Published retracted caches

May 28, 2008

I was going through my GSAK database and noticed once specific cache that had not been updated in the last week (GC1A9V4) so I tried to look it up on GC.com and got a 'Sorry, you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published'. error message.

Now I suspect that this publish on this cache was retracted so it appears as if it never existed. I understand that there may be valid reasons why this was done, but according to the data I have in GSAK the cache was active for about two months and found at least eight times. I would have though the appropriate thing to do would be to archive the cache. I did not find the cache so I am not worried about loosing a smiley and don't plan on going to look for it but I would like to know why the cache listing was removed (so I can learn from the mistakes of others).

10.1k · May 28, 2008

I have found one cache that was later retracted. I did not lose my smiley! If I click on the cache in my 'found caches', I get the same thing you did.

As to why it was retracted rather than archived, I'm not sure. It was in a spot that could cause damage to an historic, protected building. Perhaps the CO mislead the reviewer? I have seen similar hides in other locations that are still active. I'm not sure what the basis is for retraction.

11.3k · May 28, 2008

There was a cache here located in a small neighborhood park. It had several finders before an angry neighbor created an issue. The cache was Archived more than two years ago, but when it came up in the Forums a couple of months ago, it suddenly went from Archived to Retracted so no one except the finders could see the logs that had been posted . . .

1.2k · May 29, 2008

The problem with Archiving a cache is that the details are still visible as long as you know its ID. If someone posts a link to the forum for example, many people can see it and can therefore visit the location.

When I was a reviewer I had several occasions when a landowner became aware of a cache placed without permission and demanded that ALL details be removed from sight as well as the physical cache be removed so as to prevent any future visits. The most effective way of doing this is to unpublish the cache.

Don't forget that archived caches can still be found and logged (I've done it myself in the past).

May 29, 2008

I was going through my GSAK database and noticed once specific cache that had not been updated in the last week (GC1A9V4) so I tried to look it up on GC.com and got a 'Sorry, you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published'. error message.

Now I suspect that this publish on this cache was retracted so it appears as if it never existed. I understand that there may be valid reasons why this was done, but according to the data I have in GSAK the cache was active for about two months and found at least eight times. I would have though the appropriate thing to do would be to archive the cache. I did not find the cache so I am not worried about loosing a smiley and don't plan on going to look for it but I would like to know why the cache listing was removed (so I can learn from the mistakes of others).

One of my now archived caches should have been retracted. In all my time searching archived listings I have only found one.

7.3k · May 29, 2008

I don't know why it was retracted rather than archived. As The Hornet has said, retraction makes the cache and its history largely invisible, which may sometimes be desirable.

Find count is not lost on a retracted cache, nor travel bug mileage.

I have two finds on retracted caches, I can see my "Found It!" log (and my DNF log), but not the cache.

May 29, 2008

I have no problem if the coords/description/hints were truncated or hidden so that someone could not find the cache and the system should prevented any new logs from being posted. But I think it should still show something when you open up the page. Even it its only the reviewers note saying why it was retracted. This specific cache is in a park where other caches have been placed and I would like to know why it was removed, so that I don't make the same mistake some day.

1.1k · May 29, 2008

I have no problem if the coords/description/hints were truncated or hidden so that someone could not find the cache and the system should prevented any new logs from being posted. But I think it should still show something when you open up the page. Even it its only the reviewers note saying why it was retracted. This specific cache is in a park where other caches have been placed and I would like to know why it was removed, so that I don't make the same mistake some day.

I retracted this cache. I am sorry but there are times when you will not know the reason a cache was retracted. As much as we would all like to know everything about all caches there are times when that is not possible. This is one of those times. You will have to live with this mystery. :anibad: As long as you stay within the guidelines you wont make any mistakes to worry about. If Groundspeak had wanted people to be able to look at why it was removed it would have been archived not retracted. Consider this one of those unknowns that haunt us all.

2.1k · May 29, 2008

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Albert Einstein

May 30, 2008

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Albert Einstein

Just had to say - completely off topic -- that is a very awesome quote. :unsure:

Annie

3.3k · May 30, 2008

I think Michael is just being selfish by not letting us know all of the undoubtedly juicy details. :unsure:

8k · May 30, 2008

Fine with me if Groundspeak doesn't want to tell. I'll just keep believing that caches are retracted to cover up reviewer errors.

