Jump to content

Problem Solved


Recommended Posts

Nothing like a good slamming in the forums to make you think.

 

I’m going to have to think about a lot about this. This is what I know.

 

1) It is my cache. I placed it I’m responsible.

2) Holding the reviewer responsible for the cache itself beyond their impact to the listing is a bit much.

3) The listing isn’t as much “mine” as I thought. Approvers can edit or archive the listing if I don’t manage my cache as they desire. Over time GC.com has put more restrictions on what can go into a listing. That means GC.com is taking some responsibility for listings and content. (if they weren’t they wouldn’t be enforcing the restrictions).

4) The increased control over listings has put GC.com in a situation where they have also started influencing caches. That means GC.com is taking responsibility at some level for a cache. That’s a legal issue. Their lawyer probably thinks about this from time to time.

5) Everyone involved in a cache is responsible for their actions. Sites, approvers, owners, and, finders. The only question is where the line is. Neither the reviewer nor I would be here if some dippy doodle didn’t mess with the cache. If I could press a button and give them a nice electric jolt every time I thought about the cache until they replaced it I would.

6) At a minimum approvers or GC.com are responsible for the listing once they take control of it. Sorry guys but you can’t take an action and not take responsibility at some level. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure where the lines are because it’s clear the cache and listing are both related and separate. I know of one case where the National Park Service collaborated on a virtual cache. The cache was later archived over one that had no such backing. Any ill will is the responsibility of the folks who chose to hit the archive switch and not the cache owner. The site defended the decision. Fine, stand by it, live with it, take responsibility for it.

7) Archiving the cache of an active cache owner is solely a convenience for finders. It doesn’t help those cache owners.

8) If I was a professional I’d take the company Jeep out to maintain the cache and think I had one of the best jobs on the planet. No such luck. I’m an amateur. The best you get is what’s left after everyone else gets a piece of me. That is enough. However if it’s not, tough nuts. That’s all there is. When the review queue bogs down Everyone says “Reviewers have lives…things happen, have patience, they will get to it.” Good advice.

Link to comment

Either you have other issues with your reviewer ...

 

It's a new revewwer. They were nice, professional, responded exactly as they should when they are in a position to enforce the company line whether or not they agree with it themselves.. They approved my cache submittal without regard to this archival two days later. Exactly who I would hire if I wanted them to do the same job for me. I have no beef with this reviewer.

 

The issue is exactly what I have said in the first post. If I'm responsible, let me be responsbile. Don't cut in and take it away from me. You can call it a pet peeve. We all have them. That's one of mine.

 

 

Refer to post #96. You can't maintain this cache but you can place a new one?? Now you're just playing games.

Link to comment

When the review queue bogs down Everyone says “Reviewers have lives…things happen, have patience, they will get to it.” Good advice.

 

can you even imagine if the reviewers didn't bother to approve caches for 6 months, or a year... because they "didn't feel like it"... or because they "had something better to do"?

 

they'd be thrown out on their bee-hinies pretty darn quickly.

 

B)B)

Link to comment
If the owner is willing to check it out, why is there a need to archive the cache?

 

And when, as in this case, the owner is not willing to check it out, in a timely manner, and as per guidelines you agreed to before listing the cache?

 

It is your litter, take care of it.

 

Better yet, wait the couple three or four months and go take care of it. Then post a note and have the cache unarchived. Really it is an easy thing to do.

Link to comment

....The fact remains, the guidelines state "the cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Regardless of archive circumstances, it is still your listing! ....

 

Lets explore this.

 

<snip>

 

Sure, the site has a guidelines that says "I assume all responability" and I did. <snip>

 

Right now I have no listing. <snip>

 

Incorrect. You now have an archived listing. You can still make the decision to perform the maintenance or not. In the meantime, the location is now freed up for someone else to place a cache in that location or nearby. And seekers don't need to filter out a poorly maintained listing.

Link to comment
Think about it. If the cache is there, why archive it? If it's not there, there is no geo litter. If the reviewer is unsure they can ask the owner. If the owner is willing to check it out, why is there a need to archive the cache?

 

At this point, no one is really thinking about that question anymore.

After hearing you say that the physical cache now belongs to the reviewer, the subject has shifted.

 

And even if we were addressing the original question, in your case, I think your later comments have swayed peoples' views of your specific case.

 

If the owner is willing to check it out

 

...in a timely fashion. To many of us, it seemed that you were unwilling to check on it. The line about "hey sometimes life gets in the way" doesn't seem to hold when we learn you have placed a new cache recently. That's just how we're seeing it. Judging by your last post, you seem to be at least thinking about others' POV.

Link to comment

From the original post:

 

I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there. Instead I'm going to maintain them when I can as I can as time permits because this is a casual activity that I do for fun.

 

If a BBQ at a friends or having lunch with your wife (are you apart for long periods of time?) are more important than taking responsibilty and doing the maintenece that you agreed to do upon placing caches, then maybe you've outgrown, or are just too bored with the hobby. I don't believe "senority" should exclude anyone from following the same guidlines as everyone else. If one doesn't know that they can and will do maintenece by the guidlines, and in a timely manner, they shouldn't place the cache. And if they now know that they can't uphold those responsibilities, they should go retrieve their caches and archive them themselves, and disperse any travel bugs or geocoins to another cache so they can continue on their journey, rather than being stuck in Limbo. If it now takes more time and energy than you currently have, just stick with simply being a finder, and have fun with that as your schedule permits.

