Missing Cache Wasn't

[+w5waf]

Let's see...how do I say:

 

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

 

Three Years ago, The local coordinator archived cache because three people said they couldn't find it. I wrote the coordinator back after I went and found the cache. He refused to un archive it saying basically didn't know from hwhat I was talking about, because three people couldn't find it. In any case, I suppose it was because of his and their incompetence.

 

Anyway a couple of weeks ago, I gave another cacher the specific location, well, I got an email today:

 

his is an automated message from Geocaching

 

You are receiving this email because you are the owner

of this listing.

 

Location: Mississippi, United States

jeep-ocache found Buena Vista (Archived) (Traditional

Cache) at 2/8/2008

 

Log Date: 2/8/2008

You sure were right. I found the cache while I was

here for the new cache that is placed here. The cache is

in very good condition. I found it with only a little

searching and the coordinated showed to only be 3 feet

off.

 

It's awesome to find the cache that has not been found

in 3 years.

 

Jerry

 

Visit this log entry at the below address:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...0c-2fef9fb11f7c

 

So...

 

How do you spell:

 

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

 

Regards

Bill

[+UncleJimbo]

I am confused.

Are you the owner of the cache?

Are you saying that 3 years ago the cache got archived, then you went and confirmed it was still there, but the reviewer would not believe you?

 

EDIT:

 

I just looked at the cache page. There is an entry from the cache owner that he removed the cache. So, I am not sure what you and jeep-ocache found.

Edited February 8, 2008 by UncleJimbo

[+JoesBar]

Yes Bill, you were right.

You won the battle yet lost the war. Your cache is archived. Period. Even though folks can log it, it's geotrash.

So why not just remove that container and place a new cache? Since your cache has been archived, it doesn't exist. So you can hide a new one there. Give it a new name and change the coords slightly and folks can again claim legitimate finds.

[+BlueDeuce]

I am confused.

Are you the owner of the cache?

Are you saying that 3 years ago the cache got archived, then you went and confirmed it was still there, but the reviewer would not believe you?

 

EDIT:

 

I just looked at the cache page. There is an entry from the cache owner that he removed the cache. So, I am not sure what you and jeep-ocache found.

 

I think he went back and replaced it so it could be unarchived.

[+Too Tall John]

It seems your story is missing something.

 

According to logs on the cache page:

w5waf posted a reviewer note for Buena Vista (Traditional Cache)

 

I went out tonight and removed the cache. The cache GURU said it needed maintenence, but it looked to be in good shape to me, but the Lord of the Cache's knows best...since there was no further explaination on what needed to be done to the cache to make it viable, I decided it best to do away with it.

 

Bill/W5WAF

...It looks like you took the cache, only then was it archived.

 

Next:

w5waf posted a note for Buena Vista (Traditional Cache)

 

There was nothing wrong with this cache, I attempted to have it unarchived by sending the cache coordinator an email, but apparently there is no way to unarchive a cache once it has been archived. So, Even Though it has been archived, you need to disregard the instructions of geocaching, because it is in effect there. I'm really not sure why they are so intent on archiving the cache. There have apparently been som complaints about it that I, as the owner, am not privy to. I'm going to list this cache at one of the other geocaching sites.

 

Bill/W5WAF

Which is it? You can't unarchive it because you are crazy, or you can't unarchive an archived cache? (Which you can, unless it no longer meets guidelines.)

 

I see that there is a new cache 200 feet away from yours, so it won't get relisted on GC.com now, regardless.

 

The story you tell above and the story on the cache page have some discrepancies that make me wonder what the rest of the real story is.

 

Oh, and it never pays to tell your cache reviewer "I told you so" in such a tone.

[+Mopar]

Me thinks the last laugh is STILL on the OP. Lets see:

September 22, 2004 by Max Cacher (0 found)

Hello

We are temporarily disabling this cache until it can be checked on by the owner on for the status, and to do some much needed cache maintenance. After checking the cache you can click on the click to enable button on the top of the page. Send me a note, and post one to the cache page.

