Why Was This Cache Archived

[+Cache Liberation Front]

 

It sure is easy to stand on your soapbox and complain about the injustice of society, but would you prefer to ignore a potential issue with a listing or would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?

There's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. You equate "getting in contact with the cache owner first" with "ignore." That's a straw man arguement that no one here is advocating. You're simply being dismissive when you write things like "would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?" Again, that's a straw arguement, of course we all here want to ensure our fellow cachers' safety.

 

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches. You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited January 22, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+welch]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy? This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No I don't think so. Someone brings up a problem... do you A. treat it like an actual problem and check it out? or B. sit around and think about if the person who told you theres a (say fire) is someone that would know (like the fire marshal).

 

As has already been metioned, what's to keep a disgruntled cacher from using an IP proxy to register complaint after complaint after complaint and archiving perfectly fine caches simply because he has a bee in his/her bonnet?

Not a dang thing. I'm sure 911 gets prank calls, do they stop answering the phone?

Obvisously geocaching isn't so life or death, but you don't stop reacting to the problem like its real, because at some point it might be.

[+Kit Fox]

 

It sure is easy to stand on your soapbox and complain about the injustice of society, but would you prefer to ignore a potential issue with a listing or would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?

There's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. You equate "getting in contact with the cache owner first" with "ignore." That's a straw man arguement that no one here is advocating. You're simply being dismissive when you write things like "would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?" Again, that's a straw arguement, of course we all here want to ensure our fellow cachers' safety.

 

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches. You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

I think bogus SBA logs are far less likely to occur than bonafide cache maggots stealing and or destroying active caches. I'd love for someone to point out a time when rampant, fake SBA logs, were used to menace cachers.

 

The sky is defiantely not falling

[MapheadMike]

I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.

If a cache owner has their act together (checking maps and records to ABSOLUTELY KNOW who owns the land and what the landowner's policies are), then it would be a simple matter to document this to a site volunteer and have the cache reinstated. Possibly even documenting it in advance through reviewer notes or in the cache description, if the situation isn't crystal clear at first glance.

 

This presumes that a false land ownership claim is the only issue. In this case, we also have a veiled threat of violence ("chewed up by dogs" - which happen to be dobermans and rotweillers). That seems to be a legit problem, even if the underlying land claim is false. That also justifies quick action of Groundspeak's part. The cache owner seems to agree. She stated in her regional forum that she isn't replacing the cache based on the dog threats, even though the county land records that I found yesterday show that the land ownership claim is likely false.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches. You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

You must not have read any of the blue text. I specifically addressed the subject.

[+Confucius' Cat]

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.  You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

You must not have read any of the blue text. I specifically addressed the subject.

This argument reminds me of a recent threat by an outsider to steal all the caches in the area.

 

My thought on the subject is "hope he's got nothing else to do and lives a long and fruitful life" because he's got QUITE A JOB ahead of him.

 

Finding and stealing all the caches in the area will have to be the consuming passion of his life if he actually gets it done- there are simply too many of them, and too many cachers out hiding new ones and replacing the stolen ones.

 

I guess there are people who have nothing at all to do other than send fraudulent emails to Groundspeak, but they won't have much impact ultimately before they give up and go do something useful.

 

Cranks give up quickly when they find their efforts are futile.

[Jeremy]

You're simply being dismissive when you write things like "would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?" Again, that's a straw arguement, of course we all here want to ensure our fellow cachers' safety.

It's not a straw man argument. It is a legitimate issue. It's the same reason why schools shut down after someone calls in a bomb threat or the bomb squad blowing up an innocent transparent cache. You err on the side of caution.

 

It only takes one time to be wrong to cause a serious issue. Why risk it for a plastic container in the woods?

 

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.  You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

 

We've had this policy since the site first went live. The sky hasn't fallen down on us yet. If you peruse through the last several pages you'll realize that it is a good policy too.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You're simply being dismissive when you write things like "would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously?"  Again, that's a straw arguement, of course we all here want to ensure our fellow cachers' safety.

It's not a straw man argument. It is a legitimate issue. It's the same reason why schools shut down after someone calls in a bomb threat or the bomb squad blowing up an innocent transparent cache. You err on the side of caution.

 

It only takes one time to be wrong to cause a serious issue. Why risk it for a plastic container in the woods?

 

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.  You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

 

We've had this policy since the site first went live. The sky hasn't fallen down on us yet. If you peruse through the last several pages you'll realize that it is a good policy too.

Good comparison Jeremy! My company has evacuated us a few times due to bomb threats. It's better to clear the building while the police investigate the validity of the threat than it would be for them to pretend there isn't a problem.