Link to comment

Nothing like a good slamming in the forums to make you think.

 

I’m going to have to think about a lot about this. This is what I know.

 

1) It is my cache. I placed it I’m responsible.

2) Holding the reviewer responsible for the cache itself beyond their impact to the listing is a bit much.

3) The listing isn’t as much “mine” as I thought. Approvers can edit or archive the listing if I don’t manage my cache as they desire. Over time GC.com has put more restrictions on what can go into a listing. That means GC.com is taking some responsibility for listings and content. (if they weren’t they wouldn’t be enforcing the restrictions).

4) The increased control over listings has put GC.com in a situation where they have also started influencing caches. That means GC.com is taking responsibility at some level for a cache. That’s a legal issue. Their lawyer probably thinks about this from time to time.

5) Everyone involved in a cache is responsible for their actions. Sites, approvers, owners, and, finders. The only question is where the line is. Neither the reviewer nor I would be here if some dippy doodle didn’t mess with the cache. If I could press a button and give them a nice electric jolt every time I thought about the cache until they replaced it I would.

6) At a minimum approvers or GC.com are responsible for the listing once they take control of it. Sorry guys but you can’t take an action and not take responsibility at some level. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure where the lines are because it’s clear the cache and listing are both related and separate. I know of one case where the National Park Service collaborated on a virtual cache. The cache was later archived over one that had no such backing. Any ill will is the responsibility of the folks who chose to hit the archive switch and not the cache owner. The site defended the decision. Fine, stand by it, live with it, take responsibility for it.

7) Archiving the cache of an active cache owner is solely a convenience for finders. It doesn’t help those cache owners.

8) If I was a professional I’d take the company Jeep out to maintain the cache and think I had one of the best jobs on the planet. No such luck. I’m an amateur. The best you get is what’s left after everyone else gets a piece of me. That is enough. However if it’s not, tough nuts. That’s all there is. When the review queue bogs down Everyone says “Reviewers have lives…things happen, have patience, they will get to it.” Good advice.

 

Yeah....I've never seen a reviewer take upwards of a year to do their job which they also volunteer to do and must follow guidelines or THEY have consequences (I would imagine).

Link to comment

I was just wondering. Did the reviewer blow up the cache? Did he cast some sort of spell preventing you from visiting the site and fixing your cache?

 

Archiving the cache is simply de-listing it here. It takes a click of a button to activate it. It's not like the reviewer set up a force field around the site and nothing can ever be placed there again.

 

What is preventing you from visiting in the spring just like you planned, fixing it up and asking the reviewer to unarchive it? Problem solved.

Link to comment

I was just wondering. Did the reviewer blow up the cache? Did he cast some sort of spell preventing you from visiting the site and fixing your cache?

 

Archiving the cache is simply de-listing it here. It takes a click of a button to activate it. It's not like the reviewer set up a force field around the site and nothing can ever be placed there again.

 

What is preventing you from visiting in the spring just like you planned, fixing it up and asking the reviewer to unarchive it? Problem solved.

 

From what I've read, if I were a reviewer in that area, I might have reservations unarchiving a cache someone has taken such a stance with. Also, I'd likely have to really think about letting someone who has issues as this publish another cache...would really have to wonder whether this will be how the next cache gets treated! Truly, if I were the reviewer who did my job on this case, I'd likely be a bit miffed at someone who brought this to the forums complaining of my job (probably a good thing I'm not a reviewer...huh).

 

As RK put it himself...the cache was archived due to the time frame he gave. How will taking the same amount of time change the fact the reviewer didn't think that was a good time frame?

 

Actually, if I were someone in power and saw this outburst, I'd think about whether the person posting such verbage was even capable of owning ANY cache...or, if the person might just get peeved about something else and abandon other caches as was done here, leaving the mess for others to clean up. This really makes the responsible cachers look bad especially coming from a charter member...land managers who might read this could get put off by such actions from a senior player, resulting in bans in parks! We go backwards rather than forwards in the eyes of those who we want to keep happy, those with the power to keep caches OUT of their lands!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
Refer to post #96. You can't maintain this cache but you can place a new one?? Now you're just playing games.

He's not going to answer it. Placing the new cache was the answer, though much like this thread, it backfired. Parents who can't take care of their kids can still have more.

Edited by robert
Link to comment

Or maybe someone could adopt it?

 

I had several caches that I decided to put up for adoption instead of having them archived. I was fortunate to find people in the areas that had more energy around maintaining them than I had.

 

If it's a good cache worth maintaining why archive it? Find someone who is in a better position to take care of it and let them.

Link to comment
When the review queue bogs down Everyone says “Reviewers have lives…things happen, have patience, they will get to it.” Good advice.

Even then the site says to give 72 hours. Can you imagine what would happen if it said "If it has been 6 months to a year and your cache is not listed more information may be found on the Groundspeak Help Page."

 

Slight difference there, but you won't see that.

Link to comment

How ridiculously irresponsible....

As with many policies of the site, this one discourages the placement of original, interesting, or challenging caches.

 

I can certainly see how those who think of placing a cache as throwing a film canister out the car window would be outraged that it would take a hider some time to perform maintenance on a cache.