 

Sincerely, TG

That's disabled, not archived. Disabling it gives you a chance to check that the cache is actually still there. The reviewers do that when it looks like there may be a chance the cache is missing. Like when a usually easy cache doesnt get found for months and months and/or very experienced cachers can't find it. Once you go check on it and make sure it really is still there, you just click a button and your cache is active again. Instead, you chose to over-react:

September 22, 2004 by w5waf (6 found)

I went out tonight and removed the cache. The cache GURU said it needed maintenence, but it looked to be in good shape to me, but the Lord of the Cache's knows best...since there was no further explaination on what needed to be done to the cache to make it viable, I decided it best to do away with it.

Bill/W5WAF

Since you posted that you had removed the cache and decided it was "best to just do away with it" the reviewer did the proper thing by THEN archiving the cache. He only archived it AFTER you said you had removed the cache and were not replacing it.

Now 3.5yrs later you come back, insulting the reviewer, and claiming that people are still finding a cache you SAID wasn't there.

And somehow this vindicates you?

[edit] John is not only taller then me, he obviously types faster too!

Edited February 8, 2008 by Mopar

[+JoesBar]

My mistake. "Night lights" is now located close to your archived cache.

 

Well, those are the breaks of the game. Your cache should be picked up. It's not really a cache any longer.

[+Renegade Knight]

Yes Bill, you were right.

You won the battle yet lost the war. Your cache is archived. Period. Even though folks can log it, it's geotrash.

So why not just remove that container and place a new cache? Since your cache has been archived, it doesn't exist. So you can hide a new one there. Give it a new name and change the coords slightly and folks can again claim legitimate finds.

If it's listed elsewhere like he said he would do. it fine as it is. No Geolitter. No problems. Period.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Prime Suspect]

Dontcha just hate it when the logs tell the actual story, for everyone to see?

[+Renegade Knight]

....That's disabled, not archived. Disabling it gives you a chance to check that the cache is actually still there. The reviewers do that when it looks like there may be a chance the cache is missing. Like when a usually easy cache doesnt get found for months and months and/or very experienced cachers can't find it. Once you go check on it and make sure it really is still there, you just click a button and your cache is active again. Instead, you chose to over-react:...

 

Reading the logs it looks like the issue was Kudzu. Never seen the stuff myself but from photo's it looks like it can make a cache fairly hard to find.

 

If reviewers have time to post a note and hit the disable button they ahve time to ask what the deal is so the owner can say "Kudzu" or what have you. I've had that button pulled when the last DNF described some part of the world that had nothing to do with the cache. I know that. The reviewer doesn't. Treating owners like numbers isn't productive for anyone. If they don't have time to do anything except treat owners like numbers we need more reviewers.

[+ronbo]

Oh, and it never pays to tell your cache reviewer "I told you so" in such a tone.

 

I had wondered years ago why Bill just all of a sudden went inactive. Now I think I see what was going on that caused him to get out of caching. I think another one of those Vicksburg area cachers had a run in with Max and he is gone also. Max don't approve MS caches anymore. Mtn-man does most of our approving now. Really surprised to see Bill post on these forums but I guess he wanted to get one last shot. Maybe he will get active again and start hiding some new caches in the Vicksburg area.

[+briansnat]

If reviewers have time to post a note and hit the disable button they ahve time to ask what the deal is so the owner can say "Kudzu" or what have you.

 

That's exactly what the disabled note does. The owner can respond with the reason, enable the cache and all is well, or he can throw a hissy fit.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

So...

 

How do you spell:

 

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

 

Regards

Bill

 

You wrote that YOU removed the cache from the area.

 

YEARS later someone finds it, so you write a note blasting the reviewer.............

Edited February 8, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+w5waf]

Me thinks the last laugh is STILL on the OP. Lets see:

September 22, 2004 by Max Cacher (0 found)

Hello

We are temporarily disabling this cache until it can be checked on by the owner on for the status, and to do some much needed cache maintenance. After checking the cache you can click on the click to enable button on the top of the page. Send me a note, and post one to the cache page.