2.3k · May 30, 2008

I have two finds on retracted caches, I can see my "Found It!" log (and my DNF log), but not the cache.

I was wondering: what shows up in your 'My Finds' PQ in this situation?

2.5k · May 30, 2008

Wheewho. I didn't really want to know --until I saw Michael's post. And now I am oh so curious. You can choose to believe of me whichever quote you think suits me better...

“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing” ~ Oscar Wilde

“There are various sorts of curiosity; one is from interest, which makes us desire to know that which may be useful to us; and the other, from pride which comes from the wish to know what others are ignorant of.” ~ Kin Hubbard

7.3k · May 30, 2008

I was wondering: what shows up in your 'My Finds' PQ in this situation?

I just checked they both show up with description, as an archived cache. I'm surprised, actually.

2.2k · May 30, 2008

I think Michael is just being selfish by not letting us know all of the undoubtedly juicy details.

Possible scenarios to keep you busy:

1. In an effort to get everyone to use the wheelchair attribute on 1-star terrain caches, we're selectively retracting caches without them. This is one of the first ones.

Terrain: =

2. Michael might be exercising his

God complex over a not-so-helpful hint.

So go check your cache pages.

:unsure:

Edited May 30, 2008 by Quiggle

3.3k · May 30, 2008

I think Michael is just being selfish by not letting us know all of the undoubtedly juicy details.

Possible scenarios to keep you busy:

1. In an effort to get everyone to use the wheelchair attribute on 1-star terrain caches, we're selectively retracting caches without them. This is one of the first ones.

Terrain: =

2. Michael might be exercising his
God complex over a not-so-helpful hint.
So go check your cache pages.

1. Didn't realize attributes were now a required field. They are a good and useful tool so maybe they should be. The problem is they are so open to interpretation, just like the D/T ratings.

2. Even people with a God complex can be selfish. :blink:

Had to go check caches as instructed. No 1-star terrain. Whew! Safe for now but better get out and hide some.

1.4k · May 30, 2008

I have no problem if the coords/description/hints were truncated or hidden so that someone could not find the cache and the system should prevented any new logs from being posted. But I think it should still show something when you open up the page. Even it its only the reviewers note saying why it was retracted. This specific cache is in a park where other caches have been placed and I would like to know why it was removed, so that I don't make the same mistake some day.

I retracted this cache. I am sorry but there are times when you will not know the reason a cache was retracted. As much as we would all like to know everything about all caches there are times when that is not possible. This is one of those times. You will have to live with this mystery. As long as you stay within the guidelines you wont make any mistakes to worry about. If Groundspeak had wanted people to be able to look at why it was removed it would have been archived not retracted. Consider this one of those unknowns that haunt us all.

Unquestionably a cover up effort for a heinous and embarrassing action or inaction by the reviewer. Knowing what it is would probably forever shake our faith in reviewer competence. I don't want to be like that, so I am glad I don't know.

2.2k · May 30, 2008

1. Didn't realize attributes were now a required field. They are a good and useful tool so maybe they should be. The problem is they are so open to interpretation, just like the D/T ratings.
2. Even people with a God complex can be selfish.

Had to go check caches as instructed. No 1-star terrain. Whew! Safe for now but better get out and hide some.

I was kidding, which is why I carefully said "possible scenarios" rather than "This is what he's doing". :blink:

TeamGeoBlast: Not quite.

3.3k · May 30, 2008

1. Didn't realize attributes were now a required field. They are a good and useful tool so maybe they should be. The problem is they are so open to interpretation, just like the D/T ratings.
2. Even people with a God complex can be selfish.

Had to go check caches as instructed. No 1-star terrain. Whew! Safe for now but better get out and hide some.

I was kidding, which is why I carefully said "possible scenarios" rather than "This is what he's doing".

TeamGeoBlast: Not quite.

I was kidding too and have been all along. But I DID go and check my caches for terrain rating just to be sure.

May 30, 2008

I would have thought the thread should be titled "Retracted Published Caches" and not "Published Retracted Caches". Sorry, this is probably the most ineffectual comment but is all I have to offer...