 

I had a cache archived in much the same manner as RK. I had worked hard on the original container; it took me about 6 months to find the perfect container, figure out how to put a logbook in it, and then how to place it. It disappeared after about 6 months, likely stolen by a cacher, because it was really not findable by muggles. I started immediately looking for a replacement container, and I had found one and even assembled it, but hadn't completely figured out the attachment mechanism, when the cache was archived by the local reviewer. So I just let it go.

 

Disappointing, but apparently with the big emphasis on numbers, it matters more that the cache get put back into operation as quickly as possible than it does that difficult or original camo gets done correctly. I know my motivation to place anything that takes a lot of effort to prepare or would be difficult to place has been diminished considerably; the predominant attitude of the participants in this thread has reinforced those feelings.

 

Read my previous replies.

 

My problem is not with the OP's difference of opinion on the archival. It's with his deliberate refusal to go get the container he placed because he's throwing a tantrum over the decision.

 

He placed the cache, period. Like the decision to archive or not it's his responsibility to go retrieve it.

 

And, as has been pointed out, he can still go maintain it and have it re-published. So, I don't care which route he goes, but he emphatically stated he intended to let the cache rot as geo-litter, and that is irresponsible.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

6) At a minimum approvers or GC.com are responsible for the listing once they take control of it. Sorry guys but you can’t take an action and not take responsibility at some level. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure where the lines are because it’s clear the cache and listing are both related and separate. I know of one case where the National Park Service collaborated on a virtual cache. The cache was later archived over one that had no such backing. Any ill will is the responsibility of the folks who chose to hit the archive switch and not the cache owner. The site defended the decision. Fine, stand by it, live with it, take responsibility for it.

 

They are not "in control" of your cache.

 

They are "in control" of how easy the page can be viewed, by archiving it. But only because you were not in control of maintaining the cache that you placed.

 

It is likely that they do that to prevent caches in various stages of decomposition to be easily found. Instead of sending an e-mail asking for more time, you should have archived it yourself, and then after it was fixed, sent an e-mail asking for it to be unarchived.

Link to comment

Honesty is commendable when you do what is right.

 

Right is subjective. Renegade Knight is doing what he believes is right, you disagree. In the end who gets to decide what right is? I can see both sides of this debate but I can't tell you one is right and one is wrong.

Honesty is commendable, period.

 

Right is subjective, yet you make a point to deliberately point out that I am wrong...no, I don't adhere to that line of thinking. However, if you do, it's a bit of a double-standard to say I am wrong about it.

 

By definition, it is not commendable to deliberately leave geo-litter in the world. Being honest about doing something you know is not the right thing to do isn't commendable.

 

I'm right, subjectively...

 

He's welcome to his interpretation of the guidelines and the decision. I already stated I'll agree to disagree on that, but I am not backing down on the fact that deliberately leaving geo-trash is wrong. That's just my stance.

 

Actions have consequences. Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about...

 

As has been pointed out...the archiving of a cache does NOT create geo-litter, nor can it anyway because it's virtual in nature, and all he has to do is maintain it on his own timeframe and ask for it to be re-published.

 

Any way you slice it, it's ultimately his actions creating the geo-litter.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

Just wondering, if someone went out there, is there a cache to find? With a log? Or would someone be disappointed?

 

I don't know, there isn't enough info. to determine all of that...there is apparently a cache there, the log status is unclear, and arguably someone would be disappointed if they posted a maintenance request. That last part probably depends on the cacher...I came across one this summer that you couldn't even find the cache container, yet the cacher before me logged a find because some of the contents were still findable scattered in the area, despite the fact that the physical cache was gone they logged a smiley and I logged a maintenance...so, everyone has a wide range of opinion on that aspect I suspect.

Edited by egami
Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted Today, 05:42 AM

QUOTE(Renegade Knight @ Dec 27 2007, 08:55 PM)

 

6) At a minimum approvers or GC.com are responsible for the listing once they take control of it. Sorry guys but you can’t take an action and not take responsibility at some level. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure where the lines are because it’s clear the cache and listing are both related and separate. I know of one case where the National Park Service collaborated on a virtual cache. The cache was later archived over one that had no such backing. Any ill will is the responsibility of the folks who chose to hit the archive switch and not the cache owner. The site defended the decision. Fine, stand by it, live with it, take responsibility for it.

 

 

They are not "in control" of your cache.

 

They are "in control" of how easy the page can be viewed, by archiving it. But only because you were not in control of maintaining the cache that you placed.

 

It is likely that they do that to prevent caches in various stages of decomposition to be easily found. Instead of sending an e-mail asking for more time, you should have archived it yourself, and then after it was fixed, sent an e-mail asking for it to be unarchived

 

Kudos to 4wheelin_fool for seeing through the fog on this issue. Any cache owner who cannot maintain his cache in a timely manner should voluntarily disable the listing himself until maintenance can be done. This demonstrates responsibile action. I have done this myself on one of my own caches that I couldn't get to for just 3 weeks. I like my geocaching friends I have made, and would have felt bad for them if they had gone to one of my caches to find a problem with it that I knew about, but let them go to anyway.

 

The real issue is responsibility. The site has responsibility for the listing. The cache owner has responsibility for the physical cache AND maintaining the listing as appropriate. When a cache owner does not fulfill his responsibility to maintain his cache in a timely manner as indicated in the cache listing agreement, then it's the site's responsibility to maintain the listing to serve the larger geocaching community.