 

Look what happened Sept. 11th...the PA announcement after the first crash told people in the other building it was just an accident. Had they been cautious and evacuated, they could have saved many more lives.

 

Erring on the side of caution may be an inconvenience to some (although I can't tell who was inconvenienced in archiving a cache that was reported to be missing), but it's a much better policy than ignoring it.

[benji55545]

i have just read this entire thread.

i personally find it hilarious and a good lesson in common politics (and why i have no desire to go into it).

 

this issue is so stupid, i can't believe so much time has been devoted to arguing over an coffee can. get over it, the policies are Groundspeak's to make and everyone will deal with it or make their own free geocaching service.

 

ben

[+Cache Liberation Front]

 

We've had this policy since the site first went live. The sky hasn't fallen down on us yet. If you peruse through the last several pages you'll realize that it is a good policy too.

*sigh* Straw arguement #2: accusing me of thinking the sky's falling. No one here has said it is.

 

God forbid a call for a discussion be taken seriously, instead of dismissed by the "Yes Men" here claiming "Quit crying the sky's falling" or "It's only a coffee can."

 

Is that's the best you can come up with when asked for an open discussion on policy and potential abuse of it, then I'm guess you're right on one account: it IS pointless trying to create a dialogue. I feel like I'm trying to talk to a piece of wet cardboard, here.

 

I guess I should join the bobble-heads. *nodnodnodnodnod*

[Jeremy]

*sigh* Straw arguement #2: accusing me of thinking the sky's falling. No one here has said it is.

If you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously you should refrain from trying to ridicule other people's arguments. It only weakens yours.

 

Various issues have been raised where one should err on the side of caution. Your constant ignoring of valid responses and calling people bobbleheads doesn't validate any of your actions. If you wish to argue something don't belittle others with your statements.

 

I'm not ignoring you. I'm disagreeing with you. There's a big difference.

[+Sagefox]

Is that's the best you can come up with when asked for an open discussion on policy and potential abuse of it, then I'm guess you're right on one account: it IS pointless trying to create a dialogue. I feel like I'm trying to talk to a piece of wet cardboard, here.

For someone with your geocaching experience I can't understand why you think this discussion is important enough to insult other responders or the admin.

 

You've got to be at the point where if one of those nearly 1000 containers you've found were to be shut down for a few days or a week that it would have any significant impact to your game. Would it create even the slightest ripple in this big global pond?

 

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.  You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

 

What possible "hazard" could result from temporarily shutting down a can in the woods containing items of little value while the issue is sorted out?

 

And how often do you think this happens or could "potentially" happen?

 

Wouldn't it be better to save your big guns for an argument that has some substance to it?

[+briansnat]

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches.

 

What hazard? If the claim is bogus, the cache is back online in days. Seriously, I'd hate to live in your area if this is actually an issue where you live.

 

What if someone started posting notes on all YOUR caches saying they were the property owners, and they took your cache, and the admins archived them all?

 

I would e-mail the admin with proof that my caches are not on private property and sit back while he enables them for me.

Edited January 22, 2006 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

As we are approaching the dawn of required written permission, I'd say if a potential problem comes to light the best solution is to archive, maybe even de-list, the cache in question until things can get straightened out.

 

One response to such claim is to require the cache owner to show the accusation is false. Another is give the supposed land owner time to make the request in writing or the cache goes back online. Another is send a trusted member of the community out to investigate the claim and report back.

 

The most important thing this site can do is show it is responsive to land owner concerns even if it puts out a few cache owners. Personally, I'd give Groundspeak a "B" in this respect with my dealings with them in getting some caches archived. They should be at an "A+" and this would make our lives so much easier when trying to convert a skeptic landowner to an accepting one.

 

Immediate archival most definitely was the appropriate response.

[Trinity's Crew]

Archive first. Ask questions later. That is definitely the most prudent thing to do in a situation like this. You have to assume that the complaint is valid. The cache can be unarchived once the facts are ascertained.

[+SgtSue]

I know this might come as a shock to some of you but people are known to make mistakes. The landowner might THINK the cache is on his property and even if it is not act as though it is. Think of the cries of "should have..." if a cacher was injured, incarcerated, or even just hostilely confronted after Groundspeak received the first notice of a problem. If the cache is on public land the homeowner needs to be educated (maybe the real estate agent misrepresented the property lines). If the cache is on private property the cache needs to be removed and a nice apology and explanation would help mend relationships within the local community. Either way no one needs to be searching for the cache until the issue is resolved.

[+TeamGuisinger]

It says something about a person who does not immediately want to stop traffic to their cache when they are informed that there may possibly be not 1 but 4 man-eating dogs in the vicinity.