May 30, 2008

I retracted this cache. I am sorry but there are times when you will not know the reason a cache was retracted. As much as we would all like to know everything about all caches there are times when that is not possible. This is one of those times. You will have to live with this mystery. As long as you stay within the guidelines you wont make any mistakes to worry about. If Groundspeak had wanted people to be able to look at why it was removed it would have been archived not retracted. Consider this one of those unknowns that haunt us all.

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

3.3k · May 30, 2008

I retracted this cache. I am sorry but there are times when you will not know the reason a cache was retracted. As much as we would all like to know everything about all caches there are times when that is not possible. This is one of those times. You will have to live with this mystery. As long as you stay within the guidelines you wont make any mistakes to worry about. If Groundspeak had wanted people to be able to look at why it was removed it would have been archived not retracted. Consider this one of those unknowns that haunt us all.

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

Is the cache owner Tom Marvolo Riddle by any chance?

May 30, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

I don't have the cache details, but have you tried emailing the owner?

I'm sure he'd tell.

3.3k · May 31, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

I don't have the cache details, but have you tried emailing the owner?

I'm sure he'd tell.

Reveal Your Secrets!

May 31, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

I don't have the cache details, but have you tried emailing the owner?

I'm sure he'd tell.

Already done, hopefully the powers that are suppressing knowledge about this cache have not gotten to him/her first.

And not the cache owner was not Tom Marvolo Riddle, I would say more but I don't want those same powers to come after me :angry:

3.3k · May 31, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

I don't have the cache details, but have you tried emailing the owner?

I'm sure he'd tell.

Already done, hopefully the powers that are suppressing knowledge about this cache have not gotten to him/her first.

And not the cache owner was not Tom Marvolo Riddle, I would say more but I don't want those same powers to come after me

Vinnie?

May 31, 2008

The thing I find interesting about this is that it is very clearly stated and enforced (even down to not allowing people to delete duplicate posts) that the site attempts to maintain an accurate history, both in the main game and the forums.

Hiding things like this goes completely against the way that the admistration of the site has stated that things will be done.

Just because you make the rules (guidelines, whatever you want to call them) doesn't mean you should be able to break them whenever you feel the need. And then to rub it in our faces, Michael, is even worse.

Just another reason why we need consistently enforced rules instead of "change whenever we want" guidelines.

1.1k · May 31, 2008

Now thats funny. Lighten up, not everything is a conspiracy. Honest.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Michael

2.2k · May 31, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

So the mystery is solved and we can all move on now? :wub: It's up to the cache owner if they want to explain it, otherwise the world may never know :rolleyes: But it's really not as big of a conspiracy as you guys are making it out to be.

2.5k · May 31, 2008

Unfortunately this only increases my curiosity. Since I still have the coordinates to it, I looked at the location in Google, reviewed the find logs and description and can think of nothing that would be so EVIL that the name of this cache could never be mentioned again.

So the mystery is solved and we can all move on now? It's up to the cache owner if they want to explain it, otherwise the world may never know But it's really not as big of a conspiracy as you guys are making it out to be.

When I was a kid, I slept on the bedroom floor with my head near the door so I could hear my grandmother and my mother talk at night. My mother said I was afraid someone would know something I didn't. My grandmother said I was nosy.

7.3k · May 31, 2008

The thing I find interesting about this is that it is very clearly stated and enforced (even down to not allowing people to delete duplicate posts) that the site attempts to maintain an accurate history, both in the main game and the forums.

Hiding things like this goes completely against the way that the administration of the site has stated that things will be done.

Just because you make the rules (guidelines, whatever you want to call them) doesn't mean you should be able to break them whenever you feel the need. And then to rub it in our faces, Michael, is even worse.

Just another reason why we need consistently enforced rules instead of "change whenever we want" guidelines.

Hm. I have the exact opposite reaction as you. Since they try to have accurate history whenever possible, when they ask us to trust on this one cache, I'm inclined to do so. It's not affecting my life in any way, and I trust that they have it handled.

