both parties are minorities at this point. When you can't argue, get personal -> or so it seems to be responses I've received (both public and private emails...thanks to those that like to send nasty emails, you keep my faith that what I've said dtruck a cord somewhere. Anyway, its unfortunate that no one wants to recognize how demoralizing it is to the cachers complaining as well. Or rather how easy it is to peg past discussions on new people actively involved in debating their issues. Keith Hopefully this wont be another of those posts pegged as demoralizing approvers, and complaining and causing general havoc since it is only suppose to be a perception from my point of view. Bear & Ducky

I'd let the threads die personally and have bowed out of even the one I started but you know I'm only willing to be so quiet. Its a flaw I'll admit. It would be nice to have people stop for a second and see subjectively how the bashing is a two way street in those threads. Best suggestion, lock the threads and simply post a rule that no more debate about any geocaching process allowed in forums. Simple? Then you don't punish the regular non heated discussions. In other words I'll stop but get the others stopping too as one can only take it so long. Keith (As a side note, you may think its my only interest to bash the system...but I cant even begin how many times I've said I'm trying to work with the system. The problem seems to steam from my unrealistic perception that this can happen in a public forum without private emails.) Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by The Cache Couple:Bear & Ducky wrote: Yada yada yada.... Its a very close opinion there with flaws, one the rules have in some cases not been followed. this represents a problem for some of us. thus we argue, I have no problem leaving my own caches aside as I see the rules are there and have said I concede to their opinions in the admin/approvers area. I do not subscribe to sweeping things under a rug, hiding them away or continued battering from people with irrelevant posts, continued "go take your toys elsewhere" statements when the solution is simply to address the suggestions trying to be made and work with those of us asking. If your tired of it then stop adding comments to the posts that both provoke and direct us to respond. your as guilty as anyone else if you are going to post messages like that. If you want to walk away simply say you disagree and have nothing further to discuss. I'd at least respect that. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Bilder:Why do some folks get so worked up over a denied cahce? Its not about a cache or even all my caches. Why do people get worked up when one person dies from a disease? Because the only thing that follows one is two, and two is three, and three is four... etc.. If you dismiss the small slights here and there then you dismiss a larger problem later. Why not discuss it without trying to make this into a discussion that clearly has been defined as *NOT* a my caches were denied sob story. Geesh it seems you guys can put the whinning right into my mouth very well in here. Maybe we should switch sides for a bit so you can do all this ranting for my poor lil caches that I've already dismissed. I'm big enough to see potential in alternate listing services I'm not going to lose sleep over my caches being denied. So find another way to deal with my argument rather than trying to play it off. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by Navdog:You have been ranting on a half dozen threads because your cache was not approved, but nowhere have I seen you ask for any help in rethinking your cache idea when it clearly did not meet the rules. Your dead wrong there. This is not a dozen threads to rant on my caches being denied, I gave them up. Its been kept going (in the form of my caches vs the rules) since others wont give it up as well. Its only been a few people trying to say I'm ranting when yet I've continued to say I'm not here to debate my disapproved caches. My issue comes from other circumstances where caches *DID* meet guidelines but *DID NOT* get approved, please reread the dozen threads you have seen me ranting on and this time read every post. This exact type of statement is exactly why its pointless to bring things up in here. Keith Bear & Ducky

Sounds like an interesting thread....funny thing though it'll get deleted before those who want to join in can sign up to be banned. Keith Bear & Ducky

If it was quantity I wanted then there are many areas I travel through between home and work that I would place many traditionals. This was a quality series in what it did and the thought was to reward the cachers for sticking through 30 km of trails just to complete it. If you have a choice of loggin 1 cache series that takes 30 km of hiking versus doing 10 to 15 others in some of the denser areas with less, then what are you going to do? Most cachers will opt for the later, while the dedicated few would still do the 1. The reference to the few of mine as low quality virts is a biased opinion for most, as many people simlpy dislike the virts out of personal preference and not because they have a place. I understand the concept of the guidlines but I also thought the word guidelines meant what it did in the english dictionary and as spoken here. The best solution I've said before is all you need to add to guidelines is this: "Traditional container, prizes, log. All others need not apply" It would save you a lot of issues if you were all just straight up with your end goals here and said this is no place for anything but standard containers. Thanks but no thanks I'll do my caches somewhere that appreciates quality outside of the box as well as the traditionals. Keith Bear & Ducky

Again the negative undertones seem to focus on those with issues. But I've come to expect that. As for volunteering, if I thought it would do any good then my time is theirs but I've likened the environment here to that of a closed group with closed policies that are somewhat shared with those they affect. Better solution would be to simply not have forums. (yes I know there are good reasons to keep them...but hey since some of us seem only to be abusing them, why not follow common policy and eliminate them) Then everyone would seem happier and all the problems would seem to vanish from the gc.com site. Keith Bear & Ducky

It seems that everyone assumes everything is working just fine and those of us that recognize issues are imagining it. It seems pointless to continue this thread as it is. I saw your post Keystone on the numbers, if thats the numbers then I guess the group watching from above that I'll have to switch this topic to in private and I will have to continue to wonder why things happen the way they do. Cache-tech I welcome you to make it to the pub night, I'm certainly not going to be physically hostile towards you but I will definately bring the issues that that community has shared to the table as then you'll get to hear from more voices expressing their concern. Beyond that I guess the best thing to do is let the rest rant on, I'll not close a thread simply because I think its become pointless but I certainly don't see what more there is to discuss. I'll happily wander off this thread and maybe the others to play where I see there are open minds and less fight to get some things disclosed. Keith Bear & Ducky

quote:Originally posted by gm100guy: Bear and Ducky should do some research before they make statements on the forum. http://groups.msn.com/GeocachinginOntario/homepage Ahh now you want me to find something outside of gc.com itself. It's not like you advertise there are discussions just as we as cachers don't always let on where our forums off site are. I can't take that as serious critism since its not something I could have known of. To second that I'm merely going from the messages in other forums outside gc.com where cache-tech has not indicated that he and gc.com are working on it, but he himself is working on it. I think if you ask a lot of cachers in the golden horseshoe, there was a recent post in the last few months on one of the boards we have chatted in where people seemed so surprised there was an issue and that cache-tech was on it already. So again I think its hard to say I should have researched, I had every reason to think Cache-Tech alone is on the problem based on his posts and lack of evidense to the contrary (lets say lack of obvious evidence...there may be an old post in the forums here but those get pushed down very quick) quote:Some of us have been working on this for over a year now and do a search on the Canada forum and you will find all the threads about this topic. I certainly will search the thread, but as I said if it isn't prominent on the first list of topics many people don't go reading or searching for something they don't know exists. I also checked out that group you mentioned where I could have researched. Theres appearently about a dozen people posting and maybe 75 to 100 messages over the last year? Its hard to say most would notice this exists...and a large number of the post belong to gm100guy Keith Bear & Ducky