 

Sincerely, TG

That's disabled, not archived. Disabling it gives you a chance to check that the cache is actually still there. The reviewers do that when it looks like there may be a chance the cache is missing. Like when a usually easy cache doesnt get found for months and months and/or very experienced cachers can't find it. Once you go check on it and make sure it really is still there, you just click a button and your cache is active again. Instead, you chose to over-react:

September 22, 2004 by w5waf (6 found)

I went out tonight and removed the cache. The cache GURU said it needed maintenence, but it looked to be in good shape to me, but the Lord of the Cache's knows best...since there was no further explaination on what needed to be done to the cache to make it viable, I decided it best to do away with it.

Bill/W5WAF

Since you posted that you had removed the cache and decided it was "best to just do away with it" the reviewer did the proper thing by THEN archiving the cache. He only archived it AFTER you said you had removed the cache and were not replacing it.

Now 3.5yrs later you come back, insulting the reviewer, and claiming that people are still finding a cache you SAID wasn't there.

And somehow this vindicates you?

[edit] John is not only taller then me, he obviously types faster too!

[+w5waf]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

[+briansnat]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

 

That is quite an accusation.

 

Unless the reviewer knows your account password, that would be impossible. Reviewers do not have access to account passwords, so unless you gave him your password, you either did it and forgot you did, you are lying, or someone you gave your password to did it.

Edited February 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+beezerb]

Why does the "I took it" note have the little Signal head on it?

[+briansnat]

Why does the "I took it" note have the little Signal head on it?

 

It was posted as a note to reviewer.

[+hiho9]

[+The Leprechauns]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

 

That is quite an accusation.

 

Unless the reviewer knows your account password, that would be impossible. Reviewers do not have access to account passwords, so unless you gave him your password, you either did it and forgot you did, you are lying, or someone you gave your password to did it.

Why is my reviewer named Ringbone?

[+beezerb]

Why does the "I took it" note have the little Signal head on it?

 

It was posted as a note to reviewer.

Okay, thank you.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

 

That is quite an accusation.

 

Unless the reviewer knows your account password, that would be impossible. Reviewers do not have access to account passwords, so unless you gave him your password, you either did it and forgot you did, you are lying, or someone you gave your password to did it.

Why is my reviewer named Ringbone?

Best post of the week!

[+BlueDeuce]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

 

That is quite an accusation.

 

Unless the reviewer knows your account password, that would be impossible. Reviewers do not have access to account passwords, so unless you gave him your password, you either did it and forgot you did, you are lying, or someone you gave your password to did it.

Why is my reviewer named Ringbone?

 

Bravo.

[+UncleJimbo]

I am curious to know which other site the cache was listed on that it did not get a Find in 3+ years??

 

This sounds like a case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Can we be real for a moment? Not only is the original post very confusing and ambiguous to read, it appears, after a bit of research, that almost none of the "facts" cited by the OP are or were true, and now it become even harder (as if it wasn't hard enuf in the first place...) to figure out what she/he was trying to say and what point he/she was trying to make. Worse, the original post, coupled some of the subsequent statements uttered by the OP, make me wonder if the entire thread is simply a bizarre joke or a trolling attempt.

[+Too Tall John]

Can we be real for a moment? Not only is the original post very confusing and ambiguous to read, it appears, after a bit of research, that almost none of the "facts" cited by the OP are or were true, and now it become even harder (as if it wasn't hard enuf in the first place...) to figure out what she/he was trying to say and what point he/she was trying to make. Worse, the original post, coupled some of the subsequent statements uttered by the OP, make me wonder if the entire thread is simply a bizarre joke or a trolling attempt.

Yep, I was thinking similar things when I first looked at the cache page.

 

Well, at least the first bit. The meds to suppress my psychic abilities kept me from being able to see the latter posts from the OP until about 5 minutes before they posted them.

 

Actually, I think many people probably saw the accusation of the reviewer faking his logs coming a long way off. Even without my powers.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Too Tall John

[nonaeroterraqueous]

What a strange thread.