They have done the responsible thing and archived the listing FOR NOW. I'm sure the reviewer didn't enjoy archiving the listing or the idea that they might catch some flak for doing so. However, it was the responsible thing to do and they made the hard decision.

 

Now the ball is in the cache owner's court. He can either go back to the cache and make sure it's ready to go for the next finder, or he can remove the geo-litter and let the cache go all together. Either way is showing responsibility. Leaving it as geo-litter because the owner has a case of sour grapes is not being very responsible.

Link to comment

Gee, did RK move to sunny Florida? Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with. If I remember my geography right, Idaho is way up north where they get a lot of snow and a cache buried beneath it may pose a problem being found, especially if the last person to find it didn't rehide it in the same place and manner it was originally hidden. (But we all know that never happens!).

 

I do agree RK, that you should stop hiding the quality caches you're known for and start hiding the current typical cache style that makes the finder wonder, why a micro here? I can't even put a "TB tag" let alone a fair sized TB, in the container it is so small. [/sarcasm]

 

John

Link to comment

Gee, did RK move to sunny Florida? Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with. If I remember my geography right, Idaho is way up north where they get a lot of snow and a cache buried beneath it may pose a problem being found, especially if the last person to find it didn't rehide it in the same place and manner it was originally hidden. (But we all know that never happens!).

 

John

 

I think most people are disappointed with the blatent, deliberate statement that he plain absolves himself from the responsiblity of creating the geo-litter.

 

I think the other excellent point that was presented by briansnat, which I was unaware of not knowing the process inside and out, was that he could simply go forward with his normal plan on maintaining it on his own schedule and ask for it to be reactivated later and no harm done.

 

I guess I am not seeing where you are reading most replies as "Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with"...and, in that regard, I agree. He doesn't have to. Conversely, being that the reviewer has chose to archive it and being that RK, himself, stated that he is aware this is outside of the guideline of a "few weeks", it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just maintain when he can then subsequently request it to be reactivated should it?

Link to comment
I do agree RK, that you should stop hiding the quality caches you're known for and start hiding the current typical cache style that makes the finder wonder, why a micro here? I can't even put a "TB tag" let alone a fair sized TB, in the container it is so small.

 

I think that if he's unwilling to maintain his caches in a timely fashion, he should stop hiding caches regardless of size.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Gee, did RK move to sunny Florida? Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with. If I remember my geography right, Idaho is way up north where they get a lot of snow and a cache buried beneath it may pose a problem being found, especially if the last person to find it didn't rehide it in the same place and manner it was originally hidden. (But we all know that never happens!).

 

John

 

I think most people are disappointed with the blatent, deliberate statement that he plain absolves himself from the responsiblity of creating the geo-litter.

 

I think the other excellent point that was presented by briansnat, which I was unaware of not knowing the process inside and out, was that he could simply go forward with his normal plan on maintaining it on his own schedule and ask for it to be reactivated later and no harm done.

 

I guess I am not seeing where you are reading most replies as "Everybody keeps saying to just go get the cache and be done with"...and, in that regard, I agree. He doesn't have to. Conversely, being that the reviewer has chose to archive it and being that RK, himself, stated that he is aware this is outside of the guideline of a "few weeks", it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just maintain when he can then subsequently request it to be reactivated should it?

 

Ahhh, I bet he would he want to do so now. After all of these replies. I can just feel all of the love and goodwill and the eagerness to understand from most of you.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment

Ahhh, I bet he would he want to do so now. After all of these replies. I can just feel all of the love and goodwill and the eagerness to understand from most of you.

 

Shirley~

 

Well, Shirley~...I guess when the OP shows so much love for the reviewer and the environment it tends to foster an ideal environment for virtual hugs...

Edited by egami
Link to comment
I do agree RK, that you should stop hiding the quality caches you're known for and start hiding the current typical cache style that makes the finder wonder, why a micro here? I can't even put a "TB tag" let alone a fair sized TB, in the container it is so small.

 

I think that if he's unwilling to maintain his caches in a timely fashion, he should stop hiding caches regardless of size.

 

I think that you forgot to "Quote" the whole paragraph. You missed the *[/sarcasm]* at the end. It is a good thing John went to bed after working all night and I am answering this one.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment

Ahhh, I bet he would he want to do so now. After all of these replies. I can just feel all of the love and goodwill and the eagerness to understand from most of you.

 

Shirley~

 

Well, Shirley~...I guess when the OP shows so much love for the reviewer and the environment it tends to foster an ideal environment for virtual hugs...

 

Well, egami...I guess someone can win more *friends* with being part of the flock instead of thinking for themselves. (no disrespect here at all)

Link to comment

Well, egami...I guess someone can win more *friends* with being part of the flock instead of thinking for themselves. (no disrespect here at all)

 

Putting things in ()'s doesn't really soften the nature of what was said...it's clear you feel people are being judgmental and rude...my point is that it's two-way street, when the OP starts off on that path, and replies as he did subsequently, then he's kind of reaping what he's sown.

 

I am not disagreeing with your perception. I am saying it applies all the way around.

Link to comment

After all of these replies. I can just feel all of the love and goodwill and the eagerness to understand from most of you.

 

Shirley~

It's not about the love and understanding, it really isn't, or shouldn't be, personal at all.

 

The question was if the Reviewer was right to archive the cache, most of us agree that it was.

 

The greater debate is whether caches should be owned in areas the owner can't get to promptly, regardless of why, and the consensus is no.

 

RK evidently doesn't care for those answers and has made some rather inflammatory statements - in some ways that did make it personal, but for the most part it's about the situation, not the person.

 

No matter how much someone is beloved by the community they can't flaunt the rules and common practices without taking some heat, except for Vinny of course.

Link to comment

...The question was if the Reviewer was right to archive the cache, most of us agree that it was....

 

If you read the first post, that was not the question. My first post was pretty much venting.

 

However since you bring up the quesion. I flat out don't think that caches should be archived on active owners unless their slowness hits geological proporations. I'm talking more than a year.

 

Lets take Briansnat. He is no longer able to maintain his caches like he would like. He's admitted it. Life happened to him just like it happens to us all. He's an active owner.

 

In his case he leaned on the community to help him take care of his caches. Fair enough.

However you could take a hard line approach and say "since you can't maintain your caches, you need to adopt them out". That can be defended because it's true. He can't maintain all his caches. While it's fair to lean on your friends, it's not fair to rely on it. That is also true. Just try to get a communtiy cache approved that relies on uknown folks to maintain it. I would not hold it against him if he chose to heal up first, then maintain his caches and not bother the cachign community when he knows full well that he's going to recover given time.

 

My stand has alwasy been that caches should be maintained as time and life allow. A bit more recently I took the stand that a year was reasonable. If something comes up and your summer is shot, you just lost your cache maintaining season for a snowy area for a year. Whoops. Archiving the cache won't help. If it won't help it's not a solution.

 

The real choice is how hardline do you want to be.

Someone says "I'm not going to lean on the coummunity and take care of it my self when I can" shut them down? that's my case.

Someone says "I can't maintain them, but I'll lean on the community" Shut them down? They can't maintain them either. The community is doing the work.

Do you take the liberal stand.

"It's a hobby, I'm sorry about your auto accident/leg injur/death of your mother/house falling apart, do what you need to do, we know you will get back into the saddle when you can".

Do you take another line. "You are out of action, we are adopting all your caches out to folks who are still getting into the field. When you prove you are in the field again, you can adopt them back if the new owner agrees"?

 

What's the line you want to hold and defend? We are not talking owners who quit caching and forgot to take their toys with them. We are talking active owners, ones paying attention.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
I do agree RK, that you should stop hiding the quality caches you're known for and start hiding the current typical cache style that makes the finder wonder, why a micro here? I can't even put a "TB tag" let alone a fair sized TB, in the container it is so small.

 

I think that if he's unwilling to maintain his caches in a timely fashion, he should stop hiding caches regardless of size.

 

I've got several caches on the shelf that were not hidden due to the same time constraints that have kept me from finding them or maintaining them as quickly as "a few weeks". Some have sat on the shelf for several years.

 

The cache just approved is a joint cache with another cacher. It's also about 1500' from where I work. Easy enough to get to in a half hour lunch. Even that cache sat on the shelf for a couple of years.

 

In your case, you placed caches when you had more ability to maintain them. Now you can't. I doubt you are placing new ones you can't maintain, but you still have the old ones don't you? They don't go away just because life turned on a time. The difference between me and you is that I choose to take care of my own. You chose to ask for help until you are able to do the job on your own again. I don't think either approach is wrong. The only difference is the time it takes to get the job done.

Link to comment

...The question was if the Reviewer was right to archive the cache, most of us agree that it was....

 

If you read the first post, that was not the question. My first post was pretty much venting.

 

However since you bring up the quesion. I flat out don't think that caches should be archived on active owners unless their slowness hits geological proporations. I'm talking more than a year.

 

Are you trying to insinuate you haven't been questioning the practice for what is now almost 3 pages and that Rambler just brought this up?

 

It would seem to me, whether you directly questioned it or not in those exact terms, that you've been doing pretty much that from the beginning...including the original post.

Link to comment
I flat out don't think that caches should be archived on active owners unless their slowness hits geological proporations. I'm talking more than a year.

 

Yeah, I mean, how many people are going to go look for a cache in a year?

There's a reason they do not allow this.

 

Groundspeak doesn't want to be known as the site with fake cache listings.

 

And unfortunately, for some reason, we don't get to tell the reviewers how it's going to be. Even if we think our system is superior, we have to play by their rules if we want to play on this website.

Edited by PhxChem
Link to comment

Geocaching.com isn’t the source of my authority as a cache owner*. That alone is different from our work place. However that authority can be usurped. If an approver chooses to do that in spite of knowledge that I’m still active that’s their choice since they have ultimate control over the listing. If they do, I’m going to assign them the responsibility that goes with it.

 

*In order to insulate groundsepak from legal liability it has to be this way. Active involvement in a cache by Groundspeak or its volunteers though can erode this separation.

 

As a lead-in, I will restate the following -

 

Perhaps this cache in question has nothing to do with control. Perhaps it has to do with the responsiblity TO geocaching and others that each of us theoretically should bring to the activity to maintain healthy relationships and community image.

 

I believe the difference in opinions on this topic boil down to many in disagreement to the OP see listing a geocache on this site as a privilege, not as an innate geocaching right.

 

Yes, you read that right. I think listing a cache here a privilege, and will continue to think of it as such.

Link to comment

 

"It's a hobby, I'm sorry about your auto accident/leg injur/death of your mother/house falling apart, do what you need to do, we know you will get back into the saddle when you can".

 

 

HUH? How is this the same as taking your daughter to the bank, missing lunch with your wife, or running Xmas errands?

 

Are you immobilized by a serious injury? Are you dealing with a tragic death in the family? Have you been since July??? How can you even compare these items with what you are claiming is more important to you? Don't get me wrong, I agree that certain mundain normal tasks (grocery shopping, doctor apts, etc) in life have to still come first. But here's the thing, you're making an excellent argument on all the reasons that people might need extra time to take care of their cache. However, you don't seem to be experiencing any of them....at least from the info you are providing.

 

The other issue is that you are right near it when you work if your only 1500 feet from the new one you placed. The other cache is only about 20-30 miles on a major freeway....and at a rest stop! This can't be a difficult cache to retreive.

 

Here's the way I see it. the reviewer offered to reopen the cache when you have it fixed. I don't see how what she has offered is any different than the cache staying open and being lost or damaged to an unusable state. Clearly both avenues mean that a cacher can't use the cache. Sure, someone else could place another cache there, but clearly you are overwhelmed with your current life situation and don't have much interest in maintaining this cache as current anyway. Why not then let someone else have the place that would keep their cache up? And if no one places one, then the spot is still open for yours. Why leave this cache active so that the local cachers are forced to filter through items that have no short time plan to be fixed??

Edited by elmuyloco5
Link to comment

Yeah, I mean, how many people are going to go look for a cache in a year?

 

We have several caches that have 5 or less logs for the last year and a half, with 1 of them having only 1 log in that time frame.

 

We don't have all the details on the problem cache so we can't render an opinion on whether that cache should or should not have been archived.

 

We have run into situations where the reviewer has taken a hard line for whatever reason he deemed appropriate and in that case We archived the cache and refused to place any other caches while he was the local approver. We have seen reviewers take a hard line against cachers and the cacher would bring the problem to the forums seeking advice and have other reviewers use their personal accounts to stir things in those threads. Most of the time nothing is ever resolved.

 

As in this case, there will never be a solution that will make very many people who have responded to this thread feel like anything was accomplished. The only real accomplishment was to show how fast some people chose the hard and fast way to interpret the "guidelines".

 

If so many people feel that the cache is becoming "Litter" perhaps someone will show a little Christmas spirit and go retrieve it for the reviewer.

 

John

Link to comment

Hey, RK, sounds like you are taking this pretty hard.

 

When you get to feeling better just go out there and make sure the cache is there and start it up as a new cache. Especially if it is a really really good one. I do that sometimes.

 

It will have the added benefit of allowing the 1GC=1FIND crowd the luxury of a secodn find on the same cache without the georules guilt trip. :rolleyes:

 

It is probably quite challenging to geoccache in deep snow huh?

 

Liked your coin, although I never got one.

Link to comment

 

"It's a hobby, I'm sorry about your auto accident/leg injur/death of your mother/house falling apart, do what you need to do, we know you will get back into the saddle when you can".

 

 

HUH? How is this the same as taking your daughter to the bank, missing lunch with your wife, or running Xmas errands?

Are you immobilized by a serious injury? Are you dealing with a tragic death in the family? Have you been since July??? How can you even compare these items with what you are claiming is more important to you? ...

Here's the way I see it. the reviewer offered to reopen the cache when you have it fixed. I don't see how what she has offered is any different than the cache staying open...

 

Good questions.

The part of your post in Bold are all good reasons to not maintain a cache. Except missing lunch. I'd reverse that one and meet my wife for lunch and skip maintaining a cache every time. I don't get enough lunches with my wife. Life is short. Tupperware or Wife. Easy choice.

 

Next you asked about a death in the family. Ever actually dealt with a death in your family? By deal I don't mean dress in black and attend the funeral. I mean move to the house of your elderly parent who can no longer take care of themselves, start taking care of them, help fix up the house that was starting to fall apart around them because they stopped doing that themselves some time ago, stick around through things as they slowly get worse and the care takes up more of your time, then encourage your wife to go back to school because heck, you now live in a university town because even though you are taking care of one person you are about to have kids in college and they will need your help and a single income only goes so far for that, then in due time that person dies and even though you were fixing up the house a lot more work needs to be done oh and the family wants you to sell the house so they can have their share of the estate so you have to fix up the house yet more, run the estate and because you had to buy a house fast at the peak of the market so the salary from going back to school just covers the increased bills and payment and back to school she goes leaving you filling in the gaps, while fixhing up the new house becasue it has more work than you first thought. You don't sound like you really have dealt with things that take up a lot of your time. You seem to have a hard time imagining it. I don't.

 

The way I see it, the cache was fine, my time frame was fine. End of story. But along comes a reviwer, hears my time frame, archives the cache anway as per their job, and now when I do get to the cache I have extra steps to get it listed again with no gurantee that I won't have to make a second trip back to pick it up because now it's not approvable. Oh and it's not just a rest stop cache. It's a nice rest stop cache. Great view, small hike, good stretch of the legs. Something you would miss if not for the cache. The way I see it this site speaking through it's reviwer has spoken and voted the cache off the island. Of course you can stand by the party line that a few weeks is jim dandy and keep giving the thumbs up to archiving the caches of active owners. That's your choice.

Link to comment

...I believe the difference in opinions on this topic boil down to many in disagreement to the OP see listing a geocache on this site as a privilege, not as an innate geocaching right. ...

 

Everthing in geocaching builds from cache owners who are willing to place caches. Everything.

 

Finders with no caches are just hikersand most of them didn't bother to hike. A listing site with no caches is just a failure.

 

Make this a finders game to the point that it's not fun for owners and the house of cards crumbles. PQ's devoid of caches are waste of money. If owners are a commodity and treated like it I guess the caches will seem like it as well.

Link to comment

 

Good questions.

The part of your post in Bold are all good reasons to not maintain a cache. Except missing lunch. I'd reverse that one and meet my wife for lunch and skip maintaining a cache every time. I don't get enough lunches with my wife. Life is short. Tupperware or Wife. Easy choice.

 

Next you asked about a death in the family. Ever actually dealt with a death in your family? By deal I don't mean dress in black and attend the funeral. I mean move to the house of your elderly parent who can no longer take care of themselves, start taking care of them, help fix up the house that was starting to fall apart around them because they stopped doing that themselves some time ago, stick around through things as they slowly get worse and the care takes up more of your time, then encourage your wife to go back to school because heck, you now live in a university town because even though you are taking care of one person you are about to have kids in college and they will need your help and a single income only goes so far for that, then in due time that person dies and even though you were fixing up the house a lot more work needs to be done oh and the family wants you to sell the house so they can have their share of the estate so you have to fix up the house yet more, run the estate and because you had to buy a house fast at the peak of the market so the salary from going back to school just covers the increased bills and payment and back to school she goes leaving you filling in the gaps, while fixhing up the new house becasue it has more work than you first thought. You don't sound like you really have dealt with things that take up a lot of your time. You seem to have a hard time imagining it. I don't.

 

The way I see it, the cache was fine, my time frame was fine. End of story. But along comes a reviwer, hears my time frame, archives the cache anway as per their job, and now when I do get to the cache I have extra steps to get it listed again with no gurantee that I won't have to make a second trip back to pick it up because now it's not approvable. Oh and it's not just a rest stop cache. It's a nice rest stop cache. Great view, small hike, good stretch of the legs. Something you would miss if not for the cache. The way I see it this site speaking through it's reviwer has spoken and voted the cache off the island. Of course you can stand by the party line that a few weeks is jim dandy and keep giving the thumbs up to archiving the caches of active owners. That's your choice.

 

Since you asked, yes I have. I've also dealt with two kids under 3 and a third newborn with severe medical issues while my husband was serving in the war in Iraq. During which time I had 4 surgeries in a 3 month period and spent my time in a wheel chair with 5 herniated discs and a cracked pelvice. This isn't an argument about whose had the harder time in life. I'm not saying I have, but I am saying that I'm sure there are more members on here that are taking care of their caches (be that by maintaining them or by archiving something that they can't) that have a whole lot more on their plates. There's no shame in asking for help or in archiving a cache that you just can't handle right now. The shame is in the attitude that it's not your issue and that it's kosher to leave your cache as trash.

 

You said your reasons for not taking care of it were because you needed to take your daughter to the bank, have lunch with your wife, etc. I didn't make those up. I agree that lunch with your wife is important. I'm not saying that. I cherish all the precious time I get with my spouse. I'm saying that (and understand that we only know what information you have posted.....maybe not the whole story) from what you have said, you haven't taken care of your cache for 6 months because of things that are relatively small and normal everyday activities. Activiities in which you would not have your time used up so much that you can't drive 30 miles to take care of your cache.

 

I know all about snow (which you said you didn't have) as I live near a ski resort in the mountains. All my caches are under snow and are being taken care of. I'm a homeschooling mom of three and my husband works 12 hour days. I have a busy life too. I'm sure most of us do. I'm not saying your not busy. I'm saying that if you feel you are too busy to handle things.....then why are you so upset that they archived your cache?? They will respost when you get it fixed. Do you really think there's gonna be a rush on your spot at a rest stop? I just don't understand the anger here or your feelings of entitlement.

 

When I feel down on my life or that I have too much to handle, I'm often reminded of all those other folks out there with so much more hardship than I, and with much more keeping them busy. Then I suck it up and do what I need to, no matter what it is. From your profile I see you have archived the majority of your caches for various reasons. Why is this one so much harder?

Link to comment

Honesty is commendable when you do what is right.

 

Right is subjective. Renegade Knight is doing what he believes is right, you disagree. In the end who gets to decide what right is? I can see both sides of this debate but I can't tell you one is right and one is wrong.

Honesty is commendable, period.

 

Right is subjective, yet you make a point to deliberately point out that I am wrong...no, I don't adhere to that line of thinking. However, if you do, it's a bit of a double-standard to say I am wrong about it.

 

 

I do? I've read my statement several times and I still don't see where I said "You are wrong". In fact I went to great pains to keep it as neutral as possible, he believes he is right, you believe he is wrong. Neither of you are being dishonest, you both believe you are right, therefore his honesty and yours are both commendable, or in other words, honesty is always commendable, period. Unless you are saying Renegade Knight is being dishonest, in which case I disagree with you, but those are opinions, not facts.

Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted Today, 05:42 AM

QUOTE(Renegade Knight @ Dec 27 2007, 08:55 PM)

 

6) At a minimum approvers or GC.com are responsible for the listing once they take control of it. Sorry guys but you can’t take an action and not take responsibility at some level. That’s the way it works. I’m not sure where the lines are because it’s clear the cache and listing are both related and separate. I know of one case where the National Park Service collaborated on a virtual cache. The cache was later archived over one that had no such backing. Any ill will is the responsibility of the folks who chose to hit the archive switch and not the cache owner. The site defended the decision. Fine, stand by it, live with it, take responsibility for it.

 

 

They are not "in control" of your cache.

 

They are "in control" of how easy the page can be viewed, by archiving it. But only because you were not in control of maintaining the cache that you placed.

 

It is likely that they do that to prevent caches in various stages of decomposition to be easily found. Instead of sending an e-mail asking for more time, you should have archived it yourself, and then after it was fixed, sent an e-mail asking for it to be unarchived

 

Kudos to 4wheelin_fool for seeing through the fog on this issue. Any cache owner who cannot maintain his cache in a timely manner should voluntarily disable the listing himself until maintenance can be done. This demonstrates responsibile action. I have done this myself on one of my own caches that I couldn't get to for just 3 weeks. I like my geocaching friends I have made, and would have felt bad for them if they had gone to one of my caches to find a problem with it that I knew about, but let them go to anyway.

 

 

There is a big difference between disabling a cache and archiving it. Disabled holds the spot while you repair the cache, archive opens the spot up to anyone who wants to place a new cache there. Archive your own cache while you perform maintenence and you may lose the spot forever.

Renegade Knights cache was already disable while awaiting maintenece, the issue now is that it was archived against his wishes.

Link to comment

I do? I've read my statement several times and I still don't see where I said "You are wrong". In fact I went to great pains to keep it as neutral as possible, he believes he is right, you believe he is wrong. Neither of you are being dishonest, you both believe you are right, therefore his honesty and yours are both commendable, or in other words, honesty is always commendable, period. Unless you are saying Renegade Knight is being dishonest, in which case I disagree with you, but those are opinions, not facts.

 

At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right.

Link to comment

Yeah, I mean, how many people are going to go look for a cache in a year?

 

We have several caches that have 5 or less logs for the last year and a half, with 1 of them having only 1 log in that time frame.

 

We don't have all the details on the problem cache so we can't render an opinion on whether that cache should or should not have been archived.

 

We have run into situations where the reviewer has taken a hard line for whatever reason he deemed appropriate and in that case We archived the cache and refused to place any other caches while he was the local approver. We have seen reviewers take a hard line against cachers and the cacher would bring the problem to the forums seeking advice and have other reviewers use their personal accounts to stir things in those threads. Most of the time nothing is ever resolved.

 

As in this case, there will never be a solution that will make very many people who have responded to this thread feel like anything was accomplished. The only real accomplishment was to show how fast some people chose the hard and fast way to interpret the "guidelines".

 

If so many people feel that the cache is becoming "Litter" perhaps someone will show a little Christmas spirit and go retrieve it for the reviewer.

 

John

 

The irony here in how these replies from you and your wife apply both to you and the OP are too much.

 

I can take that entire argument and say it applies to your responses as well. This is an Internet forum. Many things don't get accomplished here. It's the nature of the beast.

 

That being said, which stone that you are casting doesn't apply both ways? The OP's post didn't accomplish anything. The OP could show Christmas spirit and go get it. Heck, why don't YOU go get it? Does putting that challenge forward make your stance on this thread the center of altruism?

 

There isn't probably one of us on here, including you and your wife, that wouldn't hesitate a second if it weren't a ridiculously cost intensive time sink.

 

Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...but, I understand you've had personal conflicts with Reviewers and have a bad taste from previous altercations on the boards where you feel they were using underhanded means to defend, so I can see where you have chosen your stance and I respect that.

 

It's no wonder he archived it.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

 

Also, the cache details are available....look at his profile and you can tell they descend by recent activity and which cache it is that was recently archived. It was mentioned back on page one also....and looking at the details it would appear not only is this NOT a knee-jerk, hard line approach by the Reviewer, but also this cache has multiple issues even predating the July lapse and the December lapse....so there is a long-standing history that extends past the "few weeks" the OP has an issue with that in fact, in research, appears to be a "few months" past not including the "few months" additional grace he is seeking...

 

It's no wonder he archived it.

 

Let's also not forget that RK clearly stated that if he couldn't get to it in the Spring, he would do it next Summer. With this attitude, what is the reviewer to do. I urge anyone to go read the actual archived cache page linked earlier in this thread. The reviewer was as nice as she could be. Longevity in the game shouldn't give you special privileges.

 

This isn't said to gang up on RK, but these are things that he has said, which is the only thing we can form an opinion of him and the situation from. Most of us don't know him personally.

Link to comment

I do? I've read my statement several times and I still don't see where I said "You are wrong". In fact I went to great pains to keep it as neutral as possible, he believes he is right, you believe he is wrong. Neither of you are being dishonest, you both believe you are right, therefore his honesty and yours are both commendable, or in other words, honesty is always commendable, period. Unless you are saying Renegade Knight is being dishonest, in which case I disagree with you, but those are opinions, not facts.

 

At the end of the day...the main point is I don't see truth, what is right, as being subjective and we are going to disagree, so by virtue of that fact there is no sense arguing with you anymore because in your world there is no absolute except the absolute that there is no right.

 

You are very good at twisting words to make people fit your preconceptions of them.

"Judge not, least ye be Judged".

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...