 

I would find those 4 dogs and make the dog warden aware. If you have leash laws they are not allowed to run free even on private property. That email from their owner would probably get his interest fairly quickly. Regardless of who owns the land, I would remove my cache permanently since there is the smallest chance that a killer dog just might get loose. The guy sounds a little too proud of his man-eating beasts.

 

As the president of the company, Jeremy has an obligation to set guidelines that will legally protect it in such situations. Without that guideline, who knows gc.com may have been taken to court last year over a dog bite and now be nonexistent. I can respect the decisions made by the site and personally feel as if they are also protecting my family. I know I don't want to get attacked by dogs and find out later that they were aware of the danger.

 

My 2 cents on the fake complaints to gc.com: If someone is sending complaints about your cache and your cache is properly placed. It shouldn't be all that hard to prove it is properly placed. I'm confident that if it were to happen more than once gc.com would catch on and the person would be ignored or banned. Life is full of inconveniences, at least this one might actually be protecting my kids.

 

The way to win an argument is with facts, go get some then come back and tell us what you found out.

[+Mopar]

OK, I'm gonna violate my "2 page rule" (most forum threads are useless after the 2nd page and not worth commenting on) this one time.

Lately the GC forums have been reminding me of something my wife says.

I'll be in the middle of some stupid one sided argument (I'm arguing, she's not) and she'll come out with:

"Your life is so good that the worst thing you can complain about is [insert really stupid argument here]."

And she's right. That's the only reason I can think of for arguing about her calling my cellphone and not leaving a msg when I don't answer; or any of the other stupid arguments I try and pick. I enjoy a good debate/argument, and there are no legitimate reasons for one; I make one up.

I think the same thing is happening here in the forums. We have some great debaters in our midst; many of whom I respect even when I don't agree with.

Things on GC.com have been running fairly smoothly. Servers are mostly handling the load. Tons of new and helpful features have been released. Caches have been getting listed.

We've really got nothing big to complain about, nothing to debate, nothing to argue about.

The great debaters and arguers are left with little minor issues, and since they have nothing else; they pile crap on that anthill until it becomes a mountain.

Why else after five years of doing like this would there be a multi-page thread debating if/when/how to archive a cache when a property owner complains?

Why else would we have people arguing reviewer vs approver?

Why else would we have 7 pages debating if a vacation cache uses the gps enough?

Why else would we have people geociding over trade items or who Groundspeak does or doesn't employ?

 

Come on people, life in the geocaching.com world is good! Go out and enjoy it.

[+The Leprechauns]

Wow, someone gave Mopar happy pills.

 

I think I'll start a thread called "Thank you, GeoHo!" and I expect everyone who's ever argued with Mopar to post there.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Regardless of who owns the land, I would remove my cache permanently since there is the smallest chance that a killer dog just might get loose. The guy sounds a little too proud of his man-eating beasts.

And likwise the smallest chance that the cache would ever be allowed to remain anyway.

 

MOVE THE BOX

 

MOVE ON

[+K0BKL]

It seems to me that the site is dead in any case, if someone is removing anything placed there. Archive it and try somewhere else to place a cache.

I have archived 2 caches because of the former owner's objections to anyone even walking that far back in the park. (Where the caches were)

[Mr.Yuck]

The really awful thing about it is not that FishPOET took it to the forums, but he intentionally left out, for example, the message sent to us about the listing and the threatening tone of the message. Is there some reason why he needs to omit important information from his argument?

OMG.....It is amazing that you accuse me of intentionally leaving out important information on this forum. I never posted a single email onto this forum...you did. And you are the one that left out part of the email...This just goes from bad to worse.

 

You archived the cache without any investigation. That was and still is the point of this whole thread. If this is your policy....just say so and move on. It would be 1 more in a long line of decisions made recently that have changed the game...and not for the better.

Can I send an email pretending to be Sam Walton, to get the thousands of lame micros placed without permision in his parking lots removed? Wait a minute, I don't think he's with us anymore. It was an idea though

[+Mudfrog]

And yet once again, having continued reading everyone's $.02, I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches. You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

 

I understand where you are coming from on this. This has probably happened but im also sure it doesnt happen often. My BIG question is though,,, how in the world would anyone ever find out if an email was bogus just for the intent of closing down a legitimate cache? Yes there are ways to check things out and verify, but how long is this gonna take? Temporarily archiving the cache is the only plausible thing to do at this point.

 

I agree that i would hate to see a legitimate cache be archived, but you gotta weigh the situation here. Which is better, being safer than sorry so as not to end up getting an unsuspecting cacher into a bad situation or, ignoring a potentially, in this case, dangerous situation?