[+Mopar]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

You just lost what little credibility you still had left.

personally, unless you can prove that accusation (which I'm sure you can't for the reasons stated by Briansnat above) I think you should be summarily banned from the site (not just the forums) for lying about one of the reviewers like that.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Mopar

[+The Leprechauns]

October 1, 2004 by w5waf (6 found)

 

There was nothing wrong with this cache, I attempted to have it unarchived by sending the cache coordinator an email, but apparently there is no way to unarchive a cache once it has been archived. So, Even Though it has been archived, you need to disregard the instructions of geocaching, because it is in effect there. I'm really not sure why they are so intent on archiving the cache. There have apparently been som complaints about it that I, as the owner, am not privy to. I'm going to list this cache at one of the other geocaching sites.

 

(Emphasis in bold added by me.)

 

I am puzzled... there is no cache near these coordinates on Terracaching.com, Navicache.com or GPSGames.org. Is there another listing site of which I'm unaware? Or is this truly geo-litter?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Oh..That was the other part....

 

I never sent that not about taking it out. I suspect it was forged by the reviewer...

 

Bill

You just lost what little credibility you still had left.

personally, unless you can prove that accusation (which I'm sure you can't for the reasons stated by Briansnat above) I think you should be summarily banned from the site (not just the forums) for lying about one of the reviewers like that.

Mopar, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I agree. And, let me take it a bit further... In my humble opinion, the OP should be banned from the forums and from the site not only for the reasons cited by Mopar and others, but also for writing a cluster -- in this thread -- of some of the most bizarre, incomprehensible, hate-filled, hostile and non-credible (non-credible as in lies and attempts at character assassination) posts that I have ever seen on this forum. This set of posts by the OP, in fact, rather classically defines "trolling". I note with some sadness that the OP also claims to be an amateur radio operator. If this is true, it means that ham radio has gone far downhill from the days when I was an active ham.

[CoyoteRed]

I am puzzled... there is no cache near these coordinates on Terracaching.com, Navicache.com or GPSGames.org. Is there another listing site of which I'm unaware? Or is this truly geo-litter?

Without going into any of the other angst in this thread, just because the cache is not listed on any site doesn't mean it's geo-litter. If the listing is being passed around, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is getting found, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is in good shape, IMHO, it is not geo-litter.

[Mushtang]

I am puzzled... there is no cache near these coordinates on Terracaching.com, Navicache.com or GPSGames.org. Is there another listing site of which I'm unaware? Or is this truly geo-litter?

Without going into any of the other angst in this thread, just because the cache is not listed on any site doesn't mean it's geo-litter. If the listing is being passed around, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is getting found, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is in good shape, IMHO, it is not geo-litter.

Maybe he's given out the coordinates on a Usenet group to a few dozen people in his local area. There's no telling what that could snowball into.

 

(Okay, maybe not.)

[+briansnat]

I am puzzled... there is no cache near these coordinates on Terracaching.com, Navicache.com or GPSGames.org. Is there another listing site of which I'm unaware? Or is this truly geo-litter?

Without going into any of the other angst in this thread, just because the cache is not listed on any site doesn't mean it's geo-litter. If the listing is being passed around, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is getting found, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is in good shape, IMHO, it is not geo-litter.

 

The last finder said it hadn't been found in 3 years. I guess it's possible these other finders might not be signing the logbook.

 

Sitting there for 3 years unlisted on any site. That's geolitter to me.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I am puzzled... there is no cache near these coordinates on Terracaching.com, Navicache.com or GPSGames.org. Is there another listing site of which I'm unaware? Or is this truly geo-litter?

Without going into any of the other angst in this thread, just because the cache is not listed on any site doesn't mean it's geo-litter. If the listing is being passed around, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is getting found, regardless of the frequency, and the cache is in good shape, IMHO, it is not geo-litter.

 

The last finder said it hadn't been found in 3 years. I guess it's possible these other finders might not be signing the logbook.

 

Sitting there for 3 years unlisted on any site. That's geolitter to me.

Was also my first thought when reading the OP.

[+palmetto]

While it may be time to lock this thread, as it has deteriorated into bashing the OP*, I'd like to suggest that a useful bit of information is here, in the original misunderstanding by the OP about the disable by the reviewer.

 

Had the OP understood that he could simply re-enable his cache if he was satisfied as to its condition, this whole melodrama would never have played out.

 

I think I'll go alter my reviewer templates. I've always mentioned when I archive a cache that it can be unarchived by contacting me., provided it still meets the listing guidelines. I think I'll add to disable that the cache can be re-enabled by the owner if they're satisfied that the cache is viable.

 

 

*not that he hasn't more than invited it with that "forged" remark....

[+briansnat]

While it may be time to lock this thread, as it has deteriorated into bashing the OP*, I'd like to suggest that a useful bit of information is here, in the original misunderstanding by the OP about the disable by the reviewer.

 

Well when the entire point of this thread was to rub something in the face of a highly respected reviewer, then he goes on to make a wild, unsubstantiated accusation about him, that is understandable.

 

Had the OP understood that he could simply re-enable his cache if he was satisfied as to its condition, this whole melodrama would never have played out.

 

That fact was mentioned in the reviewer's disable note. "After checking the cache you can click on the click to enable button on the top of the page."

Edited February 10, 2008 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

Sitting there for 3 years unlisted on any site. That's geolitter to me.

The listing on a site isn't what matters. If it did then there could be no private caches. Also, a new cache is not geo-litter until it is listed somewhere.

 

Additionally, not being found in a long time also doesn't play into the equation. Come May 23rd of this year one of my personal favorites will be 4 years since its last find.

 

I think it's more the intent of refusing or being unable to maintain a cache, the abandonment and lack of intent for it to be found, that makes geo-litter. There's what I would consider geo-litter that is listed on this site. Refusal to fulfill owner's responsibilities and allowing their cache to degrade into something not viable as a cache is what creates the litter. It's the reason reviewers sometimes have to step in and archive a cache. (Not saying this is or is not the case with the cache in question in this thread.)

 

To put it another way, a private cache--a cache that is intended to be found, but is not listed on any mainstream site--is not geo-litter. (Again, not addressing the cache in question in this thread, only the assertion an unlisted cache is geo-litter.)

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "coordinator" is. Or when reviewers become "coordinators".

[+palmetto]

Had the OP understood that he could simply re-enable his cache if he was satisfied as to its condition, this whole melodrama would never have played out.

 

That fact was mentioned in the reviewer's disable note. "After checking the cache you can click on the click to enable button on the top of the page."

 

Great, well functional literacy isn't something you can mandate or predict. I still think I'll edit my disable templates, in hopes that most cachers can read and understand them.

 

[+CacheDrone]

Unclear at the best of times even if you remove all of the accusations contained within.

 

> Listing (not the cache) was disabled by a reviewer with instructions given on how to enable it.

> Owner stated that they removed the physical cache.

> Listing (not the cache) was subsequently archived based on the owner's statement of physical removal.

 

Even if the cache is still in place by the owner saying they removed it means it is no longer a valid listing (not the cache, just the listing) on this site. Archiving the listing was the only choice left.

 

Spinning forward in time, the cache may still have been there but it is not valid for this site now because a new and existing cache is blocking the location.

 

So not sure what point was actually proven by "Told you so". However an excellent job of showing how the reviewer for that area properly managed the situation was shown. Thanks for pointing it out!

[+Michael]

If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you should be from the reviewers or forum moderators simply e-mail; reviewers@geocaching.com with your concerns.

This e-mail address is only for reporting concerns regarding Cache reviewers and Forum Moderators.

Happy Geocaching

 

making unproven accusations against any cacher is a serious issue. This is not the place for those kind of attacks.

 

OP send your complaint to Groundspeak at the address stated above. Posting to attack any member of this site is not allowed.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Michael