The fact that Michael came in here and explained things nicely and respectfully told everyone as much as the site is prepared to tell, means something to me. It's sad that you feel that's "rubbing it in our faces". Perhaps a more upbeat look at life is warranted here. :rolleyes:

1.2k · May 31, 2008

Not everything that happens at the "big lily pond" is a conspiracy (in fact probably very little is :rolleyes: ). Having been involved in such matters in the past I would suggest that there is a very good reason for the retraction and would leave it at that.

I have other things to be concerned about, such as where to place my next cache, which area to visit on a cache hunt next, whether to open a bottle of red or white wine to go with dinner etc. I suggest folks stop worrying and get on with real life. :wub:

3.3k · June 1, 2008

Ok, I am just surfing a bit before heading off to bed and I must say that this has been a very entertaining thread. Blind obedience is a BAD thing and we shouldn't go there! But, we should also be ready and willing to trust our leaders as long as they don't abuse that trust. I had fun with my ealrier posts and hope others did as well. I don't sense any conspiracy here so I suggest we all move along. More topics to discuss. How about that new micro LPC?

June 1, 2008

Can anyone supply a list of possible reasons where retraction might be warranted?

Several seem to think it is warranted sometimes, but no-one has provided examples.

'people might search for the archived cache' seems silly - that doesn't really happen too often.

1.6k · June 1, 2008

Can anyone supply a list of possible reasons where retraction might be warranted?

Several seem to think it is warranted sometimes, but no-one has provided examples.

'people might search for the archived cache' seems silly - that doesn't really happen too often.

Here's one. early morning [2.30am] one extremely knackered Reviewer [Me] hits the Publish button by mistake, cache has issues so is immediately retracted. A apology given to the cache owner along with a explanation of what happened. Later on that morning a local cacher to the new cache contacts me by email to query about this new cache for which he received a Instant Notification, but on clicking on the link gets a Unpublished cache. Email in reply admitting the facts sent in reply.

There you go one Published and then Retracted cache, explanation freely given to those who wished to query it, no conspiracy.

Another reason, a Land Owner contacts Groundspeak to complain about a cache on his/her land without permission. And requests removal not only of the container but all details removed off the site. Groundspeak acting responsibly to the Landowners request will of course remove all details from view. The only way possible is to Retract the cache, the details of why the cache is retracted remain private between Groundspeak and the cache owner, due to the confidentiality Groundspeak give to communications with them, especially as the communication might contain confidential information about the location [for example here in the UK, it could be near to a Badger Sett. Which has protection under law, and something that the announcement of the location is avoided to stop the mindless idiots who go Badger baiting from visiting the sett].

These are just 2 of many possible reasons for a cache to be Retracted, every case will be justified, and is not done for the sake of it. In most cases the reason will not be revealed, as Retracting a cache with finds on it, is a extreme measure and not something taken for the sake of it.

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer/Moderator

June 1, 2008

Another reason, a Land Owner contacts Groundspeak to complain about a cache on his/her land without permission. And requests removal not only of the container but all details removed off the site. Groundspeak acting responsibly to the Landowners request will of course remove all details from view. The only way possible is to Retract the cache, the details of why the cache is retracted remain private between Groundspeak and the cache owner, due to the confidentiality Groundspeak give to communications with them, especially as the communication might contain confidential information about the location [for example here in the UK, it could be near to a Badger Sett. Which has protection under law, and something that the announcement of the location is avoided to stop the mindless idiots who go Badger baiting from visiting the sett].

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer/Moderator

In all cases of Land Owner disputes I would prefer to see it declared as such.

A simple statement would suffice but it would alert prospective placers to problematic locations.

I would also hope that such locations are flagged to reviewers, to eliminate them from future publishing issues.

2.2k · June 1, 2008

'people might search for the archived cache' seems silly - that doesn't really happen too often.

You're kidding, right? For some people searching for archived caches is the MAIN part of the game.

here's another possible reason for a retraction: A cacher outright lies in their initial submission, then after publication edits the cache page to reveal the true nature of the cache.

June 2, 2008

The thing I find interesting about this is that it is very clearly stated and enforced (even down to not allowing people to delete duplicate posts) that the site attempts to maintain an accurate history, both in the main game and the forums.

Hiding things like this goes completely against the way that the administration of the site has stated that things will be done.

Just because you make the rules (guidelines, whatever you want to call them) doesn't mean you should be able to break them whenever you feel the need. And then to rub it in our faces, Michael, is even worse.