 

By the way, there is no guilt being cast at this point.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

This just seems so simple to me. Let's just look at the WORST that could happen, on either side of the issue:

 

1st- Cache gets archived due to bogus e-mail from someone posing as a land owner

POSSIBLE RESULT- There is one less cache available for us to hunt. Cache owner gets inconvenienced while he/she provides proof of permission.

 

2nd- Cache remains in place while cache owner investigates bogus e-mail.

POSSIBLE RESULT- Small children get torn apart in a raging dog battle between rottweillers and dobermans. Parent gets rear shot off with 12 guage while separating said dogs. After all of this, they're unable to sign log, due to CACHE NOT BEING THERE ANYMORE.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The really awful thing about it is not that FishPOET took it to the forums, but he intentionally left out, for example, the message sent to us about the listing and the threatening tone of the message. Is there some reason why he needs to omit important information from his argument?

OMG.....It is amazing that you accuse me of intentionally leaving out important information on this forum. I never posted a single email onto this forum...you did. And you are the one that left out part of the email...This just goes from bad to worse.

 

You archived the cache without any investigation. That was and still is the point of this whole thread. If this is your policy....just say so and move on. It would be 1 more in a long line of decisions made recently that have changed the game...and not for the better.

Can I send an email pretending to be Sam Walton, to get the thousands of lame micros placed without permision in his parking lots removed? Wait a minute, I don't think he's with us anymore. It was an idea though

I think that's already in progress.

 

I believe This Thread about one particular wal-mart cache has already got the ball rolling pretty well for parking lot caches.

 

The user "wal-mart security" probably is legitimate, but no doubt does not represent Wally world in general.

 

Still I bet a lot of walmart caches go bye bye- and a lot of other public parking lot caches too.

 

IMHO a written permission requirement is just around the bend, and probably quite appropriate for any cache not obviously on public park land where no geocaching policy exists.

[+Shaggy of Mysteries Inc]

I say archive first and I will check into the problem. After all it is my responsiblity to keep fellow cachers from unneccesary harm when searching for my caches.

 

~Shaggy~

[Mr.Yuck]

Can I send an email pretending to be Sam Walton, to get the thousands of lame micros placed without permision in his parking lots removed? Wait a minute, I don't think he's with us anymore. It was an idea though 

I think that's already in progress.

 

I believe This Thread about one particular wal-mart cache has already got the ball rolling pretty well for parking lot caches.

 

The user "wal-mart security" probably is legitimate, but no doubt does not represent Wally world in general.

 

Still I bet a lot of walmart caches go bye bye- and a lot of other public parking lot caches too.

 

IMHO a written permission requirement is just around the bend, and probably quite appropriate for any cache not obviously on public park land where no geocaching policy exists.

 

Interesting, thanks! I was trying to be funny, and didn't expect any specific replies, but I anxiously await the day proof of permission is demanded for parking lot caches, the way it is now for cemetery caches. Then I'm going to climb to the top of the highest mountain and scream "I TOLD YOU SO!' at the top of my lungs.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I've yet to see anyone address the potential hazard of bogus claims shutting down legit caches. You can check all the proxies and IPs you want, but as long as there's hotmail, gmail, msnmail, whatever, there will always be ways of users creating bogus identities they can use to shut down legit caches.

I have been on the recieving end of a bogus claim to shut down one of my caches. In that case I deleted the SBA log and the reviewer who would have been alearted recognized the bogus nature and did not archive my cache.

[+Sagefox]

The most important thing this site can do is show it is responsive to land owner concerns even if it puts out a few cache owners... ...Immediate archival most definitely was the appropriate response.

Exactly. Maybe not "The" most important but certainly on-par with cache reviewers looking for subtle indicators that a cache might cause PR problems.

 

As the cacher formerly known as ChurchCampDave said: "Move It. Move On"

 

It will only cause ill-will and bad PR to insist a cache remain in place if a nearby property owner has a problem with it. It doesn't matter if we are right and the cache is actually on public property, with or without permission, the perception from the property owner is that the cache is causing trouble for them. So... just move the da*n cache and get back to having fun!

[4wheelin_fool]

I dont see any reason to attempt to leave a cache in place that someone has removed, believing it is on their property. You can go back and forth all day about whose property it is, and who owns it, but at the end of the day the muggle will go out and remove the cache anyway.

 

In other situations, if there is question of property ownership, the cache should be archived immediately. as archival is reversible. And yes, they do respond back.

 

If the cache hider had just cammoed the cache to look like horse crap we wouldnt have a problem now would we?