Just another reason why we need consistently enforced rules instead of "change whenever we want" guidelines.

Hm. I have the exact opposite reaction as you. Since they try to have accurate history whenever possible, when they ask us to trust on this one cache, I'm inclined to do so. It's not affecting my life in any way, and I trust that they have it handled.

The fact that Michael came in here and explained things nicely and respectfully told everyone as much as the site is prepared to tell, means something to me. It's sad that you feel that's "rubbing it in our faces". Perhaps a more upbeat look at life is warranted here.

I prefer a more open and honest look at life, regardless of upbeat or downbeat status. Facts are facts. And facts are being hidden here.

Some of the reasons listed above by 1-2 honest people make sense - why is it so difficult to be open and honest for the rest? "Accidental Publication", "Landowner issue", etc... Instead of "We had a good reason, lets leave it at that". I prefer not to leave things unexplained, and I think a lot of other people do too.

Edited June 2, 2008 by FireRef

June 2, 2008

In this case I don't think there was anything wrong with the cache. It was in the middle of a public park where other caches exists, it was near an existing trail, it was not too close to any existing caches, at least 8 finders visited the cache and did not report anything unusual or alarming about the cache. My only theory after re-reading the description is that maybe the owner was using the cache to try to contact someone who did not want to be contacted.

For the more general question of archived/retracted caches I am very in favor of more openness. One of my great wishes from GC.com is that someday I will be able to run a PQ that will show me caches archived in the last week, not because I want to find them but because I don't want to find them. If I have spent the better part of the week downloading data for a trip I would like to know if anything significant has changed in the area I am going and if a cache has been archived I don't want to spend any time looking for it. Since the current 'updated in last 7 days' condition on a PQ includes caches where any note has been posted, it includes too many caches to be useful.

June 3, 2008

Can anyone supply a list of possible reasons where retraction might be warranted?

Several seem to think it is warranted sometimes, but no-one has provided examples.

'people might search for the archived cache' seems silly - that doesn't really happen too often.

Another reason, a Land Owner contacts Groundspeak to complain about a cache on his/her land without permission. And requests removal not only of the container but all details removed off the site. Groundspeak acting responsibly to the Landowners request will of course remove all details from view.

Riiiiiiiiiiggghhhhhht.........that seems a little over-the-top for a permission issue.

Not that I have a problem not knowing. What's that nagging feeling? :rolleyes:

9.2k · June 3, 2008

This seems to be nothing but a contrived rationalization for wanting to know something that should strictly be between the cache owner and the reviewer. As the late, great Ann Landers used to say, "MYOB".

38.2k · June 4, 2008

I prefer not to leave things unexplained, and I think a lot of other people do too.

Sometimes it's simply nobody else's darn business.

Edited June 4, 2008 by briansnat

6.1k · June 4, 2008

Actually, I figured out the reason. <_<

4.1k · June 4, 2008

I prefer a more open and honest look at life, regardless of upbeat or downbeat status. Facts are facts. And facts are being hidden here.

Some of the reasons listed above by 1-2 honest people make sense - why is it so difficult to be open and honest for the rest? "Accidental Publication", "Landowner issue", etc... Instead of "We had a good reason, lets leave it at that". I prefer not to leave things unexplained, and I think a lot of other people do too.

FireRef, Thanks for letting me know your personal preference and sense of entitlement. Noted.

No one is being dishonest, so quit suggesting that. It's disrespectful.

Groundspeak realizes full well the value in the community being aware of what's going on. Volunteers and staff communicate appropriately. You are not personally entitled to know absolutely everything in each of these cases. The reasons for that are numerous. If it involves you (I mean any of you and not just FireRef) directly, you will be contacted privately and/or publicly, as the case may dictate.

June 4, 2008

In this case I don't think there was anything wrong with the cache.

I don't know how long this particular cache was active before it was 'retracted', but another possibility is that something offensive was posted in a log entry and the cache owner refused to delete it. If the person who was offended doesn't get satisfaction from the owner, then he could pursue it with Groundspeak. If Groundspeak wasn't able to mediate a resolution to the dispute, then retraction of the cache could be the result.

Lots of what ifs... <_<

Published retracted caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment